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

2023 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 23rd Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2023, supporters of UCAP, Unrelated Consenting Adult Polygamy, are celebrating "Polygamy Day 23" – the twenty-third year of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.

2022 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 22nd Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2022, families and supporters of UCAP, unrelated consenting adult polygamy, are celebrating "Polygamy Day 22" – the twenty-second year of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.

2021 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 21st Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2021, supporters of unrelated consenting adult polygamy (UCAPs) are celebrating "Polygamy Day 21" - beginning the third decade of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.

2020 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 20th Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2020, supporters of unrelated consenting adult polygamy (UCAPs) are celebrating "Polygamy Day 20" - concluding the second decade of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.

Read More
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles


Media or Pro-Polygamists

© Copyright 2003 - 2024       ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
"" is an exclusive legal Trademark of ™.