Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.

Click to order DVD
Order Your Pro-Polygamy Passport ™

Schiavo Case Proves Marriage Amendment Leaders are Anti-Marriage

     By: Mark Henkel
Date: Apr 05, 2005
Word Count: 10000 words
Cross-Reference: Terri Schiavo, Marriage Amendment, Conservatives

AUTHOR: Mark Henkel 
Mark Henkel is the established national polygamy advocate and 
founder of the (non-Mormon) Christian Polygamy organization, 
Schiavo Case Proves Marriage Amendment Leaders are Anti-Marriage 
. . . . . . . . . by 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Henkel 
Copyright (C) 2005 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 

Leaders who did not check the public record - to see what the courts learned - hastily embraced unchecked mis-characterizations and big government, radical feminist, anti-marriage liberalism.

Pro-life,   conservative,   Christian   polygamists   have   long   been   forewarning   that   leaders   pushing   the   federal   marriage   amendment   are   actually   big   government   “New   Liberals”   who   are   not   genuinely   dedicated   to   truly   “protecting   marriage.”   In   the   tragic   Terri   Schiavo   case,   many   of   those   same   leaders   -   who   never   sought   out   the   actual   facts   of   that   case   -   have   now   fully   proven   those   forewarnings.   This   report   will   demonstrate   how   those   events   unfolded,   as   those   leaders   hijacked   the   pro-life   message   (where   the   facts   showed   it   did   not   apply)   to   liberally   turn   against   marriage.    
This   comprehensive   investigative   report   is   a   “must   read”   for   both   conservatives   and   liberals.    
It   is   written   from   an   independent   perspective   of   an   established   Christian   Polygamy   advocate   who   is   a   truly   constitutionalist   conservative   and   an   adamantly   pro-life,   Bible-believing   Christian.   There   is   no   personal   connection   whatsoever   between   the   author   of   this   report   and   any   of   the   parties   involved   in   the   Schiavo   case.   In   the   same   way   that   Christian   Polygamists   deliberately   think   for   themselves   and   diligently   study   the   actual   facts   of   the   Bible   more   deeply   and   boldly   than   most   others,   that   same   method   of   critical   thinking   and   investigation   equally   demands   and   seeks   out   only   the   real   facts   in   the   Schiavo   case.   Accordingly,   that   method   has   been   applied   in   this   report.   And   bibliographic   web-addresses   are   provided   at   the   end   of   this   report.    
Without   seeing   the   actual   facts,   it   is   understandable   why   many   conservatives   might   perceive   that   the   otherwise   reasonable   pro-life   arguments   being   made   about   the   case   were   applicable.   But   since   the   facts   do   reveal   quite   a   different   story,   the   pro-life   argumentations   end   up   not   being   germane.   Therefore,   regarding   the   case,   the   unanswered   paradox   that   all   intellectually   honest   and   true   conservatives   have   to   contemplate   and   resolve   is   simple.    
Namely,   what   was   it   that   so   many   conservative   judges   saw   in   the   case   that   was   different   than   what   most   conservatives   in   general   had   otherwise   thought   had   been   happening?    
Upon   investigation,   it   turns   out   that   the   answer   is   quite   simple:   the   actual   facts.    
Like   all   true   conservatives   who   value   “just   the   facts”   when   forming   an   understanding   and   viewpoint   about   any   major   situation   that   is   as   profound   as   is   the   Terri   Schiavo   case,   pro-life   conservative   Christian   Polygamists   ask   that   same   question.   Having   already   proven   a   bold   and   lovingkind   commitment   to   stand   up   to   help   fellow   conservative   Christians   understand   how   all   the   facts   of   the   Bible   unquestionably   disprove   the   unbiblical   idea   of   anti-polygamy   doctrine,   conservative   Christian   Polygamists   do   likewise   for   their   fellow   Christians   regarding   the   mistakes   made   in   the   Terri   Schiavo   case.   Intellectual   honesty   requires   a   serious   look   into   the   actual   facts.    
For,   it   is   the   actual   facts   that   even   the   conservative   judges   saw   throughout   the   matter.    
As   such,   conservatives   “need”   to   read   this   report   in   order   to   get   those   actual   facts.   More   importantly,   by   allowing   them   to   see   the   actual   facts,   they   may   then   repent   of   acting   so   extremely   liberal   and   anti-marriage   as   the   Schiavo   case   unfolded.   As   well,   conservative   media   will   also   “need”   to   read   this   report   in   order   to   both   get   the   facts   of   the   case   and   to   learn   how   not   to   make   the   same   liberal   mistakes   as   such   sites,   and,   had   made   during   the   Schiavo   news   cycles.    
While   liberals   may   not   personally   enjoy   the   truly   pro-conservative   perspective   and   direction   of   this   report,   nevertheless,   all   liberals   equally   “need”   to   read   it   anyway.   It   provides   liberals   with   a   true   conservative   resource   by   which   they   may   show   yet   other   conservatives   the   actual   facts   of   the   case   and   by   which   they   may   see   what   true   conservatives   have   to   say   about   it.    
Following   this   “Foreword,”   this   report   is   divided   into   two   major   parts.    
Part   1   provides   the   facts   and   timeline   of   the   Schiavo   case.   It   provides   numerous   unreported   facts   of   the   case   as   found   in   the   public   record,   including   from   important   and   relevant   government   documents.   Indeed,   anyone   making   assertions   about   any   aspect   of   the   case   without   having   seen   the   important   information   that   was   actually   presented   to   the   courts   in   public   records   has   no   rational   basis   for   any   hostile   viewpoints   against   the   courts.   For   example,   anyone   who   can   not   spell   out   the   significance   of   the   date,   “February   14,   1993,”   does   not   know   much   about   anything   of   the   case   at   all.   Part   1   provides   all   those   necessary   historic   details   to   enable   readers   to   accurately   understand   the   actual   Schiavo   story   according   to   the   public   record.    
Part   2   provides   the   comprehensive   details   of   -   and   many   events   within   -   the   process   by   which   so   many   conservative   Christians   ended   up   erroneously   thinking   that   the   case   involved   things   about   which   it   actually   did   not   ever   involve.   Part   2   is   divided   into   sub-sections.   It   begins   by   detailing   how   the   Schindlers   (i.e.,   the   in-laws)   merely   initiated   many   unverified   and   never-substantiated   mis-characterizations.   Supposed-to-be   conservative   media   betrayed   true   conservatives   by   simply   repeating   every   unproven   mis-characterization   and   never   checking   the   actual   facts   or   public   record.   Being   so   mis-informed,   Christian   leaders   ran   with   the   unchecked   information.   Accordingly,   sincere   pro-life   protesters   confused   the   issues.   And   when   court   after   court   (each   one   having   actually   seen   the   actual,   real   facts)   would   not   give   the   in-laws’   supporters   the   result   they   liberally   wanted,   they   attacked   even   conservatives   on   the   courts   as   “liberal   activist   judges.”   This   all   leads   to   the   conclusion   showing   how   conservative   Christians   and   media   who   erred   in   this   case   might   have   a   way   to   return   back   to   true   conservatism   and   how   the   Terri   Schiavo   case   reveals   that   any   unrepentant   marriage   amendment   leaders   have   unquestionably   proven   themselves   to   truly   be   anti-marriage   liberals.    
Lastly,   in   this   “Foreword”…   in   so   many,   many   ways,   the   Terri   Schiavo   story   is   a   horribly   sad   story   for   all   concerned.   And   the   hearts   of   all   true   compassionate   Christians   go   out   to   the   in-laws   and   to   the   husband.    
PART   1    
The   case   revolves   around   a   young   married   woman   named   Theresa   Marie   Schiavo,   known   as   Terri.   On   February   25,   1990,   at   26   years   of   age,   she   collapsed   onto   the   floor.   She   suffered   a   cardiac   arrest.   Consequently,   her   brain   was   deprived   of   oxygen   long   enough   to   cause   her   to   fall   into   what   has   been   medically   termed   as   a   “persistent   vegetative   state.”   Although   able   to   wake   and   sleep,   the   condition   is   one   of   being   without   awareness,   thinking,   and   controlled   motion-ability.   That   means   that   Terri   Schiavo   was   rendered   unable   to   even   eat   or   drink   on   her   own.    
On   June   18,   1990,   Michael   Schiavo,   being   her   husband,   was   court-appointed   to   be   Terri’s   legal   guardian.   “Michael's   appointment   was   undisputed   by   the   parties,”   wrote   Terri’s   Florida-appointed   Guardian   Ad   Litem   in   a   December   1,   2003   “Report   to   Governor   Jeb   Bush.”    
The   records   show   that   he   visited   his   wife   daily   after   the   tragic   event.   And   the   relationship   he   had   with   his   in-laws   was   such   that   he   even   called   them   “Mom”   and   “Dad.”   They   all   had   worked   together   in   trying   to   raise   money   for   Terri’s   care.   And   it   is   on   public   record   that   Terri’s   parents,   the   Schindlers,   even   comfortingly   encouraged   their   distraught   son-in-law   to   “start   dating”   again.    
In   the   independent   December   1,   2003,   “Report   to   Governor   Jeb   Bush,”   the   Guardian   Ad   Litem   for   Theresa   Marie   Schiavo,   Dr.   Jay   Wolfson   –   who   currently   is   the   professor   of   Public   Health   and   Medicine   at   the   University   of   South   Florida   and   professor   of   Health   Law   at   Stetson   University   College   of   Law   -   wrote   the   following   assessment.   “It   had   taken   Michael   more   than   three   years   to   accommodate   this   reality   (that   Terri   would   not   recover)   and   he   was   beginning   to   accept   the   idea   of   allowing   Theresa   to   die   naturally   rather   than   remain   in   the   non-cognitive,   vegetative   state.   It   took   Michael   a   long   time   to   consider   the   prospect   of   getting   on   with   his   life   -   something   he   was   actively   encouraged   to   do   by   the   Schindlers,   long   before   enmity   tore   them   apart.   He   was   even   encouraged   by   the   Schindlers   to   date,   and   introduced   his   in-law   family   to   women   he   was   dating.   But   this   was   just   prior   to   the   malpractice   case   ending.”    
Indeed,   when   that   lawsuit   ended,   everything   changed.    
Michael   Schiavo   had   justifiably   filed   a   medical-malpractice   lawsuit   against   his   wife’s   physicians   who   had   been   treating   her   prior   to   the   cardiac   arrest.   Successfully   arguing   that   they   should   have   treated   her   potassium   imbalance   before   it   resulted   in   that   cardiac   arrest,   he   was   awarded   a   net   amount   of   about   $1   million   dollars   in   November   1992.   The   net-allocation   of   the   award   was   $300,000   for   his   own   personal   “loss   of   consortium”   and   $750,000   for   his   wife’s   care.    
The   lawsuit   award   was   distributed   to   Michael   Schiavo   in   February,   1993.     On   "Valentine’s   Day,"   1993,   the   in-laws   showed   up   for   a   visit   with   Terri   as   they   normally   did.   Michael   was   there   when   they   arrived.   The   in-laws   soon   began   asking   about   their   getting   a   portion   of   the   $300,000   “loss   of   consortium”   award   from   Michael.   They   alleged   he   had   promised   to   give   some   of   that   award   to   them.   He   was   outraged   and   digusted.    
Years   later,   after   a   hearing   on   the   case,   Pinellas   County   Circuit   Judge   George   Greer,   in   February   2000,   officially   described   that   specific   event   and   entire   case,   by   writing   the   following.   He   wrote,   “On   Feb.   14,   1993,   this   amicable   relationship   between   the   parties   was   severed.   While   the   testimony   differs   on   what   may   or   may   not   have   been   promised   to   whom   and   by   whom,   it   is   clear   to   this   court   that   such   severance   was   predicated   upon   money   and   the   fact   that   Mr.   Schiavo   was   unwilling   to   equally   divide   his   loss   of   consortium   award   with   Mr.   and   Mrs.   Schindler."    
A   few   months   later,   on   July   29,   1993,   the   in-laws   -   unable   to   get   what   they   wanted   from   Michael   Schiavo   -   retaliated   by   filing   a   court   petition   against   him.   They   requested   that   Michael   Schiavo   be   legally   removed   from   continuing   as   Terri   Schiavo’s   guardian.    
Reporting   about   that   petition   later   in   the   2003   “Report   to   Governor   Jeb   Bush,”   the   2003   Guardian   Ad   Litem,   Dr.   Jay   Wolfson,   wrote,   the   “court   (which   was   considering   the   challenge   to   Michael’s   guardianship)   appointed   John   H.   Pecarek   as   Guardian   Ad   Litem   to   determine   if   there   had   been   any   abuse   by   Michael   Schiavo.   His   report,   issued   1   March   1994,   found   no   inappropriate   actions   and   indicated   that   Michael   had   been   very   attentive   to   Theresa.   After   two   more   years   of   legal   contention,   the   Schindlers   action   against   Michael   was   dismissed   with   prejudice”   in   1996.    
Indeed,   Michael   was   no   slouch   in   his   attentiveness   to   Terri’s   needs.   That   same   2003   report   also   noted   how   extremely   dedicated   he   had   been   to   Terri’s   care.   Wolfson   reported   that   the   1993-1994   proceedings   “concluded   that   there   was   no   basis   for   the   removal   of   Michael   as   Guardian.   Further,   it   was   determined   that   he   had   been   very   aggressive   and   attentive   in   his   care   of   Theresa.   His   demanding   concern   for   her   well   being   and   meticulous   care   by   the   nursing   home   earned   him   the   characterization   by   the   administrator   as   ‘a   nursing   home   administrator's   nightmare’.   It   is   notable   that   through   more   than   thirteen   years   after   Theresa's   collapse,   she   has   never   had   a   bedsore.”    
As   reported   on   numerous   television   news   programs   from   Fox   News   to   CNN   to   all   of   the   other   major   networks,   medical   CAT   scans   clearly   revealed   that   about   80%   of   Terri   Schiavo’s   brain   had   become   useless   substance,   without   any   ability   for   recovery.   In   the   public   records,   in   that   aforementioned   hearing   before   Judge   Greer   in   January   2000,   even   the   in-laws’   attorney,   Pamela   Campbell,   acknowledged   to   the   court,   "we   do   not   doubt   that   she's   in   a   persistent   vegetative   state."   Moreover,   the   December   1,   2003,   “Report   to   Governor   Jeb   Bush,”   by   Dr.   Jay   Wolfson,   further   confirmed   that   the   Schindlers   had   not   disputed   such   findings   either.    
Having   held   out   in   dedicated   hope   for   his   wife’s   recovery   for   so   many   years,   the   subsequent   coming   to   grips   with   that   heart-breaking   conclusion   was   no   easy   task   for   Michael   Schiavo.   Indeed,   in   the   aforementioned   2003   “Report   to   Governor   Jeb   Bush,”   Dr.   Wolfson   explained   Michael’s   behavior   through   that   process.    
QUOTE.   “By   1994,   Michael's   attitude   and   perspective   about   Theresa's   condition   changed.   During   the   previous   four   years,   he   had   insistently   held   to   the   premise   that   Theresa   could   recover   and   the   evidence   is   incontrovertible   that   he   gave   his   heart   and   soul   to   her   treatment   and   care.   This   was   in   the   face   of   consistent   medical   reports   indicating   that   there   was   little   or   no   likelihood   for   her   improvement.    
“In   early   1994   Theresa   contracted   a   urinary   tract   infection   and   Michael,   in   consultation   with   Theresa's   treating   physician,   elected   not   to   treat   the   infection   and   simultaneously   imposed   a   ‘do   not   resuscitate’   order   should   Theresa   experience   cardiac   arrest.   When   the   nursing   facility   initiated   an   intervention   to   challenge   this   decision,   Michael   cancelled   the   orders.   Following   the   incident   involving   the   infection,   Theresa   was   transferred   to   another   skilled   nursing   facility.    
“Michael's   decision   not   to   treat   was   based   upon   discussions   and   consultation   with   Theresa's   doctor,   and   was   predicated   on   his   reasoned   belief   that   there   was   no   longer   any   hope   for   Theresa's   recovery.   It   had   taken   Michael   more   than   three   years   to   accommodate   this   reality   and   he   was   beginning   to   accept   the   idea   of   allowing   Theresa   to   die   naturally   rather   than   remain   in   the   non-cognitive,   vegetative   state.   It   took   Michael   a   long   time   to   consider   the   prospect   of   getting   on   with   his   life   -   something   he   was   actively   encouraged   to   do   by   the   Schindlers,   long   before   enmity   tore   them   apart.”   UNQUOTE.    
Many   news   sources   in   2005   ambiguously   reported   that   about   another   year   later,   in   1995,   Michael   Schiavo   met   a   woman   named,   Jodi   Centonze,   at   a   dentist’s   office.   As   that   relationship   grew,   all   accounts   have   reported   that   Michael   always   made   it   clear   that   Terri   was   his   wife   and   he   was   distraught   about   her   tragedy.   Contrary   to   ambiguous   reports   about   the   woman,   however,   the   daughter   and   son   which   Jodi   Centonze   has   with   Michael   Schiavo   were   born   no   earlier   than   2002   and   afterward.   That   first   child’s   birth   therefore   occurred   12   years   after   Terri’s   1990   tragedy,   nine   years   since   the   Schindlers   had   last   originally   and   actively   encouraged   Michael   Schiavo   to   “start   dating”   again,   four   years   after   Michael   Schiavo   had   filed   the   very   first   petition   in   1998   for   Terri’s   feeding   tube   to   be   removed,   and   two   years   since   the   first   court   decision   in   2000,   authorizing   the   feeding   tube   removal.    
Indeed,   in   1998,   after   eight   long   years   of   Terri   being   under   this   “persistent   vegetative   state”   condition,   and   with   Michael   finally   having   to   face   the   reality   of   her   condition,   he   was   ready   to   cope   with   and   accept   that   he   could   no   longer   perpetuate   his   own   self-wanting   hope   for   his   wife.   He   perceived   that   it   was   time   for   him   to   do   what   his   wife   had   said   that   she   wanted   in   this   kind   of   situation   –   her   decision   to   refuse   any   additional   medical   treatment   for   extra   life   support   if   she   could   not   do   so   herself.    
So   in   May   of   that   year   1998,   Michael   Schiavo   filed   a   petition   to   allow   her   feeding   and   hydration   tube   to   be   removed.   That   filing   led   to   the   January   2000   hearing   before   Judge   Greer.    
“Within   the   (official)   testimony   (before   Judge   Greer),   as   part   of   the   hypotheticals   presented,   Schindler   family   members   stated   that   even   if   Theresa   had   told   them   of   her   intention   to   have   artificial   nutrition   withdrawn,   they   would   not   do   it.   Throughout   this   painful   and   difficult   trial,   the   family   acknowledged   that   Theresa   was   in   a   diagnosed   persistent   vegetative   state,”   wrote   Dr.   Jay   Wolfson   in   the   2003   “Report   to   Governor   Jeb   Bush.”    
On   Feburary   11,   2000,   Judge   Greer   determined   that   the   husband’s   testimony   and   knowledge   of   his   wife’s   wishes   in   the   matter   –   along   with   others’   testimony   –   were   credible.   As   the   Schindlers   had   testified   that   they   would   “keep   Terri   alive”   even   if   she   did   not   want   it,   they   themselves   thereby   diminished   their   own   credibility.   Hence,   Judge   Greer   concluded   that   Terri   would   not   have   wanted   to   be   kept   alive   any   longer   while   being   in   this   “persistent   vegetative   state.”    
The   feeding   tube   was   subsequently   removed   on   April   24,   2001.   But   it   was   ordered   by   Circuit   Judge,   Frank   Quesada,   to   be   re-inserted   two   days   later,   on   April   26th   -   after   the   Schindlers’   filed   a   civil   action   in   their   supposed   capacity   as   "natural   guardians"   for   Terri.   Michael   Schiavo   filed   his   opposition,   after   which   the   2nd   District   Court   of   Appeals   determined   in   October   2001   that   the   Schindlers   had   not   provided   any   credible   information   to   suggest   that   any   therapy   would   change   Terri’s   condition.    
Even   though   they   had   otherwise   always   agreed   over   the   previous   decade   that   Terri   was   in   a   “persistent   vegetative   state,”   the   Schindlers   were   then   taking   a   brand   new   legal   perspective   in   disputing   it.    
A   subsequent   investigation   was   ordered   to   be   undertaken   by   two   doctors   chosen   by   Michael   Schiavo,   two   more   doctors   chosen   by   the   Schindlers,   and   one   more   chosen   by   the   court.   The   reports   from   the   two   doctors   who   had   been   chosen   by   the   Schindlers   were   determined   by   the   court   to   be   quite   anecdotal   and   neither   scientific   nor   credible   -   in   contrast   to   the   reports   from   the   other   three   doctors.    
Consequently,   in   June   2003,   the   2nd   District   Court   of   Appeals   ordered   the   trial   court   to   set   a   hearing   date   to   again   remove   Terri’s   feeding   tube.    
The   in-laws   continued   filing   other   unsuccessful   motions   and   legal   pursuits   of   the   matter   over   and   over.    
Anyway,   the   trial   court,   at   its   subsequent   appeals   court-ordered   hearing,   then   set   October   15,   2003,   as   the   date   for   the   artificial   life   support   to   again   be   removed.    
Six   days   after   the   feeding   and   hydration   tube   had   been   disconnected   again,   the   Florida   Legislature   passed   “Terri’s   Law”   (Florida   HB   35   E)   on   October   21,   2003.   That   state   law   authorized   Governor   Jeb   Bush   to   require   the   tube   to   be   re-inserted   and   called   for   a   court-ordered   Guardian   Ad   Litem   for   Terri   Schiavo   to   research   and   issue   an   investigative   report   of   the   facts   of   the   case.   David   Demers,   Chief   Judge,   Florida   6th   Judicial   Circuit,   accordingly   appointed   Dr.   Jay   Wolfson   to   perform   that   job.   On   December   1,   2003,   Dr.   Wolfson   issued   his   “Report   to   Governor   Jeb   Bush,”   as   cited   herein.    
In   a   subsequent   interview   with   the   Washington   Post   on   March   23,   2005,   Dr.   Wolfson   explained,   “I   was   appointed   by   the   judiciary,   according   to   the   requirement   of   the   law   for   a   special   guardian   to   investigate   Terri's   swallowing   capacity.   This   opened   the   door   to   issues   relating   to   her   neurological   capacity.   I   was   required   to   review   and   report   on   the   previous   14   years   of   legal   and   medical   evidence   and   activities.   After   spending   hours   with   Terri,   getting   to   know   her   parents   and   siblings   and   her   husband,   and   reviewing   all   of   the   evidence,   my   conclusion   was   that   the   competent   medical   evidence   provided   in   the   case,   following   the   Florida   rules   of   civil   procedure   and   evidence,   and   according   to   the   Guardianship   law   in   Florida,   which   was   carefully   crafted   over   fifteen   years   of   bipartisan   political   and   religious   efforts   -   indicated   by   clear   and   convincing   evidence   that   she   was   in   a   persistent   vegetative   state,   according   to   the   most   credible   science   and   medicine.   I   also   concluded   that   based   on   the   same   Florida   laws   and   rules,   the   trier   of   fact   (Judge   Greer)   appropriately   determined   that   Terri   had   expressed,   while   she   was   competent,   the   intention   never   to   be   kept   artificially   alive   under   such   circumstances.   The   evidence   supporting   this   included   competent   legal   evidence   demonstrating   that   she   personally   expressed   those   intentions   at   the   funerals   of   two   family   members   who   had   been   on   life   support   -   so   it   was   contextual.   Due   to   the   conflict   between   the   parties,   I   suggested   that   additional   testing   could   and   should   be   done   but   ONLY   if   the   parties   agreed   in   advance   as   to   how   the   results   would   be   used.   We   almost   came   to   agreement   on   this   option,   but   for   legal   reasons,   one   of   the   parties   pulled   out   on   the   last   minute.”    
In   his   report,   Dr.   Wolfson   had   already   established   that   the   collected   evidence   had   effectively   concluded   that   Terri   was   indeed   in   a   “persistent   vegetative   state.”   Even   so,   in   a   spirit   of   compromise,   he   still   offered   the   suggestion   of   conducting   “swallowing   tests”   as   long   as   the   results   would   not   be   falsely   exploited,   but   only   used   as   mutually   agreed   among   the   parties.   Later   in   that   Washington   Post   interview,   Dr.   Wolfson   explained   why   that   agreement   was   not   able   to   occur.   “Mr.   Felos,   Michael's   attorney,   properly   disagreed,   because   he   was   in   the   midst   of   a   constitutional   challenge   to   the   law   that   appointed   me   -   if   he   had   bought   into   my   suggestion,   then   he   would   be   lending   credence   to   the   very   law   he   was   challenging   -   and   that   would   have   diluted   his   challenge.   He   was   legally   correct.”    
And   indeed,   Michael   Schiavo’s   attorney   was   proved   correct.   The   Florida   State   Supreme   Court   subsequently   overturned   and   deemed   the   state’s   “Terri’s   Law”   as   unconstitutional.   Hence,   no   “testing”   was   necessary   because   the   evidence   had   already   properly   and   effectively   concluded   that   Terri   Schiavo   was,   in   fact,   in   a   “persistent   vegetative   state.”    
Ultimately,   as   the   matter   proceeded   up   through   court   systems,   even   the   U.S.   Supreme   Court   refused   to   intervene.    
Finally,   the   tube   was   ordered   removed   again,   which   was   done   on   Friday,   March   18,   2005.   Over   that   weekend,   the   U.S.   Congress   got   involved   and   wrote   a   law   to   give   federal   courts   jurisdiction   into   the   matter   and   to   direct   those   courts   to   federally   consider   whether   any   of   Terri’s   Schiavo’s   constitutional   rights   were   being   deprived.   President   Bush   signed   the   “Act   for   the   relief   of   the   parents   of   Theresa   Marie   Schiavo”   (Pub.   L.   No.   109-3)   on   March   21,   2005.    
With   that   authority,   the   in-laws   went   to   the   federal   court   in   Florida   that   same   day,   with   a   number   of   varied   claims.   Among   such   claims   was   one   which   asserted   that   Judge   Greer   had   supposedly   failed   Terri   Schiavo   by   not   appointing   a   Guardian   Ad   Litem   on   Terri’s   behalf.   The   historic   facts   were   that   two   Guardian   Ad   Litem’s   had   been   appointed,   in   the   late   1990s.   The   second   one   had   even   testified   before   Judge   Greer   in   the   2000   hearing.   The   federal   court   explicitly   noted   such   facts   and   the   falsehood   of   the   Schindlers’   contention   about   it.    
Consequently,   U.S.   District   Judge   James   Whittemore   refused   to   re-insert   the   tube.   He   wrote,   “...this   court   concludes   that   Theresa   Schiavo's   life   and   liberty   interests   were   adequately   protected   by   the   extensive   process   provided   in   the   state   courts."    
The   in-laws   filed   an   “Emergency   Petition   for   Rehearing   En   Banc”   at   the   federal   U.S.   Circuit   Court   of   Appeals   in   Atlanta,   Georgia.   Their   appeal   was   firmly   denied   again,   with   the   opinion   published   on   March   25,   2005.    
Concurring   in   the   court’s   denial,   Curcuit   Judge   Stanley   F.   Birch,   Jr.   additionally   explained   how   the   U.S.   Congress’   and   President’s   “Act   for   the   relief   of   the   parents   of   Theresa   Marie   Schiavo,”   was   quite   unconstitutional.   Addressing   the   unconstitutionality   of   the   Act,   Judge   Birch   made   several   important   statements,   as   follows.    
QUOTE.   "Because   of   the   important   constitutional   role   assigned   to   the   judiciary   by   the   Framers   in   safeguarding   the   Constitution   and   the   rights   of   individuals,   see   Federalist   No.   78   (A.   Hamilton),   the   execution   of   this   constitutional   mandate   is   particularly   important   when   legislative   acts   encroach   upon   the   independence   of   the   judiciary."   UNQUOTE.    
QUOTE.   "Section   2   of   the   Act   provides   that   the   district   court:   (1)   shall   engage   in   'de   novo'   review   of   Mrs.   Schiavo’s   constitutional   and   federal   claims;   (2)   shall   not   consider   whether   these   claims   were   previously   'raised,   considered,   or   decided   in   State   court   proceedings';   (3)   shall   not   engage   in   'abstention   in   favor   of   State   court   proceedings';   and   (4)   shall   not   decide   the   case   on   the   basis   of   'whether   remedies   available   in   the   State   courts   have   been   exhausted.'   Pub.   L.   109-3,   §   2.   Because   these   provisions   constitute   legislative   dictation   of   how   a   federal   court   should   exercise   its   judicial   functions   (known   as   a   'rule   of   decision'),   the   Act   invades   the   province   of   the   judiciary   and   violates   the   separation   of   powers   principle."   UNQUOTE.    
QUOTE.   "In   short,   certain   provisions   of   Section   2   of   the   Act   attempt   to   '"direct[]   what   particular   steps   shall   be   taken   in   the   progress   of   a   judicial   inquiry,"'   Plaut,   514   U.S.   at   225,   115   S.   Ct.   at   1456   (quoting   THOMAS   COOLEY,   CONSTITUTIONAL   LIMITATIONS   94-95).   Because   this   is   violative   of   the   fundamental   principles   of   separation   of   powers   enshrined   in   our   Constitution,   they   are   unconstitutional."   UNQUOTE.    
QUOTE.   "By   arrogating   vital   judicial   functions   to   itself   in   the   passage   of   the   provisions   of   Section   2   of   the   Act,   Congress   violated   core   constitutional   separation   principles,   it   prescribed   a   'rule   of   decision'   and   acted   unconstitutionally."   UNQUOTE.    
QUOTE.   "If   sacrifices   to   the   independence   of   the   judiciary   are   permitted   today,   precedent   is   established   for   the   constitutional   transgressions   of   tomorrow.   See   New   York,   505   U.S.   at   187,   112   S.   Ct.   at   2434.   Accordingly,   we   must   conscientiously   guard   the   independence   of   our   judiciary   and   safeguard   the   Constitution,   even   in   the   face   of   the   unfathomable   human   tragedy   that   has   befallen   Mrs.   Schiavo   and   her   family   and   the   recent   events   related   to   her   plight   which   have   troubled   the   consciences   of   many.   Realizing   this   duty,   I   conclude   that   Pub.   L.   109-3   is   an   unconstitutional   infringement   on   core   tenets   underlying   our   constitutional   system."   UNQUOTE.    
Judge   Birch   had   made   it   quite   clear.   The   federal   “Terri’s   Law”   was   unconstitutional.    
After   being   rebuffed   again,   the   Schindlers   then   brought   their   case   before   the   U.S.   Supreme   Court.   Without   even   so   much   as   a   dissent   from   conservative   Justices   Scalia,   Thomas,   or   Rhenquist,   the   Supreme   Court   simply   refused   to   even   hear   the   case.   They   stood   by   the   lower   court’s   determination.    
Running   out   of   options,   the   Schindlers   re-appealed   to   Judge   Greer,   wildly   asserting   an   unproven   claim   that   Terri   had   recently   spoken   -   purportedly   saying,   “I   want   to   live.”   Both   Judge   Greer,   and   ultimately   the   Florida   State   Supreme   Court,   declined   to   re-insert   the   feeding   tube.    
In   a   temporary   moment,   on   March   29th,   the   11th   Circuit   Court   did   agree   to   consider   the   Schindlers'   emergency   request   for   a   new   hearing.   After   consideration,   that   court   declined   it   the   next   day.   The   Schindlers   brought   it   back   to   the   U.S.   Supreme   Court   who   again   refused   to   hear   it.    
Clearly,   with   court   after   court   ultimately   coming   to   the   same   conclusion,   the   matter   was   settled:   whereas   the   Schindlers   had   neither   standing,   nor   had   provided   any   new   evidence,   nor   any   remaining   credibility,   the   husband’s   credible   testimony   of   his   wife’s   wishes   could   not,   should   not,   and   would   not   be   overturned.   Overall,   courts   had   affirmed   marriage   and   the   intimate   knowledge   of   Terri’s   husband   about   what   his   wife   wanted.   It   was   little   different   than   if   she   had   actually   expressed   it   in   a   “living   will.”    
Sadly,   that   next   morning,   at   9:05   A.M.   on   March   31,   2005,   at   the   age   of   41,   Terri   Schiavo   passed   away   as   her   husband   beheld   her.    
PART   2    
The   reason   that   the   case   had   become   so   intense   in   the   media   is   that   it   was   mis-characterized   as   if   it   was   a   pro-life   issue.   The   problem   is,   when   true   conservative   pro-lifers   fully   investigate   all   the   actual   facts,   it   becomes   profoundly   obvious   that   this   particular   case   was   never   really   a   bona   fide   pro-life   case   in   the   first   place.   While   much   of   the   pro-life   rhetoric   being   declared   would   surely   be   accurate   if   the   facts   actually   supported   and   applied   to   such   comments,   the   horrifying   reality   for   intellectually   honest   pro-lifers   is   that   the   comments   simply   do   not   apply   to   the   situation   as   it   actually   happened.   Truly,   very   few   pro-lifers   would   ever   call   it   “murder”   when   someone   has   previously   indicated   that   they   did   not   want   to   continue   to   receive   such   extra   life   support   technologies.   And   that’s   what   Terri   did.    
Yet,   when   Michael   Schiavo’s   in-laws   were   upset   with   their   son   in-law   in   this   case,   after   February   14,   1993,   they   began   a   series   of   mis-characterizations.   The   supposed-to-be   conservative   media,   instead   of   checking   the   facts   and   public   records,   proved   to   be   quite   liberal   by   ever-instantly   “reporting”   any   and   all   of   those   unsubstantiated   mis-characterizations.   Christian   leaders,   who   also   did   not   check   the   actual   facts   and   records,   thereby   picked   up   and   ran   with   such   mis-information   from   their   supposed-to-be   reliably-conservative   resources.   And   sincere   pro-lifers   consequently   confused   the   issues,   mistakenly   creating   a   “rallying   cry”   about   something   which   did   not   actually   apply.   Even   though   virtually   every   court   after   court   -   all   of   whom   did   study   the   actual   facts   -   repeatedly   determined   that   the   husband   was   credible,   many   mis-informed   Christian   conservatives   then   mistakenly   blamed   Terri’s   choice   for   removal   of   extra   life   support   as   being   the   result   of   “liberal   activist   judges.”   In   the   end,   anyone   who   continues   to   oppose   Michael   Schiavo   after   learning   the   actual   facts   proves   that   they   are   big   government   liberals   who   are   very   clearly   anti-marriage.    
To   get   the   ball   rolling,   all   the   Schindlers   had   to   do   was   simply   allege   that   Michael   Schiavo   was   “killing”   his   wife.   That   mis-characterization,   itself,   was   enough   for   many   sincere   pro-lifers   to   “put   their   blinders   on”   without   ever   looking   at   or   seeing   the   real   facts.   Without   ever   seeing   the   truth   or   public   recorded   documents,   too   many   Christian   conservatives   let   such   self-imposed   blindness   mislead   them   into   accepting   many   falsehoods   and   liberal   tactics.    
As   the   public   records   document,   the   in-laws   openly   admitted   in   court   that   they   would   deny   Terri   the   freedom   to   refuse   any   form   of   modern-technological   extra   life-support   even   if   she   had   specifically   written   such   a   directive   against   doing   so   in   a   “living   will.”   And   such   records   also   document   that,   when   the   Schiavo   in-laws   could   not   get   the   money   they   wanted   from   Michael   Schiavo   on   that   watershed   date   of   February   14,   1993,   that   is   when   everything   they   said   about   him   changed   from   thereonafter.   They   went   from   saying   how   dedicated   Michael   Schiavo   really   was   about   his   wife   and   even   compassionately   encouraging   him   to   “start   dating”   to   then   unprovably   accusing   their   son-in-law   of   a   parade   of   horribles   in   seeking   to   discredit   and   remove   him   as   Terri’s   legal   guardian.    
In   their   hurting   desperation,   the   in-laws   spread   numerous   after-the-fact,   unproven,   and   unprosecuted   claims   and   rumors   against   Michael   Schiavo.   Their   “new”   stories   were   that   Michael   had   “strangled”   Terri   that   night   in   1990,   had   “abused”   her   through   the   1980s   in   their   marriage,   and   had   tried   to   “kill”   her   in   1994   by   refusing   medication   when   she   had   had   a   urinary   tract   infection.   They   asserted   that   Michael   had   never   said   anything   in   the   early   years   of   the   case   about   remembering   Terri   expressing   her   wishes   to   refuse   extra   life-support,   as   if   he   had   somehow   concocted   the   idea   later.   They   also   asserted   that   his   reason   for   supposedly   “killing”   Terri   was   “for   money”   and   that   the   reason   Michael   had   planned   to   cremate   Terri’s   body   at   death   was   to   supposedly   “hide”   the   crimes   which   they   purported   he   had   “done”   to   her.   They   even   said   that   Michael’s   relationship   with   Jodi   Centonze   supposedly   “proved”   that   Michael   did   not   care   about   Terri   and   that   that   subsequent   relationship   should   justify   the   removal   of   his   guardianship   authority   of   Terri.    
However,   Michael’s   Schiavo’s   actions   and   all   of   the   public   records   prove   that   such   allegations   –   “suddenly”   being   made   so   many   years   later   in   the   case   -   were   completely   unfounded.   Certainly,   in   the   early   years   of   this   kind   of   tragedy,   most   any   husband   would   be   in   the   typically-human,   hopeful   denial   that   his   wife   is   not   really   in   such   a   severe   physically   non-recovering   condition.   It   is   a   matter   of   obvious   human   nature   that   such   an   understandably   distraught   husband   would   not   even   begin   considering   any   memories   of   how   his   wife   had   previously   expressed   a   desire   to   not   continue   such   long-term   extra   life-support.   As   for   the   other   unfounded   accusations,   when   some   businessperson,   through   their   attorney   Gloria   Allred,   made   the   insult   of   a   million-dollar   offer   for   Terri’s   husband   to   “change   his   mind”   on   March   10,   2005,   Michael   Schiavo   immediately   rejected   it.   And   he   also   immediately   welcomed   an   autopsy   to   be   performed   after   Terri’s   death,   to   have   further   medical   proof   of   Terri’s   condition   be   available   and   to   show   that   he   certainly   had   nothing   to   “hide”   when   he   had   earlier   ordered   the   eventual   cremation.    
Michael   Schiavo   clearly   had   demonstrated   his   dedication   to   his   wife   Terri.    
Even   the   December   1,   2003,   “Report   to   Governor   Jeb   Bush”   declared,   “the   evidence   is   incontrovertible   that   (Michael   Schiavo)   gave   his   heart   and   soul   to   (Terri’s)   treatment   and   care.”    
Indeed,   as   the   public   records   show,   up   until   that   defining,   dividing   date   way   back   on   February   14,   1993,   the   in-laws   were   very   much   supportive   of   Michael   Schiavo   and   about   his   love   and   dedication   to   Terri.   Before   that   date,   they   were   so   very   supportive   of   Michael   Schiavo   that   it   was   the   in-laws   themselves   -   as   the   public   records   show   -   who   had   frequently   encouraged   him   to   “start   dating.”    
But   after   that   watershed   date   on   “Valentine’s   Day,”   1993,   the   Schindlers   are   the   ones   whose   stories   changed.    
Regarding   the   issue   of   “the   other   woman,”   Michael   Schiavo’s   two   infant   children   with   Jodi   Centonze   were   born   no   less   than   two   years   after   Judge   Greer’s   February   2000   official   decision   to   remove   Terri’s   feeding   tube.   For   the   Schindlers   to   turn   around   12   years   after   they   had   previously   encouraged   Michael   to   “start   dating”   in   order   to   then   falsely   mis-characterize   that   situation   in   2005   -   as   if   it   somehow   disqualifies   his   guardianship   five   years   after   Judge   Greer’s   official   decision   -   further   undermines   their   credibility.   Legally,   it   is   both   illogical   and   disallowable   to   try   to   retroactively   apply   the   later   birth   of   children   in   2002   and   forward   to   assert   that   that   means   that   Michael’s   2005   situation   “therefore   disqualified”   him   as   Terri’s   guardian   back   in   2000   when   the   court   decision   was   made.    
But   that   kind   of   methodology   was   not   atypical   of   the   routine   application   of   the   liberal   filibustering   tactic   so   frequently   employed   against   Michael   Schiavo.    
Even   though   the   Schindlers   had   agreed   in   court   as   late   as   the   year   2000   that   Terri   was   in   a   “persistent   vegetative   state,”   they   later   filibustered   by   changing   their   story.   As   if   they   no   longer   believed   her   actual   condition,   the   in-laws   began   irresponsibly   demanding   the   new   “tests”   of   her   condition,   an   otherwise   simple   idea   that   had   been   genuinely   suggested   as   a   compromise   option   by   Dr.   Jay   Wolfson   in   his   2003   “Report   to   Governor   Jeb   Bush.”   But   they   knew   that,   legally,   Michael   Schiavo   could   not   agree   to   the   “tests”   when   he   was   challenging   the   very   law   that   initiated   the   idea   (for   which   he   subsequently   won,   as   the   Florida   State   Supreme   Court   overturned   it   as   unconstitutional).   They   also   knew   that   the   courts   had,   therefore,   already   and   credibly   established   that   Terri   was   in   a   “persistent   vegetative   state.”   Accordingly,   such   demands   for   something   proven   to   be   unnecessary   –   and   being   made   so   late   in   the   case   –   was   simply   as   a   filibustering   purposeful   waste   of   time.   Despite   knowing   all   these   facts,   the   Schindlers   then   exploited   such   reasonably-expected   “refusals”   (of   their   filibustering   demands)   to   then   make   their   media-appeals   that   they   had   somehow   been   “denied”   such   “tests.”    
And   such   filibustering   tactics   continued   after   Terri   died,   too.   As   the   local   medical   examiner’s   office   prepared   to   perform   an   official   autopsy   on   Terri’s   deceased   body,   the   Schindlers   “requested”   to   have   their   own   “independent   experts”   conduct   their   own   autopsy   -   as   if   to   irresponsibly   imply   that   the   Pinellas   County   Florida   medical   examiner’s   office   was   somehow   “not   independent.”   When   the   reasonably-expected   refusal   for   their   “request”   then   occurred,   the   in-laws   turned   it   around   to   then   purport   that   they   were   somehow   “denied   their   own   independent   autopsy.”    
Clearly,   mis-characterization   was   the   principal   means   by   which   the   Schindlers   were   able   to   successfully   appeal   for   and   obtain   their   political   “rallying   help.”   And   unfortunately,   for   many   sincere   pro-life   conservative   Christians,   those   in-laws   were   given   a   free   ride   to   do   so.    
While   every   single   court   realized   the   actual   facts   in   all   of   this   case’s   long   history,   much   of   the   supposed-to-be   conservative   media,   unfortunately,   reported   very   little   actual   investigation   into   any   of   those   actual   facts.    
Instead   of   being   the   bastion   of   factual   investigation   upon   which   true   conservatives   usually   and   gladly   rely,   much   of   the   supposed-to-be   conservative   media   instead   just   blindly   propped   up   the   in-laws   and   never   sufficiently   reported   from   the   actual   public   records.   They   just   irresponsibly   repeated   every   little   rumor   and   unsubstantiated   allegation   the   Schindlers   made.    
That   kind   of   liberal   media-reporting   technique   is   a   “danratherism.”   Dan   Rather   was   the   liberal   journalist   at   CBS-TV   who   “reported”   the   disproved   rumors/allegations,   from   President   Bush’s   opponents   during   the   2004   election,   which   falsely   suggested   that   President   Bush   had   “factually”   not   fully   served   his   National   Guard   duty   back   in   the   1970s.   Such   disproved   unverified   propaganda-journalism   rightly   cost   Dan   Rather   his   job,   as   conservatives   rightly   concurred.   Yet,   in   reporting   about   the   Schiavo   case,   supposed-to-be   conservative   news   sites   such   as   and   conducted   themselves   as   liberals   by   actually   putting   out   multiple   “danratherisms”   -   utterly   betraying   and   dismaying   true   conservatives   who   only   want   the   truth   of   facts.    
Unfortunately,   the   self-evident   liberalism   of   those   news   sites   went   beyond   “danratherims,”   as   well.   Such   supposed-to-be   conservative   media   even   adopted   the   radical   feminist   view.   As   a   premise,   instead   of   believing   the   husband,   they   always   chose   to   report   from   the   perspective   of   “believing”   the   in-laws   –   thereby   embracing   the   classic   anti-man   radical   feminist   agenda   to   never   believe   “the   husband”   in   any   case.   The   in-laws,   themselves,   were   even   outright   overt   about   their   own   radical   feminist   liberalism   on   their   “foundation’s”   web-site,   Namely,   that   site’s   frontpage   identified   itself   as   the   “Terri   Schindler-Schiavo   Foundation.”   Except   in   the   rare   cases   of   professional   women   with   public   trademarked   names   (as   being   known   in   the   marketplace   before   they   later   become   married),   a   married   woman   otherwise   using   a   hyphenated   maiden   name   with   a   married   name   is   the   typical   domain   of   anti-man   feminists.   Terri   Schiavo   had   not   been   known   by   the   radical   feminist   idea   of   calling   her   by   the   name   of   “Terri   Schindler-Schiavo.”   Even   so,   both   and   liberally   “jumped   right   aboard”   to   adopt   such   liberal   radical   feminism   by   also   calling   her   “Terri   Schindler-Schiavo.”    
Further   proof   of   such   news   sites   being   “liberals   in   conservative   clothing”   in   this   case   was   also   demonstrated   in   their   reporting   on   Jesse   Jackson’s   interjection   into   the   media   circus   in   the   last   three   days   of   Terri’s   life.   When   Jackson   -   an   extremely   liberal   un-elected   political   opportunist   -   thrust   himself   into   the   fray,   and   could   not   praise   him   fast   enough.    
Moreover,   Jesse   Jackson   is   the   same   liberal   about   whom   both   news   sites   reported   in   2001   of   having   a   secret   affair   with   another   woman,   other   than   Jackson’s   legal   wife.   In   2005,   however,   while   those   sites   were   busy   trying   to   discredit   Michael   Schiavo   for   waiting   12   years   before   the   birth   of   his   first   child   with   another   woman,   those   same   news   sites   were   quickly   praising   the   liberal   and   sneaking-philanderer,   Jesse   Jackson,   as   if   he   was   a   “paragon   of   virtue”   in   this   case.   As   they   condemned   Schiavo,   they   conveniently   “forgot”   to   re-comment   about   Jackson’s   2001   “other   woman   scandal.”    
Moreover,   focusing   on   Michael   Schiavo’s   infant   children   with   Jodi   Centonze,   such   “liberal   in   conservative   clothing”   media   misled   many   Christians   into   turning   against   the   marriage   institution   and   Michael   Schiavo.   In   their   non-fact-checked   “news   reports,”   they   were   purposely   ambiguous,   never   specifically   informing   their   readers   of   the   children’s   actual   ages   or   ever   showing   that   the   children   were   born   years   after   Judge   Greer’s   official   decision   -   deliberate   liberal   “propaganda   by   omission.”    
Clearly,   instead   of   being   fact-checkers   and   honestly   reporting   the   facts   of   the   case,   the   supposed-to-be   conservative   media   betrayed   their   loyal   readers   with   liberalism.   They   simply   regurgitated   the   Schindlers’   mis-characterizations   and   rumors.   And   as   a   consequence   of   reading   such   repeated   falsehoods,   rumors,   and   mis-information,   numerous   Christian   leaders   were   misled   and   responded   accordingly.    
Indeed,   many   Christian   leaders   -   instead   of   verifying   the   inaccurate   reports   they   were   getting   -   simply   ran   with   the   mis-information   and   lack   of   complete   information   as   well.   And   they   began   making   numerous   mistakes.    
Many   started   to   then   accuse   Michael   Schiavo   as   a   “common   law   bigamist.”   However,   to   discredit   Michael   Schiavo   for   his   subsequent   relationship   with   Jodi   Centonze   is   to   equally   discredit   the   Bible.   While   Schiavo   is   just   a   regular   man   and   certainly   not   as   great   as   any   of   the   Biblical   heroes,   the   fact   of   this   issue   remains,   nevertheless.   If   involvement   with   another   woman   so   many   years   later   means   that   such   a   husband   is   discredited   as   thereby   being   “incapable”   of   love   for   and   commitment   to   a   first   wife,   then   the   implications   are   clear.   Since   polygamous   Moses   authored   Genesis   through   Deuteronomy,   such   Christians   making   those   accusations   would   equally   have   to   discredit   and   throw   out   those   books   of   the   Bible.   They   would   also   have   to   throw   out   the   Psalms,   written   by   polygamous   David.   And,   of   course,   that   means   other   important   polygamists   in   the   Bible   -   such   as   Abraham   and   Israel   -   would   have   to   be   perceived   as   having   no   credibility   either.   God   forbid.    
Ironically,   some   Christian   leaders   even   started   suggesting   that   there   was   justification   for   breaking   the   law   in   the   Schiavo   case.   They   asserted   that   Governor   Jeb   Bush   could   “justifiably”   ignore   the   courts   to   just   go   ahead   and   kidnap   Terri   Schiavo   against   her   and   her   husband’s   will.   These   are   the   same   leaders,   of   course,   who   would   otherwise   assert   the   “obey   the   law   of   the   land”   doctrine   toward   polygamists   who   marry   without   government   license.   It   was   clear   hypocrisy,   for   sure   –   but   perhaps   such   Christian   leaders   might   thereby   learn   from   it   and   consequently   understand   the   anti-constitutionality   of   anti-polygamy   laws.   (But   that’s   another   discussion   altogether.)    
As   the   holiday   of   “Resurrection   Sunday”   (known   as   “Easter”   to   Catholics)   of   March   27,   2005,   approached,   some   even   committed   the   outright   blasphemy   of   comparing   Terri   Schiavo   to   Jesus   Christ   being   crucified.   Governor   Jeb   Bush   was   offensively   likened   to   Pontius   Pilate.   Michael   Schiavo   was   cruelly   called   Judas   (Iscariot).   And   Michael   Schiavo’s   mother   in-law,   Mary   Schindler,   was   called   “mother   Mary”   as   according   to   the   title   in   non-Protestant   Catholic   doctrine.   Such   blasphemy   could   not   be   clearer.   Terri   was   simply   human   and   did   not   want   such   extra   medical   treatment,   whereas   Jesus   Christ   was   criminalized   as   an   innocent   sent   to   the   cross   Whose   sacrifice   had   and   still   has   the   importance   of   bringing   salvation   unto   repentant   sinners.    
With   so   much   mis-information   spreading   like   wildfire,   many   sincere   pro-lifers   confused   many   of   the   issues,   turning   the   case   into   a   supposed   “rallying   cry”   for   the   pro-life   cause.   For   other   adamant   pro-lifers   who   have   studied   the   actual   facts   and   know   that   the   Terri   Schiavo   case   does   neither   compare   nor   apply   to   the   cause,   such   a   new   “rallying   cry”   is   not   much   different   than   when   the   anti-capital-punishment   faction   of   pro-lifers   have   previously   tried   to   actually   hijack   the   pro-life   movement. 
Many   sincere   pro-life   protesters   truly   confused   the   issue,   though   -   asserting   that   the   case   was   somehow   about   euthanasia   or   “killing”   an   incapacitated   person.   If   Terri   had   not   expressed   her   chosen   will   to   her   husband   in   the   case,   then   that   would   very   well   have   been   the   correct   assessment.   But   the   case   shows   otherwise   -   it   was   about   marriage   and   a   wife’s   expressed   decision.   Before   the   1990   tragedy,   Terri   Schiavo   had   made   it   clear   to   her   husband   that,   if   she   was   ever   in   such   a   case   as   this,   she   did   not   want   to   continue   to   receive   such   artificial   extra   life-support.   It   was   a   typical   conversation   as   likely   could   occur   between   any   husband   and   wife   anywhere   in   the   United   States.   And   also   as   similar   to   most   young   married   couples,   they   simply   did   not   put   it   in   writing   in   a   “living   will.”   Because   marriage   is   truly   important,   the   husband   loved   his   wife   and   followed   her   wishes   after   many,   many   years   of   his   distraught,   hopeful   denial.   The   embittered   in-laws   (who   tried   to   dispute   that   Terri   said   such   a   thing   to   her   husband)   have   shown   in   many   ways   that   they   will   say   and   do   anything   to   prevent   Terri   from   even   having   any   opportunity   to   remove   the   feeding   tube.   It   is   a   crucial   fact   to   always   recall   here   that   the   Schindlers   admitted   in   court   that   they   would   have   fought   such   removal   even   if   Terri   had   specified   it   in   a   “living   will.”   Accordingly,   Terri’s   own   expressed   choice   disqualifies   the   matter   from   being   identified   as   “murder.”   And,   true   pro-marriage   Christians   must   believe   the   court-proven-credible   husband   and   can   not   support   the   unbiblical   notion   of   in-laws   trying   to   circumvent   marriage.    
Moreover,   the   case   could   not   possibly   be   comparable   to   pre-natal   infanticide   (called   “abortion,”   a   term   which   does   not   describe   what   really   happens   to   the   baby).   Yet,   many   mis-informed   but   otherwise   sincere   pro-life   protesters   in   the   Terri   Schiavo   case   asserted   the   comparison.   Factually,   for   a   baby   in   the   womb,   if   no   action   or   interference   occurs   as   time   passes,   the   baby   still   continues   to   live   and   grow.   The   child   also   never   has   an   opportunity   to   ever   yet   express   its   will   to   do   anything   but   live.   But   in   the   Terri   Schiavo   case,   the   exact   opposite   is   true.   For   Terri,   when   no   action   or   interference   occurred   as   time   passed,   she   did   not   continue   to   still   live.   And   she   did   express   her   will   that   she   not   continue   to   receive   such   artificial   extra   life-support.    
As   well,   many   of   such   sincere   Christian   pro-lifers   also   inapplicably   asserted   that   Terri   was   allegedly   being   “cruelly   deprived   of   food   and   water.”   But   Terri   Schiavo   had   actually   never   eaten   or   drunk   anything   since   1990.   She   had   only   received   her   nutrition   and   hydration   artificially   through   a   modern-technology   feeding   tube.   Despite   such   actuality,   though,   some   of   the   mis-informed   protesters   at   her   care-facility   purposely   got   themselves   arrested   by   the   police   in   the   final   days   before   Terri   Schiavo   passed   away,   “trying   to   bring   her   a   cup   of   water   to   drink.”   In   reality,   though,   if   they   had   actually   succeeded   in   making   her   drink,   they   themselves   could   have   killed   her   by   drowning   her.    
Despite   the   reality   that   a   feeding   tube   is   simply   a   modern   technological   delivery   means   of   extra   life-support,   not   any   different   than   other   extra   life-support   technologies,   many   pro-lifers   asserted   that   a   feeding   tube   is   somehow   “different.”   Legally   and   medically,   that   is   not   correct.   Legally,   as   Dr.   Jay   Wolfson   noted   in   a   live   online   interview   with   the   Washington   Post   on   March   23,   2005,   “in   Florida   and   elsewhere,   including   according   to   the   guidelines   published   by   the   American   College   of   Cardinals,   feeding   tubes   are   defined   as   'artificial   life   support'.”   Medically,   in   order   to   stay   alive,   the   human   body   requires   that   many   different   yet   important   systems   continue   to   operate   -   including   but   not   limited   to   eating/drinking,   breathing,   processing   waste,   and   many   others.   Despite   all   other   body-systems   functioning,   if   even   just   one   important   body-system   fails,   the   person,   sadly,   dies.   For   example,   removing   the   artificial   means   of   a   respirator   for   a   person   whose   lungs   have   stopped   working   on   its   own   will   result   in   death   rather   immediately.   The   same   is   true   –   although   death   is   not   as   immediate   -   when   removing   a   dialysis   machine   from   someone   whose   kidneys   have   ceased   to   function.   Likewise,   removing   the   extra   life-support   means   of   a   feeding   tube   for   a   person   who   is   unable   to   eat   or   drink   on   their   own   also   sadly   results   in   the   person’s   demise   –   although   it   takes   longer,   days   or   weeks,   before   the   person’s   life   ends.   All   of   these   modern   technological   -   but   still   artificial   -   means   of   extra   life-support   can   be   and   are   truly   genuine   Godsends   in   “buying   time”   and   even   outright   prolonging   life   for   individuals   in   serious   medical   conditions.   Indeed,   some   people   can   live   many   long   years   with   such   extra   life-support   technologies.   Each   technology   individually   prevents   the   person   from   otherwise   dying,   even   when   all   other   body-systems   are   indeed   fully   functioning.   Notwithstanding   the   need   to   address   (and   minister   to)   the   different   specific   consequences   which   the   body   will   undergo   as   the   person   dies,   removing   a   feeding   tube   is   technically   no   different   than   “pulling   the   plug”   (as   it   is   called)   on   a   respirator,   a   dialysis   machine,   or   any   other   extra   life-support   technology.   If   “pulling   the   plug”   on   a   respirator   or   dialysis   machine   is   what   a   patient   wants,   there   is   no   difference   than   when   doing   the   same   with   a   feeding   tube.   Terri   was   not   being   “deprived   of   food   and   water”   at   all.   She   had   expressed   her   choice   to   refuse   such   modern   extra   life-support   technology   in   this   situation.    
And   throughout   the   long   history   of   the   Terri   Schiavo   case,   numerous   courts   had   all   ultimately   determined   that   her   husband   had   quite   credibly   testified   that   she   had   effectively   expressed   her   desire   to   not   receive   any   such   extra   long-term   life-support   in   this   kind   of   a   situation.    
Because   so   many   judges   had   almost   universally   affirmed   that   same   conclusion,   many   mis-informed   Christians   therefore   concluded   that   Terri’s   death   was   due   to   “liberal   activist   judges.”   But   that   is   -   simply   put   -   an   impossibility.    
After   all,   this   was   all   occurring   in   the   very   same   state   of   Florida   in   which   another   series   of   protracted   court   battles   occurred   –   the   2000   election   between   candidate   George   W.   Bush   and   former   Vice   President   Al   Gore.   In   the   close   2000   election   against   then-candidate   George   W.   Bush,   Al   Gore   had   been   unable   to   accept   the   Florida   court   decisions   regarding   Gore’s   never-ending   calls   for   recounts.   In   typical   liberal   fashion,   they   pursued   court   after   court,   hoping   to   find   the   result   they   wanted   to   get.   The   courts   ended   the   protracted   battle   with   the   decisions   which   ended   up   being   favorable   to   “conservative”   Republican   President   George   W.   Bush.   Yet,   in   the   Schiavo   case,   it   was   those   purporting   to   be   “conservative”   who   were   copying   Al   Gore’s   same   tactics,   liberally   seeking   activist   court   results   in   court   after   court,   hoping   to   eventually   find   a   court   that   would   give   them   the   result   they   wanted.   Like   Gore   in   2000,   they   also   did   not   get   the   results   they   wanted.    
As   well,   contrary   to   the   many   allegations   made   against   him,   Pinellas   County   Circuit   Judge   Greer   is   absolutely   no   liberal   at   all.   Even   so,   many   Christian   leaders   betrayed   Christian   lovingkindness   by   maligning   the   judge   without   their   knowing   any   of   the   actual   facts.   The   level   of   their   unfounded   viciously   un-Christian   attacks   was   typically   exemplified   as   when   Focus   on   the   Family’s,   Dr.   James   Dobson,   in   a   telephone   interview   on   Fox   News   Network,   March   31,   2005,   hastily   said   that   Judge   Greer   is   an   “evil   man.”   Of   course,   such   leaders   have   no   idea   about   whom   they   were   attacking.   It   turns   out   that   Judge   George   Greer   is   a   man   who   has   proven   to   be   genuinely   committed   to   marriage   and   to   making   his   decisions   based   solely   upon   the   facts.   In   a   well-reported   fact   that   clearly   convicts   those   Christian   leaders   before   all   the   world   for   their   false   un-Christian   accusations,   for   their   maligning   Greer   as   if   he   is   some   evil   “godless   liberal,”   Judge   George   W.   Greer   is   a   church-going   Southern   Baptist,   a   Republican,   a   dedicated   conservative   Christian.    
Also,   the   federal   court   of   appeals   Judge   Stanley   F.   Birch,   Jr.,   who   vehemently   wrote   about   the   Congress’   and   President’s   unconstitutional   overreach   (as   per   Alexander   Hamilton’s   “Federalist   Papers   No.   78”)   into   the   independence   of   the   Judiciary,   is   also   very   clearly   no   liberal   either.   Indeed,   his   numerous   court   decisions   have   repeatedly   come   down   on   the   side   of   conservative-related   principles.   To   accuse   such   a   conservative   judge   as   being   a   “liberal   activist   judge”   only   proves   how   mis-informed   –   and   how   liberal,   themselves   –   that   such   accusers   really   are.    
Moreover,   there   is   one   additional   very   obvious   noteworthy   fact   about   the   courts,   as   well.   In   each   of   the   several   times   at   which   the   Schiavo   case   went   up   to   the   U.S.   Supreme   Court,   no   conservatives   on   that   bench   ever   dissented   with   the   Court’s   decisions.   Indeed,   not   once   did   conservative   Justices   Antonin   Scalia,   or   Clarence   Thomas,   or   William   Rhenquist   offer   any   Dissent.   If   this   case   had   indeed   been   some   mere   matter   of   “liberal   activist   judges,”   there   is   no   doubt   that   one   of   those   conservative   Justices   would   have   written   something   about   it.   Accordingly,   their   silence   (every   time!)   speaks   for   itself,   and   it   discredits   all   those   who   accuse   the   courts   in   this   case   of   being   filled   with   “liberal   activist   judges.”    
In   summation,   the   facts   make   the   issue   clear   for   true   conservative   pro-life   Christians.   The   Terri   Schiavo   case   was   really   never   a   legitimate   example   for   the   pro-life   cause.   It   was   only   by   means   of   falsehoods   and   unreported   facts   that   made   it   possible   for   so   many   conservative   Christians   to   be   so   unknowingly   misled.   The   in-laws   put   forth   mis-characterizations.   The   supposed-to-be   conservative   media   betrayed   true   conservatives   by   liberally   regurgitating   the   falsehoods   without   checking   or   reporting   all   the   facts.   Christian   leaders   used   such   mis-information   to   advance   the   agenda   as   if   it   was   applicable   -   when   it   was   not.   Many   sincere   but   mis-informed   pro-lifers   confused   the   issues.   And   when   court   after   court   would   not   give   the   results   they   thought   they   wanted,   the   response   was   to   liberally   malign   even   genuine   conservatives   in   the   courts   of   supposedly   being   “liberal   activist   judges.”    
But   the   truth   is   still   the   truth.   A   wife   had   previously   expressed   her   wishes   to   her   husband   that   she   did   not   want   to   continue   to   receive   such   extra   life-support   technologies   in   such   a   case.   After   the   1990   tragedy,   a   distraught   husband   spent   dedicated   years   in   hopeful   denial   about   her   actual   “persistent   vegetative   state”   condition.   The   in-laws   adamantly   supported   him   in   every   way   until   a   confrontation   in   which   they   could   not   get   the   money   they   wanted   from   him   on   February   14,   1993.   The   in-laws   therefore   turned   against   the   husband,   leveling   every   possible   venomous   attack   and   rumor   against   him.   The   in-laws   had   publicly   admitted   in   court   that   there   was   no   situation   whatsoever   under   which   they   would   ever   accept   anything   except   perpetual   use   of   any   form   of   technologies   to   prolong   Terri’s   life   -   even   if   Terri   herself   did   not   want   it.   Hence,   the   courts   all   reasonably   believed   the   repeatedly-proven   credible   husband.    
Quite   simply   put,   a   wife   -   Terri   Schiavo   -   had   told   her   husband,   Michael,   that,   in   this   kind   of   a   situation,   she   would   not   want   to   receive   such   continued   use   of   the   extra   life-support   technology   of   the   feeding   tube.    
In   a   matter   of   the   in-laws   coming   against   the   husband,   the   importance   of   marriage   was   indeed   affirmed   by   the   courts   who   saw   the   actual   facts.   And   that   is   what   all   true   conservative   Christians   support.    
In   this   case,   supposed-to-be   conservatives   who   claim   to   want   to   “protect   marriage”   (in   their   liberal   calls   for   a   big   government   federal   marriage   amendment)   had   the   opportunity   to   do   just   that.   But   instead   of   “protecting   marriage”   in   the   Schiavo   case,   they   decidedly   turned   against   it.    
The   Schindlers   were   incorrectly   referred   to   as   “Terri’s   family.”   But   technically,   they   were   not   “her   family.”   Terri’s   marriage   with   her   husband,   Michael,   was   her   real   family.   As   the   Bible’s   polygamous   Moses   wrote   in   Genesis   2:24,   “Therefore   shall   a   man   leave   his   father   and   his   mother,   and   shall   cleave   unto   his   wife:   and   they   shall   be   one   flesh.”    
That   particular   verse   reveals   a   serious   irony   in   this   case,   too.   Many   of   the   same   marriage   amendment   leaders   usually   mis-apply   that   Genesis   2:24   verse   to   very   liberally   re-interpret   it   to   manufacture   their   man-made   unbiblical   anti-polygamy   doctrine.   Specifically,   they   absurdly   suggest   that   a   man   cannot   be   “one   flesh”   with   each   of   his   wives   –   even   though   the   polygamous   author,   Moses   (who   wrote   that   very   verse!),   had   obviously   been   “one   flesh”   with   each   of   his   two   wives.   While   such   leaders   try   to   incorrectly   use   that   verse   to   liberally   justify   their   unbiblical   “one   man,   one   woman”   marriage   amendment,   they   conveniently   overlooked   the   first   clause   of   that   verse   as   it   applies   to   the   Schiavo   marriage.   Children   leave   their   parents   -   and   their   marriages   become   their   new   family.   As   such,   Terri’s   family   is   her   husband,   not   her   parents.    
But   the   in-laws   and   their   supporters   made   it   clear   that   they   outright   opposed   the   institution   of   marriage.    
On   March   27,   2005,   Dr.   Richard   Land,   President   of   The   Ethics   &   Religious   Liberty   Commission   of   the   Southern   Baptist   Convention,   appeared   as   a   guest   on   NBC's   "Meet   the   Press"   with   Tim   Russert.   Opposing   marriage,   Dr.   Land   expressed   that   he   was   "shocked   that   parents   have   so   few   rights"   and   he   explicitly   called   for   anti-marriage   laws   to   "try   to   give   more   rights   to   parents."   He   also   called   for   any   blood-   or   in-law-related   person   to   have   veto   power   to   interfere   in   the   marriage   determinations   made   between   a   husband   and   wife.   He   declared,   "If   somebody   doesn't   have   a   living   will   and   the   next   of   kin   disagree   on   whether   the   person   should   be   kept   alive   or   that   is   whether   food   and   water   should   be   taken   away   and   her   life   ended   that   really   the   benefit   of   the   doubt   ought   to   be   given   to   life."   That   anti-marriage   suggestion   would   empower   any   dysfunctional   in-law   to   fraudulently   exploit   that   kind   of   “pro-life   position”   to   explicitly   undermine,   filibuster,   and   overturn   the   intimate   relationship   and   discussions   between   a   husband   and   wife.   This   is   especially   important   to   note,   considering   that   the   Schindlers   had   admitted   in   court   that   there   was   no   circumstance   by   which   they   would   ever   accept   the   feeding   tube   removal   –   even   if   Terri   had   requested   it   in   a   “living   will.”    
But   such   an   extremely   liberal   suggestion   from   Dr.   Land   cannot   be   perceived   as   being   too   surprising,   considering   that   Dr.   Land   honestly   declared   his   big   government   belief   that   "the   law   exists   to   express   our   values."   Such   ideology,   of   course,   is   not   conservative   or   Christian   in   any   way   whatsoever.   After   all,   any   government   that   is   liberally   authorized   to   be   used   for   social   engineering   to   "express   conservative   values"   can   just   as   easily   be   later   exploited   to   "express   liberal   values."   That   liberally   unconstitutional   idea   presents   a   powerful   threat   to   true   conservatives   and   Christians   indeed!   Actually,   that   anti-constitutional   ideology   is   even   more   leftist   than   even   simple   liberalism   -   it   is   outright   socialist   Marxism.   True   constitutionalist   conservatism   is   not   based   on   the   liberal   premise   of   idolatrously   using   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   for   social   engineering   (or,   as   his   politically   correct   term   called   it,   “expressing   values”).   Constitutionally,   the   principle   of   limited   government   is   that   government's   sole   purpose   is   for   the   protection   from   infringement   of   God-given   rights   -   the   preservation   of   liberty.   When   Terri   Schiavo   told   her   husband   on   more   than   one   occasion   that   she   would   not   want   to   continue   receiving   such   artificial   extra   life-support,   she   had   that   right   to   make   that   decision,   and   her   husband   had   that   right   to   heed   his   wife’s   decision.   No   false   god   of   big   government   should   ever   be   idolatrously   used   to   allow   some   sad   but   interfering   in-laws   to   undermine   marriage   and   to   veto   both   of   the   Schiavos’   rights.    
But   Dr.   Land   was   not   alone   in   coming   out   with   profoundly   anti-marriage   assertions.    
On   March   28,   2005,   Robert   Schuller,   founder   and   pastor   of   the   Crystal   Cathedral   in   Southern   California,   appeared   as   a   guest   on   MSNBC's   "The   Abrams   Report"   with   Dan   Abrams.   Also   showing   his   opposition   to   the   institution   of   marriage,   pastor   Schuller   declared,   "you   can't   just   say   because   this   is   a   spouse,   therefore,   that   spouse   should   have   the   last   word."   He   suggested   that   the   Schindlers   were   "good   people"   and   that   Michael   Schiavo   somehow   could   not   possibly   love   his   wife   -   even   while,   at   the   same   time,   pastor   Schuller   openly   admitted,   "I   don't   know   what   the   courts   did."   Certainly,   without   knowing   either   of   what   the   courts   did   or   about   what   facts   they   actually   saw   before   them,   pastor   Schuller   had   no   rational   basis   for   his   assertions   in   helping   to   advance   the   big   government   call   for   undermining   marriage.    
While   such   Christian   leaders   would   sincerely   believe   that   they   do   “believe   in   the   institution   of   marriage,”   their   truly   liberal   calls   for   the   false   of   god   of   big   socialist   government   to   undermine   marriage   clearly   prove   otherwise.    
In   numerous   opinions   written   or   spoken   by   numerous   supposed-to-be   conservative   and   Christian   columnists   and   media   personalities,   that   pattern   was   almost   universal.   Without   knowing   the   actual   facts   of   the   case,   they   unwaveringly   embraced   the   radical   feminist   view   of   never   believing   the   husband.   They   used   anti-marriage   propaganda   rhetoric,   such   as   irresponsibly   describing   Michael   Schiavo   as   Terri’s   “estranged”   husband   –   which   was   never   the   case.   And,   instead   of   defending   the   validity   of   marriage   intimacy   of   conversations   between   a   husband   and   wife,   they   utterly   undermined   it   by   using   the   anti-marriage   propaganda   rhetoric   of   calling   Michael’s   court-validated   testimony   about   his   wife’s   wishes   as   if   it   was   only   “hearsay.”    
But   the   disappointing   perversity   of   such   anti-marriage   direction   did   not   stop   there.    
It   got   worse.    
The   Schindlers   even   offensively   called   for   Michael   Schiavo   to   “just   divorce”   Terri   so   that   “they   could   take   care   of   her.”   But   no   marriage-committed   wife   would   ever   want   to   die   as   being   “divorced”   from   her   husband,   and   no   husband   would   ever   want   that   either.   No   wonder   Michael   Schiavo   rightly   rejected   such   an   offensive   idea.  

True   marriage   proponents   would   never   even   begin   to   contemplate   the   anti-marriage   idea   of   a   “divorce”   of   a   couple   who   clearly   loved   each   other.   Indeed,   that   very   suggestion   is   downright   offensive   to   anyone   who   is   genuinely   committed   to   the   institution   of   marriage.  

Yet   most   of   the   Christian   leaders   who   willingly   support   the   “New   Liberal”   idea   of   a   big   government   federal   marriage   amendment   -   to   supposedly   “protect   marriage”   -   indeed   routinely   supported   the   Schindlers’   anti-marriage   suggestion   for   “divorce.”  

Of   course,   true   conservatives   do   and   can   understand   that   it   is   possible   that   many   sincere   pro-life   conservative   Christians   may   have   so   erred   in   the   Schiavo   case   only   as   a   consequence   of   trusting   in   the   non-factual   “danratherisms”   frequently   presented   by   the   supposed-to-be   conservative   media.   Accordingly,   such   mistaken   Christians   do   have   the   choice   -   now   -   to   repent   of   their   mistakes   made   in   such   mis-informed   innocency.  

But   after   herewith   learning   the   actual   facts   of   the   case,   both   they   and   the   supposed-to-be   conservative   media   (who   betrayed   conservatives   with   such   overt   liberalism)   will   be   without   such   further   excuse.   After   learning   the   facts,   anyone   who   still   chooses   to   support   the   embittered   in-laws   in   the   Schiavo   case   will   then   be   willfully   refusing   to   genuinely   “protect   marriage.”  

Surely,   as   can   be   expected,   many   of   the   marriage   amendment   leaders   will,   indeed   (although   unfortunately),   remain   stiffnecked   about   their   grievous   errors   in   this   case.   And   by   remaining   so,   they   will   thereby   prove   that   they   are,   in   fact,   anti-Bible,   anti-constitutional,   big   government   “New   Liberals”   who   do   not   really   want   to   truly   “protect   marriage”   at   all.  

Accordingly,   the   tragic   Schiavo   case   has   proven   what   pro-life,   true   conservative,   Christian   Polygamists   have   long   forewarned.   Such   unrepentant   marriage   amendment   leaders   are,   as   the   facts   reveal,   anti-marriage.


Bibliographic URLs: 
December 1, 2003 
An Act For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo 
Congress and President, 
March 21, 2005 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 
March 23, 2005 
Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo v. Michael Schiavo 
March 30, 2005 
[Combine these next two lines as one complete URL in order to surf to page.] profiles_of_key_players_in_schiavo_case_1112301748 
Other Research: simply type each of individual following lines (quotes and all) into the search-form of any major search engine: 
"Terri Schiavo" 
"Terri Schindler-Schiavo" 
"Jodi Centonze" 
"Jesse Jackson" 
"divorce" Terri Schiavo 
"Terri Schiavo" 
"Terri Schindler-Schiavo" 
"Jodi Centonze" 
"Jesse Jackson" 
"divorce" Terri Schiavo 
This technique above may also be utilized with any other search terms/names and with other news sites. 
Other searches: 
Schindler "just divorce" Terri Schiavo 

Click to order DVD

Latest Headlines

From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

2017 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 17th Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2017, UCAPs (unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters) are noting and celebrating "Polygamy Day 17" – the seventeenth year of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.  

2017 Aug 07
Finding Polygamists 'Guilty of Polygamy' Pushes Canada Backwards
After anti-polygamy law deemed "constitutional" to criminalize in Canada, one lone judge finds two leaders of Bountiful group "guilty of polygamy," even as case involved only adult women and no other real crimes.

2017 Jun 25
Pro-Polygamists Glad that Fugitive Lyle Jeffs was Caught
"It's like déjà vu all over again." Mark Henkel, National Polygamy Advocate and founder of the organization, responds to the news and is available to media for comment.

2017 Feb 01
Supreme Court Declined to Hear 'Sister Wives' Polygamy case
SCOTUS denied even hearing the Brown v. Buhman petition, letting the appeals court's reversal stand, not even hearing any of the pro-polygamy merits, and bringing the whole issue back to the status quo.

Read More
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles


Media or Pro-Polygamists

© Copyright 2003 - 2018       ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
"" is an exclusive legal Trademark of ™.