Who Killed Grandma?

Obama Health Care Lies

Obama owes the American people an explanation for the numerous inaccuracies (lies) he told when he was pushing for government-run health care.

He relayed heartwrenching anecdotes of insurance companies dropping coverage of seriously ill people due to pre-existing conditions.

The problem: They were riddled with falsehoods.

The story of Obama's tall tales has been simmering out there for well over a week. I wish it would gain more traction because it's important.

Obama is a liar.

Obama had the audacity to lie about his own mother's alleged struggles with her health insurance company as she was dying!

Video, from Breitbart:



Obama is shameless.

Twisting the facts about his own mother and the last month of her life is sick. It's creepy.

Obama's dishonesty is very disturbing.

Apparently, the guy is willing to say anything.

Obama: Ann Dunham and Health Insurance

Is Obama lying when he says his dying mother had to fight insurance companies to cover her medical bills?

It certainly appears that he misled the public, repeatedly.

A new biography about Obama's mother, A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mother by New York Times reporter Janny Scott, debunks Obama's tale about his mother in her hospital bed worrying about how to pay her medical expenses.

From Byron York, the Washington Examiner:

"I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn't thinking about how to get well, she wasn't thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence," Obama said in September 2007.

"She was in her hospital room looking at insurance forms because the insurance company said that maybe she had a pre-existing condition and maybe they wouldn't have to reimburse her for her medical bills," Obama added in January 2008.

"The insurance companies were saying, 'Maybe there's a pre-existing condition and we don't have to pay your medical bills,' " Obama said in a debate with Republican opponent Sen. John McCain in October 2008.

It was a simple and powerful story, one Obama would tell many more times as president during the national health care debate. But now we're learning the real story of Ann Dunham's health coverage is not quite what her son made it out to be.

...Scott, who had access to Dunham's correspondence from the time, reveals that Dunham unquestionably had health coverage. "Ann's compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment," Scott writes. "Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month."

Scott writes that Dunham, who wanted to be compensated for those costs as well as for her living expenses, "filed a separate claim under her employer's disability insurance policy." It was that claim, with the insurance company CIGNA, that was denied in August 1995 because, CIGNA investigators said, Dunham's condition was known before she was covered by the policy.

Dunham protested the decision and, Scott writes, "informed CIGNA that she was turning over the case to 'my son and attorney, Barack Obama.' " CIGNA did not budge.

In September 1995, Dunham traveled to New York for an evaluation at the renowned Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Returning to Hawaii, she began a new course of treatment. She died in November.

A dozen years later, her son turned her ordeal into a campaign pitch for national health care. But the story Obama told, Scott writes, was "abbreviated" -- the abbreviation was to leave out the fact that Ann Dunham had health insurance that paid for her treatment. "Though he often suggested that she was denied health coverage because of a pre-existing condition," Scott writes, "it appears from her correspondence that she was only denied disability coverage."

That's quite a revelation.

I don't think Obama "abbreviated" the story about his mother and her health insurance concerns.

I think he altered the facts to suit his political purposes.

It appears that Obama's mom did not have to worry about being able to pay her medical bills.

"I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn't thinking about how to get well, she wasn't thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence," Obama said in September 2007.

"She was in her hospital room looking at insurance forms because the insurance company said that maybe she had a pre-existing condition and maybe they wouldn't have to reimburse her for her medical bills," Obama added in January 2008.

"The insurance companies were saying, 'Maybe there's a pre-existing condition and we don't have to pay your medical bills,' " Obama said in a debate with Republican opponent Sen. John McCain in October 2008.

Twisting the facts about your own mother and the last month of her life is sick.

This dishonesty is really creepy. Obama is shameless.

The Obama Legacy

Must-see video:



Four more years OF THIS?

No, thank you.

Graeme Zielinski: Violence, Republicans

Graeme Zielinski, the Communications Director for the Democrat Party of Wisconsin, published a most disturbing Tweet.

Via Instapundit, via American Glob, via Legal Insurrection:



Zielinski is a high profile figure in the Wisconsin Democrat Party.

For him to be so stupid to post something so inappropriate is really rather shocking.

Didn't he realize how bad he would make the Democrats look?

The Wisconsin Democrats have truly lost it.

GRAEME ZIELINSKI: It's Medicare's 45th Birthday. Celebrate by punching a Republican.

A full and immediate apology from Zielinski is in order.

Indiana Planned Parenthood: Lies (Video)

An undercover tape from Lila Rose and Live Action reveals Planned Parenthood in Indiana to be deceiving the public when it claims that Indiana's Planned Parenthood funding cuts mean women on Medicaid would have nowhere else to go for health care.

Read Lila Rose's investigative report at Big Government: Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid Misinformation In Indiana.

Video.

The Obama Administration is bullying Indiana, threatening to cut billions in Medicaid care for the elderly and low-income, because Indiana's decided to cut funding to abortion providers.

Abortion giant Planned Parenthood serves less than 1% of Medicaid patients in Indiana, but performs over 52% of all abortions.

Stand with Indiana against the political bullying in their decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood.

Here's a press release from Live Action:

Medicaid Misinformation: Planned Parenthood Caught on Tape Lying About Indiana Healthcare

Live Action Launches “Standing with Indiana” Petition

June 29, 2011 – Undercover phone calls released today show Planned Parenthood of Indiana clinics admitting that they are not the only source of women’s health care for women on Medicaid. Planned Parenthood and its supporters have recently argued in support of restoring their Medicaid funding in Indiana that poor women will lose access to vital health care services if they cannot go to Planned Parenthood. Live Action, the group that recorded the calls, says its footage shows the reality is quite the opposite.

“Indiana has become Ground Zero in the national battle to defund Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion business in America,” states Live Action President Lila Rose. “As more and more states, most recently Wisconsin and Texas, continue to defund the abortion giant of millions of dollars, Planned Parenthood wants us to believe they are the only game in town when it comes to providing care for Medicaid patients. In reality, their own staff admit that they aren’t the only option for women in need.”

In an official press release, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards claimed that Indiana’s defunding of Planned Parenthood would “take away health care from thousands of women in Indiana.” Last week, Live Action’s undercover investigators called 16 of the 28 Indiana Planned Parenthood clinics posing as women on Medicaid concerned about where they could receive services if Planned Parenthood’s funding was not restored.

SEE VIDEO HERE: www.liveaction.org

Planned Parenthood staffers at all 16 locations admitted that Medicaid women would still have access to medical care after the defunding. Staffers suggested local health clinics or state-assigned primary care physicians for Medicaid patients: “Your primary care doctor should be able to do [a Well Woman exam,] I mean, that’s what they’re there for,” said a Planned Parenthood in Michigan City, while the Merrillville Planned Parenthood said of a local community health center, “They have the same services we have.”

“According to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics, their 28 clinics serve less than 1% of Indiana Medicaid patients, yet they do more than 50% of Indiana abortions,” notes Rose. There are over 800 other Medicaid providers available to these women in the counties with Planned Parenthood clinics alone.”

Even Indiana doctors agree that defunding Planned Parenthood in Indiana would have little to no effect on the care and services provided to Medicaid patients.

“If Planned Parenthood only sees 1% of Medicaid patients in the state, and that’s their statistic, it doesn’t seem like they are making a big imprint in the first place,” said Dr. Geoff Cly, at the Northeast Ob/GYN Women’s Health Group in Fort Wayne, IN. “I know in our group, we currently have capacity to see more patients and I’m sure many other groups could easily take care of the 1% that’s left if Planned Parenthood no longer took care of those patients.”

However, President Obama has come to Planned Parenthood’s aid by threatening to deny billions in low-income healthcare funds unless Indiana starts contracting with them.

“The Obama administration is holding patients’ health hostage in return for funding the largest abortion provider in the country,” asserted Lila Rose. “This abuse of power is a threat to every other state – that no matter the cost or consequences, this Administration will sacrifice healthcare for the needy to continue pouring tax dollars into Planned Parenthood.”

“Today we launch a ‘Stand with Indiana’ petition exposing Planned Parenthood’s deception and demanding that President Obama revoke his intervention on their behalf,” continues Rose. “Planned Parenthood has lied in covering up sex trafficking and statutory rape, lied about abusing taxpayer dollars, lied about mammograms, and now lies about Medicaid–all in the interest of protecting the taxpayer subsidies of their abortion business. States and their citizens no longer want to fund this corrupt organization.”

Access the “I Stand with Indiana” petition at: www.IStandWithIndiana.com
Fact Sheet with statistics, sources and figures available at:
www.liveaction.org

________________

Lila Rose Discusses Latest Planned Parenthood Investigation with Ingraham on O’Reilly

Paul Ryan: 'Grandma Off Cliff' Ad

The Agenda Project, a Leftist group, has created a truly disgusting political ad.

It attacks the Republicans' budget plan by depicting a figure resembling Paul Ryan pushing an elderly woman in a wheelchair in a park-like setting. "America the Beautiful" plays in the background while birds sing.

The man ignores a sign, "Do not go beyond barricade," and the woman begins to panic and struggle. Eventually, he throws her off a cliff, literally. The man then simply turns back, pushing the empty wheelchair.

The words "Is America beautiful without Medicare?" appear on the screen.

Then, "Ask Paul Ryan and his friends in Congress (202)225-3031."

Watch.



Really sick.

The Leftists have no shame, unless they're screaming "SHAME" at the top of their lungs.
____________________

Chris Matthews, MSNBC Democrat hack always yapping about ugly conservative rhetoric, really enjoyed the ad.

From Media Research Center:

A clearly amused Chris Matthews narrated and laughed at a liberal ad showing Republican Paul Ryan murdering an elderly woman by throwing her off a cliff. This is the same MSNBC anchor who railed against "ugly" conservative talk and wondered if it led to the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

...[O]n the January 11, 2011 Hardball, Matthews highlighted the shooting of Giffords and foamed, "People like Mark Levin, Michael Savage, for example who every time you listen to them are furious, furious at the Left with anger that just builds and builds in their voice, and by the time they go to commercial, they’re just in some rage, every night, with ugly talk. Ugly sounding talk."

He lamented that conservatives see the other side "as evil, as awful. Not just disagreeable but evil." Matthews then implicated these talk radio hosts in the shooting of Giffords by a deranged person: "And my question is doesn't that give the moral license to people who have crazy minds to start with?"

Yet, on Tuesday, Matthews joked, "Finally, grandma gets thrown off the cliff." Earlier, he called it an "ad that's over the edge, literally." But, this was also made in an amused tone.

And the Leftists insist that MSNBC doesn't have a liberal bias?

Right.

Here's the video:



Transcript

CHRIS MATTHEWS: And talk about an ad that's over the edge, literally. A liberal group has produced [ad plays onscreen.]- catch- Oh, there you see it, not holding back on that one. [Laughs.] Throwing grandma or- that's- I think it is supposed to be Paul Ryan pushing the wheelchair with grandma over the edge. That's in the Sideshow. We will show you the full ad.

MATTHEWS: Finally, grandma gets thrown off the cliff. A liberal group called The Agenda Project has just released an ad whacking at Paul Ryan's to privatize Medicare. Subtle? This ad is not.

[Plays ad of Ryan throwing an old woman off a cliff.]

MATTHEWS: Boy, I love the point of view on that one as she tries to slow down with her feet. Anyway, the irony here, Paul Ryan may be driving the Republican Party off the cliff.

ObamaCare Waivers List 2011

The ObamaCare Waivers List is truly an embarrassment.

If ObamaCare is such a great system why are so many waivers being sought and granted?

The list of waivers has been getting longer and longer.

Yesterday, the Daily Caller shed more light on the latest waivers. It's not pretty.

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

...The reason the Obama administration says it has given out waivers is to exempt certain companies or policyholders from “annual limit requirements.” The applications for the waivers are “reviewed on a case by case basis by department officials who look at a series of factors including whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver.” The waivers don’t allow a company to permanently refrain from implementing Obamacare’s stipulations, but companies can reapply for waivers annually through 2014.

Café Mason, a diner near San Francisco’s Union Square, got a waiver too. When The Daily Caller asked the manager about the waiver and how the president’s new sweeping federal health care law was affecting his restaurant, he hung up the phone. The Franciscan Crab restaurant on Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco got a waiver. Its menu features entrees ranging from about $15 to $60. The Franciscan’s general manager didn’t return TheDC’s requests for comment.

Four-star hotel Campton Place got one too, as did Hotel Nikko San Francisco, which describes itself as “four-diamond luxury in the heart of the city.” Tru Spa, which Allure Magazine rated the “best day spa in San Francisco,” received an Obamacare waiver as well.

Before hanging up on TheDC, Tru Spa’s owner said new government health care regulations, both the federal-level Obamacare and new local laws in Northern California, have “devastated” the business. “It’s been bad for us,” he said, without divulging his name, referring to the new health care restrictions.

But, the spa owner wouldn’t talk about it or the reason his company sought a waiver. He hung up after saying, “I’ve got clients on the other line, good-bye.”

ObamaCare is bad for business. That's the reality.

In an effort to appease, the Obama administration is granting favors, giving the "chosen" a break from the government regulations.

The fact that Nancy Pelosi's district has received nearly 20 percent of the new waivers is really stunning. One congressional district, Pelosi's, gets 20 percent of the newest waivers?!?

That looks really bad.

Pelosi needs to address this matter. "No comment" isn't going to fly.
__________________

Read Michelle Malkin, "Waive Me."

Paul Ryan and Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich's run for president got off to a terrible start.

He was extremely critical of Paul Ryan on Meet the Press.

Transcript

NEWT GINGRICH: I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.

Gingrich had to back off his remarks. He claimed he was taken out of context by "gotcha media."



It's not good that Gingrich started off his campaign with this firestorm.

Paul Ryan fired back.

"With allies like that, who needs the left?" Ryan quipped, during an interview on Laura Ingraham's radio show.

Conservatives in the media weren't the only ones shaking their heads over Gingrich's comments. At least one voter in Iowa was very angry about the way Gingrich attacked Paul Ryan. That voter had the opportunity to tell Gingrich exactly how he felt.

Video.



Transcript

IOWA VOTER: (Shaking Gingrich's hand) What you just did to Paul Ryan is unforgivable.

NEWT GINGRICH: I didn't do anything to Paul Ryan.

VOTER: Yes, you did. You undercut him and his allies in the House.

GINGRICH: No, I said...

VOTER: You're an embarrassment to our party.

GINGRICH: Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

VOTER: Why don't you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself?

GINGRICH: I'm sorry you feel that way.

Bottom line: Gingrich is not going to be the Republican party's nominee for president.

Donald Trump and Paul Ryan

I watch Celebrity Apprentice.

I don't always agree with Donald Trump's decisions on the show.

There was no question that he should have fired Gary Busey instead of Mark McGrath. It was a move that Trump did purely for ratings. He wanted to keep the loony Busey around as long as he could.

Of course, it's only entertainment. It's a show. I don't have a problem with Trump trying to deliver a product that's as entertaining as possible. From a ratings standpoint, I suppose Trump exercised good judgment by keeping Busey another week. Trump is a showman.

In addition to being a showman, Trump is skilled at business. He has managed to amass a fortune. There's no question he's successful.

When it comes to diving into presidential politics, Trump is being a great showman. The fact that he's getting the media and some citizens to take him even remotely seriously as a candidate is testament to his skills as a performer.

However, when it comes to Trump's ability to be the voice and face of the conservative movement, the performance completely falls apart.

Savannah Guthrie interviewed Trump for the Today Show.

Guthrie didn't give Trump a chance to answer her questions, but putting that aside, Trump doesn't sound like someone with defined, solid principles.

When you compare what Trump has been trying to sell the American people in this round of media appearances with what he's said previously about issues and President George W. Bush and Obama, it makes Charlie Sheen appear more mentally stable than Trump.

Here's video of Guthrie's interview with The Donald:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Just before the 3:00 mark, Guthrie asks Trump about the Paul Ryan budget.

Transcript

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Do you support the Ryan plan to bring the deficit down by $4 trillion?

DONALD TRUMP: I'm very concerned about doing anything that's going to tinker too much with Medicare. I protect the senior citizens. Senior citizens are protected. They are lifeblood, as far as I'm concerned. I think Paul Ryan is too far out front with this issue. I think he ought to sit back and relax.

Excuse me. Savannah...

GUTHRIE: So how do you attack the deficit if you don't touch Medicare, the entitlements, as you well know, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security? That's where the debt problem is. How do you address it if you're not going to touch Medicare?

TRUMP: Do you know how you do it? By stopping what's going on in the world. The world is just destroying our country. These other countries are sapping our strength. OPEC is sapping our strength. We can't pay $108 a barrel oil. It's sapping our country. And by the way, they are going to raise it higher because now Saudi Arabia said, 'There's plenty of oil. We're going to cut back.' Excuse me...

GUTHRIE: How does that go to the debt crisis?

TRUMP: Well, I'm saying what we want to do is create a strong country again and you can solve the deficit problem the easiest way.

GUTHRIE: But would you raise taxes to attack the deficit?

TRUMP: I don't think you have to. And let me just tell you, if we get this economy going again and we can do it by getting jobs, by bringing our jobs back, bringing them back. Let the other countries worry about themselves.

GUTHRIE: Should the U.S. cut defense spending to attack the deficit?

TRUMP: No. No, not in my opinion. We need great defense. I guarantee you of all of the Republicans, I'm the strongest on defense.

It's possible that NBC did an awful job of editing the interview, but as aired, Trump is dissing Paul Ryan.

I don't think a serious Republican presidential candidate would say that a powerhouse like Ryan should "sit back and relax."

Trump complains about other countries sapping our strength. I think he's serving to sap the strength from potential Republican candidates at the moment.

I look forward to June when Trump announces that he is NOT running for president, but there will be another season of Celebrity Apprentice.

Paul Ryan's Critics

The Wall Street Journal dissects the "liberal assault on the GOP budget."

One point of a document as subversive as Paul Ryan's 2012 budget is to provoke debate, and has it ever. But amid the thoughtful musings about starving orphans and grandma in a snowbank, could his critics at least get their facts right?

Let's unpack the distortions.

The WSJ proceeds to go through the attacks being launched against Paul Ryan's plan, covering five areas:

• Deficits and debt
• Tax cuts for "the rich"
• Medicare "cuts"
• Real health-care reform
• Health-care inflation

Read the details.

The conclusion:

These attacks amount to false fronts for the real objection, which is over the role of government. Mr. Ryan's critics understand very well that he wants to substitute markets for bureaucratic central planning. What he would dismantle isn't Medicare, but its system of one-size-fits-all coverage and price controls. The liberal answer to runaway costs, passed as part of ObamaCare, is the Independent Payment Advisory Board that will decide how much the government will pay for what treatments and was deliberately shielded from Congressional supervision.

Medicare "as we know it" will change because it must. The only issue is how. Mr. Ryan is offering Americans a reform rooted in consumer choice and private competition, rather than political control and bureaucratic rationing. This is why he is under such ferocious liberal assault.

Keep this information in mind when Obama delivers his budget address tonight.

You can't buy what Obama's selling, not if you believe in liberty and choice and the private sector.

On the other hand, if you want excessive government control in your life and you don't mind giving up your freedom, reject Paul Ryan's plan.
________________

Read "Obama Puts Taxes on Table."

Read "Eat the Rich."

Read "Three Cheers for Paul Ryan...On Second Thought, Make it Four."

Louise Slaughter: GOP Freshmen Came 'To Kill Women'

Do the Democrats have no shame?

Louise Slaughter certainly doesn't.

From CNSNews:

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said today that the new Republicans elected to the House of Representatives last November came to Congress "to kill women." She also likened Republican efforts to prohibit federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is endangered to actions taken by Nazis.

“This is probably one of the worst times we’ve seen because the numbers of people elected to Congress. I went through this as co-chair of the arts caucus," Slaughter said. "In ’94 people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts. Now they’re here to kill women.”

...She made the remarks Wednesday on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., at a “Stand Up for Women’s Health” rally sponsored by the National Organization for Women, NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

Slaughter took aim at H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill that would make permanent the Hyde Amendment restrictions on federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape or incest or a threat to the life of the mother, and that would also prohibit people from taking tax deductions for payments made for abortions except in those circumstances.

Although the text of the bill makes no reference to people needing a "receipt" to prove their abortion was for one of the excepted categories if they try to deduct the abortion fee they paid from their federal taxes, Slaughter suggested that under the bill, if enacted, people would need receipts for their abortions in such circumstances.

She then equated that perceived need to the sort of requirement that would be imposed by Nazis.

“You are allowed to have an abortion if you have been raped or it’s a matter of incest,” said Slaughter. “However, you have to keep a receipt. Did you know that? It’s sort of like an old German Nazi movie. Show me your papers!”

Nice.

Love that "new tone."

Video.

Hope Isn't Hiring

Terri Schiavo: Terri's Day 2011 - Life and Hope

Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo
December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005


Today marks the sixth anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death.

She died after her family lost a prolonged, contentious battle for her right to live. Terri's parents, Mary and Bob Schindler, lost their precious daughter, and her siblings, Suzanne and Bobby, lost their beloved sister.

What haunts me about Terri's death is that she was not terminally ill. She was not dying. Michael Schiavo successfully fought in court to have his wife starved and dehydrated to death. She was sentenced to die.

On Nightline, March 15, 2005, while Michael Schiavo was on his media blitz to win over public opinion, he said:

"Terri will not be starved to death. Her nutrition and hydration will be taken away."

Unbelievable.

For me, that statement sums up the twisted lies of the Culture of Death proponents and the brutality of Terri's court-sanctioned murder.

There was so much disinformation disseminated about Terri's condition, before and after her death.

The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, a group dedicated to "Helping Families Fight for Those Who Cannot Fight for Themselves," provides straightforward answers to frequently asked questions about Terri, her life and death.

These facts are important in understanding the wider social ramifications of Terri's death:

Was Terri dying?

No. Terri suffered from no terminal disease or condition and her cognitive disability did not jeopardize her life in any way. She was simply a physically healthy woman with a brain injury.

Was Terri brain dead or in a coma?

No. Brain death is not a catch phrase used to describe a persons condition but rather an authentic medical diagnosis determined when respiration and other reflexes are absent. Coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment. Terri was neither brain dead, nor was she in a coma.

Were there any machines keeping Terri alive?

Absolutely not. Contrary to media reports, Terri did not require life sustaining equipment such as a ventilator. The only thing keeping Terri alive was the same thing that keeps every one of us alive – food and water.

Was this an “end-of-life” issue?

No. Terri’s case should not be confused with legitimate end-of-life cases in which patients are terminally ill and imminently dying. As already stated, Terri was neither ill nor dying.

Was Terri in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. Despite Judge Greer’s ruling, and in keeping with the 40 medical affidavits submitted to the court, all evidence proves that Terri was not in a PVS. Terri’s behavior and ability to interact with her surroundings did not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state.

Did the autopsy prove that Terri was in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. The autopsy was unable to determine whether or not Terri was actually in a persistent vegetative state. In fact, on three separate occasions, the report stated that an autopsy is unable to determine if a person is in a persistent vegetative state because the person must be alive in order to make such a diagnosis. The autopsy did prove that that, prior to Terri's death, she was physically healthy and would have lived a long life had she not been dehydrated over a period of two weeks.

Were Terri’s parents able to make any decisions regarding her medical care or well being?

No. From 1993 until her death, Terri’s parents were not allowed to participate in her care. As guardian, Michael Schiavo had 100% control over Terri. He refused to allow her parents to help their daughter in any way. In fact, during the final weeks of her life, Terri’s parents were informed that if they so much as tried to give her a drop of water, or provide comfort care in any way, they would be arrested by the armed police officers who guarded her room 24 hours a day.

Was Terri receiving any rehabilitation in the years prior to her death?

No. Terri was essentially warehoused and abandoned from 1992, when Michael Schiavo ordered all rehabilitation and therapy stopped, until her dehydration death in March of 2005. This was in spite of the fact that countless doctors said Terri’s condition could have improved with continued rehabilitation and therapy – and that her condition had been improving while she was receiving therapy.

Why did the court allow Terri to be killed?

Permission to starve and dehydrate Terri to death was granted based on hearsay evidence that surfaced almost eight years after her collapse, alleging that she wanted to die.

Did Terri have an advance directive?

No. Terri had no written advance directive that indicated her wishes. The court allowed her to be killed based only upon hearsay evidence provided by Michael Schiavo, his brother and his sister-in-law – ignoring testimony by Terri’s biological family and lifelong friends to the contrary.

Was there money involved?

Yes. A trust fund of nearly $800,000 was established and earmarked for Terri’s rehabilitation and therapy, with Michael as the inheritor in the case of Terri’s death. Tragically, the bulk of this money was instead used to pay Michael Schiavo’s attorney fees in his quest to end her life.

Did the court recognize the money Michael Schiavo stood to inherit as a conflict of interest?

No. In fact the court failed to acknowledge that not only was Schiavo’s monetary interest a conflict, but that he had moved on with his life, was engaged to be married to another woman, and already had children with the other woman. In short, his role as guardian was rife with conflicts of interest.

Did Terri have her own attorney?

No, she did not. In fact, the judge in this case defaulted as her guardian/attorney.

Was it appropriate for Congress to step in to assist in Terri’s case?

Absolutely. Congress has every right to pass laws that prevent the deaths of innocent persons.

Was this a private family matter?

No. Michael Schiavo chose to take the matter out of the realm of privacy by introducing it to the courts in 1998. It was Terri’s family who reached out to Congress for help in saving her life. Michael had essentially already started a new family with his fiancé and children.

What did the law passed by Congress actually do?

It gave Terri the right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due process rights had not been denied. This is the same right given to all prisoners on death row.

After Terri died of dehydration on March 31, 2005, President George W. Bush remarked:

I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life.

In Terri's case, there were serious doubts and questions. Nonetheless, she was sentenced to death, an agonizingly slow-motion execution. That atrocity happened even though we had a pro-life president in the White House.

Now, of course, we have Obama in the White House, the most radical anti-life president to ever occupy the Oval Office.

On February 26, 2008, in Cleveland during a Democrat primary debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, candidate Obama invoked Terri Schiavo.

Nat Hentoff wrote a piece about that for Jewish World Review.

In none of the endless presidential candidates' debates has there been a meaningful discussion of the rights of disabled Americans. However, in the Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, Barack Obama casually and ignorantly revealed his misunderstanding of the basic issue in the highly visible and still-resonating official death sentence of a disabled woman, Terri Schiavo. I have repeatedly called her death the result of "the longest public execution in American history."

When moderator Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton and Obama if "there are any words or votes that you'd like to take back ... in your careers in public service," Obama answered that in his first year in the Senate, he joined an agreement "that allowed Congress to interject itself (in the Schiavo case) into the decision-making process of the families."

Obama added: 'I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."

When he was a professor of constitutional law, Obama probably instructed his students to research and know all the facts of a case. The reason Congress asked the federal courts to review the Schiavo case was that the 41-year-old woman about to be dehydrated and starved to death was breathing normally on her own, was not terminal, and there was medical evidence that she was responsive, not in a persistent vegetative state.

So if Obama had the opportunity to take back a vote he cast in his years in public service, it would be the one he cast to offer a disabled woman the right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due process rights had not been denied, the same right given to all prisoners on death row.

Obama said, "I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."

Clearly, Obama is on the wrong side when it comes to promoting a Culture of Life and safeguarding the civil liberties of the weak and vulnerable.

Obama actually regrets voting to grant Terri the right to a federal review before being sentenced to death. He regrets having voted to support Terri's right to due process. I find that extremely troubling.

Obama's regrets about granting Terri Schiavo due process and his attitude about the value of her life are even more disturbing given the passage of government-run health care.

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of Obama's top advisers on health care and brother of Rahm Emanuel, takes this stance:

[Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

People like Terri won't stand a chance of receiving treatment or being treated with dignity when health care becomes rationed by the government. They will be denied services because funds are limited. The disabled and the elderly lose under ObamaCare.

Terri's dramatic experience deeply touched so many people, even though nearly all of us were witnesses from afar. For me, her story helped clarify the value of life and what I consider to be our moral obligation to protect the weak and disabled. Her devoted family's desire to care for her and their efforts to save her life were truly inspiring.

Terri's story is a lesson in love.

The struggle for life to prevail, when engulfed in a Culture of Death, is a challenging but morally imperative endeavor.

When speaking of his sister's plight, Bobby Schindler recalls the words of Thomas Jefferson: "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

Obviously, Obama is no Thomas Jefferson. We've already seen the energy Obama puts into his assault on the dignity of human life. Our work to counter his extremist agenda will be more difficult but more important now than ever.

Although today is a sad day, we can honor Terri's memory by continuing to work to build a lasting Culture of Life; keeping in mind the words of Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, that "an attack against life is an attack against God."

On this sixth anniversary of Terri's death, I pray that her parents, her siblings, her other family members and her friends find comfort and peace.
_________________

Prayer in Remembrance of Terri Schiavo

Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life,
And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.

I know that life is always a good,
and that it never loses its value
when it is beset by weakness or injury.

Lord, thank you for the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo.
Even in her suffering and death
She revealed Your glory
and truth that life is always sacred.

As I remember Terri, I also commit myself
to be active in the pro-life movement,
And never to stop defending life
Until all my brothers and sisters are protected,

And our nation once again becomes
A nation with liberty and justice
Not just for some, but for all,
Through Christ our Lord. Amen!

_________________

Observe Terri's Day, March 31, 2011.

Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, in collaboration with Priests for Life, announces the, "International Day of Prayer and Remembrance for Terri Schindler Schiavo, and All of Our Vulnerable Brothers and Sisters," (Terri's Day!), which will be observed each year on March 31, the anniversary of her death.

Activities for Terri's Day:
Suggested Activities for Individuals, Parishes and Schools For Terri's Day 2011!

---Say the Prayer in Remembrance of Terri daily, the week before and after Terri's Day.

---Hold a Memorial Service and/or Mass on Terri's Day.

---Conduct or participate in a parish or school essay contest about what happened to Terri, and the issues surrounding care for the disabled and their right to life.
Create and publicize a website in honor of Terri.

---Invite a speaker to your school, parish, or community organization to address issues surrounding the care of the disabled.

---Organize a letter writing campaign in remembrance of Terri by one or more individuals to local papers or blogs.

---Spend time volunteering at a nursing home or hospital.

---Spend time with a disabled friend or relative.

---Write to or visit elected officials regarding legislation that would increase protection for people facing circumstances like Terri did.

---Fill out, and make others aware of the "Will to Live".

---Register to vote and participate in elections. Challenge candidates on their views regarding Terri and those who face the same challenges and dangers she did.

_________________