An Innocent

A Judge the DEVille would like

2007-09-26T22:34:00.000-07:00

Home | News | Programs | Conferences | Site Map | Contact Us
Search UM Web
Programs

* Bioethics Program
* Business Ethics
* Environmental Ethics
* Florida Bioethics Network
* Genetics and Ethics
* Geriatrics and Ethics
* Guardianship and Ethics
* Health Information Privacy and Security (HIPS) courses
* Health Research Ethics in the Americas
* Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law
* Privacy / Data Protection
* Terri Schiavo Case Resources

Conferences

* Bioethics Conference
* Business Ethics Speaker Series
* Dialogues in Research Ethics
* Environmental Ethics Conference
* Extreme Ethics Conference

View the

Schiavo timeline

Bibliography

Links

Religion and faith-based resources

Conference presentations
Wednesday 26 September 2007
Home / Schiavo Case Resources / Schiavo Timeline
Schiavo Case Resources
Key events in the case of Theresa Marie Schiavo

Kathy Cerminara, Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center

Kenneth Goodman, University of Miami Ethics Programs

Acknowledgements and Citation FormatsGet adobe Acrobat

This copyrighted resource is a joint project of the University of Miami Ethics Programs and the Shepard Broad Law Center at Nova Southeastern University. This content may be reproduced for non-commercial, education purposes only, with (i) permission and (ii) appropriate attribution to the source. (For more information, read our copyright policy.) Please send comments, suggestions and corrections to Ken Goodman, UM Ethics Programs, at ethics@miami.edu. News media and others seeking comment from Florida Bioethics Network leaders should call 305-243-5723.

Timeline

December 3, 1963

Theresa (Terri) Marie Schindler is born in Pennsylvania.

November 10, 1984

Terri Schindler, 20, and Michael Schiavo, 21, are married at Our Lady of Good Counsel Church in Southhampton, Pennsylvania. The union is now among the "celebrity marriages" featured at About.com, a Website about marriage.

1986

The couple move to St. Petersburg, where Ms. Schiavo's parents had retired.

February 25, 1990

Ms. Schiavo suffers cardiac arrest, apparently caused by a potassium imbalance and leading to brain damage due to lack of oxygen. She was taken to the Humana Northside Hospital and was later given a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) to provide nutrition and hydration. Police report

May 12, 1990

Ms. Schiavo is discharged from the hospital and taken to the College Park skilled care and rehabilitation facility.

June 18, 1990

Court appoints Michael Schiavo as guardian; Ms. Schiavo’s parents do not object.

June 30, 1990

Ms. Schiavo is transferred to Bayfront Hospital for further rehabilitation efforts.

September 1990

Ms. Schiavo’s family brings her home, but three weeks later they return her to the College Park facility because the family is “overwhelmed by Terri’s care needs.”

November 1990

Michael Schiavo takes Ms. Schiavo to California for experimental “brain stimulator” treatment, an experimental “thalamic stimulator implant” in her brain.

January 1991

The Schiavos return to Florida; Ms. Schiavo is moved to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center in Brandon where she receives 24-hour care.

July 19, 1991

Ms. Schiavo is transferred to Sable Palms skilled care facility where she receives continuing neurological testing, and regular and aggressive speech/occupational therapy through 1994.

May 1992

Ms. Schiavo’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and Michael Schiavo stop living together.

August 1992

Ms. Schiavo is awarded $250,000 in an out-of-court medical malpractice settlement with one of her physicians.

November 1992

The jury in the medical malpractice trial against another of Ms. Schiavo's physicians awards more than one million dollars. In the end, after attorneys’ fees and other expenses, Michael Schiavo received about $300,000 and about $750,000 was put in a trust fund specifically for Ms. Schiavo’s medical care.

February 14, 1993

Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers have a falling-out over the course of therapy for Ms. Schiavo; Michael Schiavo claims that the Schindlers demand that he share the malpractice money with them.

July 29, 1993

Schindlers attempt to remove Michael Schiavo as Ms. Schiavo’s guardian; the court later dismisses the suit.

March 1, 1994

First guardian ad litem, John H. Pecarek, submits his report. He states that Michael Schiavo has acted appropriately and attentively toward Ms. Schiavo.

May 1998

Michael Schiavo petitions the court to authorize the removal of Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube; the Schindlers oppose, saying that she would want to remain alive. The court appoints Richard Pearse, Esq., to serve as the second guardian ad litem for Ms. Schiavo.

December 20, 1998

The second guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse, Esq., issues his report in which he concludes that Ms. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement and that Michael Schiavo’s decision-making may be influenced by the potential to inherit the remainder of Ms. Schiavo’s estate.
Pearse GAL Report

January 24, 2000

The trial begins; Pinellas-Pasco County Circuit Court Judge George Greer presides.

Testimony of Father Gerard Murphy

February 11, 2000

Judge Greer rules that Ms. Schiavo would have chosen to have the PEG tube removed, and therefore he orders it removed, which, according to doctors, will cause her death in approximately 7 to 14 days.
Trial Court Ruling

March 2, 2000

The Schindlers file a petition with Judge Greer to allow “swallowing” tests to be performed on Ms. Schiavo to determine if she can consume—or learn to consume—nutrients on her own.

March 7, 2000

Judge Greer denies the Schindlers’ petition to perform “swallowing” tests on Ms. Schiavo.

March 24, 2000

Judge Greer grants Michael Schiavo’s petition to limit visitation to Ms. Schiavo as well as to bar pictures. Judge Greer also stays his order until 30 days beyond the final exhaustion of all appeals by the Schindlers.

Greer Stay and Order Limiting Visitation

January 24, 2001

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal (2nd DCA) upholds Judge Greer’s ruling that permits the removal of Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube.

In re Schiavo, 780 So. 2d 176 (2nd DCA 2001), rehearing denied (Feb. 22, 2001), review denied, 789 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2001). (Case No.: SC01-559)

DCA Ruling

February 22, 2001

The Schindler family’s motion for an Appellate Court rehearing is denied.

March 12, 2001

Michael Schiavo petitions Judge Greer to lift his stay, issued March 24, 2000, in order to permit the removal of Ms. Shiavo’s PEG tube.

March 29, 2001

Judge Greer denies Michael Schiavo’s motion to lift stay issued on March 24, 2000; Michael Schiavo can remove Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube at 1 p.m. on April 20.

Greer Order

April 10, 2001

The 2nd DCA denies the Schindlers’ motion to extend Judge Greer’s stay, which is scheduled to expire April 20, 2001.

DCA Order

April 12, 2001

The Schindlers file a motion requesting that Judge Greer recuse himself.

The Schindlers petition the Florida Supreme Court to stay the removal of Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube.

Motion for Stay Part 1

Motion for Stay Part 2

Court’s Request for Response from Schiavo

April 16, 2001

Judge Greer denies the Schindlers’ motion to recuse himself.

April 18, 2001

The Florida Supreme Court chooses not to review the decision of the 2nd DCA.

In re Schiavo, 789 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2001). Case No.: SC01-559

Schindler family’s Notice to Appeal to Supreme Court

Schindlers’ Jurisdictional Brief Part 1

Schindlers’ Jurisdictional Brief Part 2

Order Denying Rehearing and Motion for Stay

April 20, 2001

Federal District Court Judge Richard Lazzara grants the Schindlers a stay until April 23, 2001, to exhaust all their possible appeals.

April 23, 2001

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court refuses to stay the case for a review by that Court.

April 24, 2001

By order of trial court Judge Greer, and upon issuance of a 2nd DCA mandate, Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube is removed

April 26, 2001

The Schindlers file an emergency motion with Judge Greer for relief from judgment based upon new evidence, which includes a claim that a former girlfriend of Michael Schiavo will testify that he lied about Ms. Schiavo’s wishes; Judge Greer dismisses the motion as untimely. Also on this date, the Schindlers file a new civil suit that claims that Michael Schiavo perjured himself when he testified that Ms. Schiavo had stated an aversion to remaining on life support. Pending this new civil trial, Circuit Court Judge Frank Quesada orders Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube to be reinserted.

April 30, 2001

Michael Schiavo files an emergency motion with the 2nd DCA to allow the removal of Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube.

May 9, 2001

The 2nd DCA announces a date for the hearing of oral arguments regarding Michael Schiavo’s motion of April 30, 2001.

June 25, 2001

Arguments in 2nd DCA regarding Michael Schiavo’s motion of April 30, 2001.

July 11, 2001

The 2nd DCA remands the case back to Judge Greer. (1) The 2nd DCA informs the Schindlers that they must address both their desire to have new evidence heard and their perjury claim against Michael Schiavo within the original guardianship proceeding; further, the Schindlers are instructed to file a new motion for relief from judgment in the guardianship proceeding. (2) The 2nd DCA instructs Judge Greer to weigh the Schinders’ new evidence in making a new determination of what Ms. Schiavo would have wanted. (3) The 2nd DCA denies Michael Schiavo’s request to discontinue the PEG tube.

In re Schiavo, 792 So. 2d 551 (2nd DCA 2001).

DCA Order

August 7, 2001

After the 2nd DCA remands the case back to Judge Greer, he again finds that Michael Schiavo may remove Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube on August 28.

August 10, 2001

Judge Greer denies the Schindlers' motion (1) to have their own doctors examine Ms. Schiavo, (2) to remove Michael Schiavo as her guardian, and (3) to disqualify himself from the proceedings.

August 17, 2001

Judge Greer delays the removal of Ms. Schiavo's PEG tube until October 9 in order to allow the Schindlers time to appeal.

October 3, 2001

The 2nd DCA delays the removal of the PEG tube indefinitely.

October 17, 2001

The 2nd DCA rules that 5 doctors should examine Ms. Schiavo to determine if she can improve with new medical treatment. The Schindlers and Michael Schiavo are to choose 2 doctors each, and the court is to appoint a doctor. The appeals court also affirms Greer’s denial of the motion to disqualify himself

In re Schiavo, 800 So. 2d 640 (2nd DCA 2001).

DCA Ruling

November 1, 2001

The 2nd DCA denies Michael Schiavo’s motion to rehear the case.

December 14, 2001

Michael Schiavo petitions the Florida Supreme Court to stay the October 17, 2001, ruling of the 2nd DCA. He states that he and the Schindlers will attempt to mediate the dispute in lieu of further litigation.

Michael Schiavo’s Notice of Appeal to the Florida Supreme Court

Michael Schiavo’s Motion to Stay DCA’s Ruling.

December 19, 2001

Attorneys meet with a mediator to determine which tests doctors should run on Ms. Schiavo.

January 10, 2002

State Supreme Court stays all legal proceedings pending mediation; it orders attorneys to report on the status of mediation in sixty days.

Supreme Court Order of Stay

February 13, 2002

Mediation between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo fails.

Notice that Mediation Failed.

March 14, 2002

The Florida Supreme Court denies Michael Schiavo’s petition to review the 2nd DCA’s ruling allowing 5 doctors to examine Ms. Schiavo.

In re Schiavo, 816 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2002) (Table, No. SC01-2678)

2-13-02 Michael Schiavo’s Jurisdictional Petition.

2-13-02 Michael Schiavo’s Petition to Stay ruling of 2nd DCA (10/17/01).

2-22-02 Court’s Order of Stay pending its final decision.

3-01-02 Schindler’s Jurisdictional Brief

3-13-01 Michael Schiavo’s Motion to Strike

3-14-01 Order Denying Schiavo’s Petition

3-14-01 Order to Strike

October 12-22, 2002

The trial court holds a new hearing on new potential medical treatments.

November 15, 2002

The Schindlers contend that Michael Schiavo might have abused Ms. Schiavo and this abuse led to her condition. They ask the court for more time to collect evidence, and to remove Michael Schiavo as guardian.

Petition to remove MS as guardian

November 22, 2002

Judge Greer rules that Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube should be removed January 3, 2003.

In re Schiavo, 2002 WL 31817960 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov. 22, 2002)(No. 90-2908-GB-003)

Nov22 2002 TC trialctorder11-02.txt

December 13, 2002

Judge Greer stays his November 22 ruling: Ms. Schiavo should not have her PEG tube removed until an appeals court can rule on the case.

December 23, 2002

The 22nd DCA denies a motion Michael Schiavo filed seeking permission to remove the PEG tube.

June 6, 2003

The 22nd DCA, affirming Judge Greer’s November 2002 ruling, concludes that Michael Schiavo can remove Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube on October 15.

In re Schiavo, 851 So. 2d 182 (2nd DCA 2003) (No. 2D02-5394), rehearing denied (July 9, 2003), review denied 855 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2003).

6-06-03 Court Opinion

July 9, 2003

The 22nd DCA refuses to reconsider its decision.

August 22, 2003

The Florida Supreme Court declines to review the decision.

Schindler v. Schiavo, 855 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2003) (Table, No. SC03-1242)

7-24-03 Notice of Schindlers Appeal

7-31-03 Michael Schiavo’s Motion to Vacate

Court Order denying Motion to Vacate

8-07-03 Schindler's Petition for a Supreme Court Review

8-13-03 Michael Shiavo’s Response to Petition for Review

8-18-03 Schindlers motion for a Stay

8-19-03 Court Orders Schiavo to make a Respond for the Motion for Stay

8-20-03 Shiavo’s Response to Motion for Stay

8-22-03 Court Order denying Review and Motion for Stay

August 30, 2003

Ms. Schiavo’s parents file a federal lawsuit challenging the removal of Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube. Schiavos’ petition (D). Schindler v. Schiavo, Civil Action No. 8:03-CV-1860-T-26-T-TGW

September 17, 2003

Judge Greer orders the removal of the PEG tube to take place on October 15, 2003. He also rejects the Schindlers’ request that Ms. Schiavo be given therapy to learn how to eat without the tube.

9-17-03 Court Order

October 7, 2003

Governor Jeb Bush files a federal court brief in support of the Schindlers’ effort to stop the removal of the PEG tube.

October 10, 2003

Federal Court Judge Richard Lazzara rules that he lacks the jurisdiction to hear the federal case.

October 14, 2003

The 2nd DCA refuses to block Judge Greer’s order to remove the PEG tube.

October 15, 2003

Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube is once again removed.

October 17, 2003

The Florida Circuit Court in Pinellas County and the First District Court of Appeal refuse to grant a request by "supporters" of the Schindlers to direct Gov. Bush to intervene in the case.

October 19, 2003

The Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. files a federal court lawsuit that claims that the removal of Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube is abuse and neglect.

Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. v. Schiavo, No. 8:03-CV-2167-T-23EAJ

October 20, 2003

The Florida House of Representatives passes a bill, “Terri’s Law,” that allows the governor to issue a “one-time stay in certain cases.”

House Bill 35-E

October 21, 2003

The Florida Senate passes the bill; Governor Bush issues an executive order directing reinsertion of the PEG tube and appointing a guardian ad litem for Ms. Schiavo.

Executive Order

Statements by Some House members

Michael Schiavo files a state-court lawsuit arguing that “Terri’s Law” is unconstitutional and seeking an injunction to stop the reinsertion of the PEG tube; the court requests briefs on the Constitutional arguments about “Terri’s Law.”

Schiavo Injunction

Schiavo v. Bush. No. 03-008212-CI-20 (Cir. Ct. Pinellas County, Florida).

The federal court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order filed in the lawsuit of the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc.

Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. v. Schiavo, 2003 WL 23305833, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 291 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2003).

US District Court Order

Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube is reinserted.

October 22, 2003

David Demeres, Chief Judge for the Pinellas County Circuit Court, orders both the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo to agree within 5 days on an independent guardian ad litem as required under the Governor’s order. (“Terri’s Law” directs: “Upon issuance of the stay, the chief judge of the circuit court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the patient to make recommendations to the Governor and the court.”)

Schiavo's Response

Schindlers' Response

October 28, 2003

President George W. Bush praises the way his brother, Governor Jeb Bush, has handled the Schiavo matter.
Transcript of Rose Garden Press Conference

October 29, 2003

Michael Schiavo files court papers in his state-court lawsuit, arguing that “Terri’s Law” is unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union has joined Michael Schiavo.

Michael Schiavo petitioner brief

October 31, 2003

Judge Demers appoints Dr. Jay Wolfson as Ms. Schiavo’s guardian ad litem. Dr. Wolfson holds both medical and legal degrees; he is also a public health professor at the University of South Florida. He is supposed to represent Ms. Schiavo’s best interest in court, but he has no authority to make decisions for her.

10-31-03 GAL Appointment

November 4, 2003

Governor Jeb Bush asks Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird to dismiss Michael Schiavo’s suit (filed October 21, 2003) that challenges “Terri’s Law.”

November 8, 2003

Judge Baird denies Governor Bush’s motion to dismiss the state-court suit.

November 10, 2003

Governor Bush appeals Judge Baird’s decision; the filing of the appeal has the effect of staying the removal of Ms. Schiavo’s PEG tube.

November 14, 2003

Judge Baird vacates the stay.

11-14-03 Order vacating stay.

November 14, 2003

In response to Judge Baird’s lifting the stay, the 2nd DCA issues an indefinite stay.

November 19, 2003

Governor Bush files a petition to remove Judge Baird.

11-19-03 Petition

November 21, 2003

Florida Sens. Stephen Wise and Jim Sebesta introduce legislation (S692) that would require persons in persistent vegetative states to be administered medically supplied nutrition and hydration in the absence of a living will, regardless of family beliefs about what those patients would have wanted. The measure is withdrawn from consideration on April 16, 2004.

Bill to require sustenence when no living will exists

December 1, 2003

University of South Florida Prof. Jay Wolfson, guardian ad litem, concludes in his report that Ms. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement.

Wolfson's Report

Governor Bush's response to Wolfson's report

December 10, 2003

The 2nd DCA refuses to remove Judge Baird, who is the presiding judge in the state-court lawsuit filed October 21, 2003.

Bush v. Schiavo, 861 So. 2d 506 (2nd DCA 2003) (No. 2D03-5244)

Court Opinion

January 5, 2004

The Schindler family petitions the Pinellas County Circuit Court to reappoint Jay Wolfson, the guardian ad litem.

1-05-04 Schindlers petition to reappoint GAL

January 8, 2004

Judge Demers rejects the request to reappoint the guardian ad litem, citing the pending court decisions over the constitutionality of “Terri’s Law” as reason to wait on any action.

1-08-04 Order denying reinstatement of GAL

February 13, 2004

The 2nd DCA reverses Judge Baird’s ruling (in the case filed October 21, 2003) that denied the Schindlers permission to intervene in Michael Schiavo’s Constitutional challenge to “Terri’s Law.” The 2nd DCA explains that Judge Baird did not follow proper procedure. The court also gives permission to Governor Bush to question several witnesses who Judge Baird previously had ruled could not offer any relevant testimony.

Bush v. Schiavo, 866 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2004) (on intervention); 866 So. 2d 136 (2nd DCA 2004) (on request to take depositions). (Case No. 2D03-5783).

bushschiavo2 13 04 opn.pdf

2-13-04 Opinion allowing parents to intervene

March 12, 2004

Judge Baird again rejects the Schindlers’ request to intervene in Michael Schiavo’s suit that questions the constitutionality of “Terri’s Law.”

March 20, 2004

Pope John Paul II addresses World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations and Pontifical Academy for Life Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas." His remarks spark widespread interest and controversy.
Pope's address

March 29, 2004

Nursing home workers discover 4 “fresh puncture wounds” on one arm and a fifth wound on the other arm; the workers state that a hypodermic needle appears to have caused the wounds. Attendants discovered the wounds shortly after the Schindlers visited Ms. Schiavo for 45 minutes. Toxicology reports indicate that no substance was injected into Ms. Schiavo. Clearwater police later conclude that the marks might have been made by a device used to move Ms. Schiavo and, in any case, that no evidence of abuse or other wrongdoing could be found.
St. Petersburg Timesreport (May 15, 2004)

March 29, 2004

Judge Greer denies a motion filed by the Schindlers seeking to have Michael Schiavo defend himself in a hearing; they allege that he is violating a 1996 court order that requires him to share a sufficient amount of Ms. Schiavo’s medical information. Michael Schiavo claims that he has shared an adequate amount of information through attorneys.

April 16, 2004

S692 is withdrawn from consideration in the Florida Legislature.
S692 History

April 23, 2004

The 2nd DCA rules that the Pinellas County trial court has jurisdiction to hear and is the proper venue for the case Michael Schiavo has filed against Governor Bush asserting that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional.

2nd DCA Jurisdictional Ruling

May 6, 2004

Pinellas Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird rules that "Terri's Law," sought and signed by Gov. Bush and approved by the Legislature on October 21, 2003, is unconstitutional. The governor appeals the ruling.

Judge Baird's order

June 1, 2004

The 2nd DCA grants a motion from attorneys for Michael Schiavo to send the case directly to the Florida Supreme Court and bypass a lower-court review. Meanwhile, attorneys for Gov. Bush file a motion asking that all appeals be halted until the issue of whether Michael Schiavo has the authority to fight the governor on his wife's behalf is resolved.

June 16, 2004

Florida's Supreme Court, pointing to "a question of great public importance requiring immediate resolution by this Court," accepts jurisdiction and sets oral arguments for August 31, 2004.

Florida Supreme Court order

June 30, 2004

2nd DCA affirms Judge Baird's March 12 ruling denying the Schindlers the ability to intervene in the lawsuit over the constitutionality of "Terri's Law."

July 19, 2004

The Schindlers file a motion in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County seeking relief from judgment in Schindler v. Schiavo. Based in part upon the recent statement by Pope John Paul II, they argue that the orders mandating withdrawal of the PEG tube from Ms. Schiavo and authorizing Michael to challenge the constitutionality of "Terri's Law" violate her "free exercise of her religious beliefs [and] her right to enjoy and defend her own life and, in fact, imperil her immortal soul."
Relief from judgment motion
Appendix to motion(seven exhibits)

July 27, 2004

National group of bioethicists files amicus brief "in support of Michael Schiavo as guardian of the person."

Bioethicists' amicus brief

August 31, 2004

The Florida Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the lawsuit over the constitutionality of "Terri's Law."

Streaming video of the proceedings, archived by WFSU at Florida State University

Transcript

St. Petersburg Times report

August 31, 2004

Circuit Judge George Greer, opposed for re-election by an attorney who was known to oppose Greer's rulings in the Schiavo case, is re-elected by a large margin.

St. Petersburg Times report

September 23, 2004

Florida's Supreme Court, unanimously affirming the trial court order, declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional.
Supreme Court ruling

October 4, 2004

Governor Bush files a motion and then an amended motion for rehearing and clarification of the Florida Supreme Court opinion issued on September 23, 2004

Amended motion for rehearing and clarification

October 21, 2004

Florida Supreme Court denies Governor Bush's amended motion for rehearing and clarification, as well as a motion seeking permission to file a second amended motion for rehearing and clarification. The Court issues a mandate to transfer jurisdiction back to Judge Greer.

Order Denying Motion

October 22, 2004

In Pinellas County, at the trial-court level, Judge Greer denies the motion filed by the Schindlers on July 19, 2004. He also stays the removal of her PEG tube until December 6, 2004.
Order Denying Motion
Order Granting Stay

October 25, 2004

Governor Bush files a motion with the Florida Supreme Court asking that it recall the mandate it issued on October 22 because he will be filing a petition for certiorari regarding this case with the United States Supreme Court.
Motion to Recall Mandate

Appendix to Motion

October 27, 2004

Florida Supreme Court grants Governor Bush's motion asking that it recall the mandate issued on October 22. Proceedings in the trial and all appellate courts in the case of Bush v. Schiavo are stayed until November 29, 2004.

Order Recalling Mandate

November 22, 2004

In the guardianship proceeding in Pinellas County, the Schindlers appeal from Judge Greer’s October 22 order denying their motion for relief from judgment.
Brief Seeking Review

December 1, 2004

Governor Bush files a petition for certiorari, seeking review of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision regarding "Terri’s Law," with the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. Supreme Court Docket

December 29, 2004

2nd DCA, without opinion, denies the Schindlers' November 22 appeal from Judge Greer's order refusing to reopen the guardianship proceeding.

January 10, 2005

The Schindlers again ask Judge Greer to remove Michael Schiavo from his judicial appointed post of Ms. Schiavo’s guardian.

January 13, 2005

The Schindlers file two motions – one in the 2d DCA, asking it to reconsider its decision of December 29, 2004, and a second in the trial court guardianship proceeding, asking Judge Greer once again to prevent withdrawal of nutrition and hydration until the 2d DCA does so.

January 24, 2005

The United States Supreme Court refused to grant review of the case in which the Florida Supreme Court struck down “Terri’s Law” as unconstitutional.

February 7, 2005

Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services cites the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation for failing to register with the state to solicit donations.

February 11, 2005

In Pinellas County, Judge Greer denies the Schindlers' motions, filed January 10 and 13, 2005. The order authorizing withdrawal of the PEG tube remains in effect, although implementation is stayed pending the outcome of currently pending appeals.

February 15, 2005

The Schindlers ask the 2nd DCA to stay the mandate issued when it refused to hear their most recent appeal.

February 16, 2005

Randall Terry, founder of the pro-life activist organization Operation Rescue, appears with the Schindlers at a news conference, vowing protest vigils against removal of the PEG tube.

February 18, 2005

The Schindlers again petition Judge Greer in Pinellas County for reconsideration of the order of February 11, 2005, in which the court upheld its judgment, made in the year 2000, that the PEG tube should be removed.

February 18, 2005

Florida Representatives Baxley Brown; Cannon; Davis, D.; Flores; Goldstein; Lopez-Cantera; Murzin; Quinones; Traviesa introduced H 701 in the Florida Legislature. H 701, mirroring S. 692 (introduced in October 2003 and withdrawn in April 2004), would require maintenance of medically supplied nutrition and hydration in incapacitated persons in most instances.
H.701

February 21, 2005

The 2d DCA denies the Schindlers’ motion of February 15, 2005, clearing the way for removal of the PEG tube when the current stay expires on February 22, 2005. Judge Greer schedules a hearing on the Schindlers’ motion of February 18, 2005, for February 23, 2005.

February 22, 2005

Judge Greer stays removal of the PEG tube until 5 p.m. on February 23, 2005 (after he hears argument on the motion filed by the Schindlers on February 18, 2005).

February 23, 2005

After a hearing, Judge Greer extends the stay preventing removal of the PEG tube until 5 p.m. on February 25, 2005, to permit time to issue an order detailing his decisions regarding matters discussed at the hearing. Officials from Florida’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) move to intervene in the case, but Judge Greer denies the motion to intervene at the hearing.
DCF Motion to Intervene

February 25, 2005

Judge Greer denies the motion before him and orders that, “absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, Theresa Schiavo, at 1 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005.”
Order Denying Stay

February 26, 2005

The St. Petersburg Times reports that a Vatican cardinal spoke on Vatican Radio opposing removal of the PEG tube.
St. Petersburg Times article

February 28, 2005

The Schindlers file a number of motions with Judge Greer, addressing a range of issues. They also indicate that they will appeal the judge's decision of February 25, 2005. Judge Greer denies some of the motions but agreed to set a hearing date to consider others.
St. Petersburg Times article

March 7, 2005

The Schindlers appeal Judge Greer's February 25, 2005 order to the 2nd DCA.
Bioethicists from six Florida universities submit an analysis of H701.
Bioethicists' Analysis
Legal Analysis

March 8, 2005

U.S. Rep. David Weldon (R.-Fla.) introduces in the United States House of Representatives H.R. 1151, titled the Incapactitated Persons' Legal Protection Act. The bill would permit a federal court to review the Schiavo matter through a habeas corpus lawsuit.
H.R. 1151

March 9, 2005

The Florida House Health Care Regulation Committee considers H.701, voting to approve a Council/Committee Substitute 701 instead of the original version.
Council/Committee Substitute 701

March 10, 2005

Judge Greer issues order denying Florida's Department of Children and Families the right to intervene in the guardianship case.

March 14, 2005

The Judiciary Committee in the Florida House considers H.701, voting to approve another Committee substitute for the original bill. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports that the House and the Senate have agreed that this bill will come to a vote.
Second Committee Substitute 701

March 15, 2005

The Florida House Health & Families Council considers and approves the second committee substitute H.701.

The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee passes S.804, providing that medically supplied nutrition and hydration cannot be “suspended from” a person in a PVS if: (1) the purpose of the suspension is “solely to end the life of” a person in a PVS; (2) a conflict exists on the issue of suspension of medically supplied nutrition and hydration among the persons who could be proxy decisionmakers for that person under Florida law; and (3) the person in the PVS had not executed a written advance directive or deignated a health care surrogate.
Senate Bill 804

March 16, 2005

The 2d DCA affirms Judge Greer’s orders and refuses to stay the scheduled March 18 withdrawal of the PEG tube.
2d DCA Opinion

The U.S. House of Representatives, by voice vote, passes H.R. 1332, the Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005. This bill would amend federal law to provide for removal of certain cases to federal court from state court, rather than authorizing use of the federal habeas corpus remedy to obtain federal court review, as H.R. 1151 would have.
H.R. 1332

Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-Pa.) comments (on March 17) on H.R. 1332.
Text of Statement, from Congressional Record

March 17, 2005

The Florida House of Representatives approves H.701, after some amendments.
House-Engrossed H.701

The Florida Senate votes down S.804.
History of S.804

Florida’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) petitions the Florida Supreme Court for relief, and the Florida Supreme Court denies the petition.
DCF All Writs Petition
Florida Supreme Court order

The U.S. Senate passes a “private bill” applying to the Schiavo case but differing from H.R. 1332. The U.S. Senate website, at www.senate.gov, explains a “private bill” as follows: “A private bill provides benefits to specified individuals (including corporate bodies). Individuals sometimes request relief through private legislation when administrative or legal remedies are exhausted. Many private bills deal with immigration–granting citizenship or permanent residency. Private bills may also be introduced for individuals who have claims again the government, veterans benefits claims, claims for military decorations, or taxation problems. The title of a private bill usually begins with the phrase, "For the relief of. . . ." If a private bill is passed in identical form by both houses of Congress and is signed by the President, it becomes a private law.”
U.S. Senate Bill 653 ES
Orlando Sentinel article

The Schindlers ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, but the U.S. Supreme Court denies their petition.
Schindlers’ Petition to U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court Denial

Republican senators circulate a memo on the political advantages of supporting legislation to reinsert Ms. Schiavo's nutrition tube. On April 7, The Washington Post reported that "The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted [on April 6] that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case ... Brian H. Darling, 39, a former lobbyist for the Alexander Strategy Group on gun rights and other issues, offered his resignation and it was immediately accepted, Martinez said."

The Republican Memo
The Washington Post report

March 18, 2005

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform issues five subpoenas: one commanding Michael Schiavo to appear before it and bring with him the “hydration and nutrition equipment” in working order; three commanding physicians and other personnel at the hospice to do the same; and one commanding Ms. Schiavo to appear before it. The subpoenas would require that the PEG tube remain in working order until at least the date of testimony, March 25, 2005. The subpoenas are included as appendices to the U.S. House All Writs Petition (see just below).

The Committee on Government Reform also moves to intervene in the guardianship litigation before Judge Greer and asks Judge Greer to stay his order requiring removal of the PEG tube. Judge Greer denies the motions.
U.S. House Motion to Intervene
U.S. House Motion for Stay

The Committee on Government Reform files an emergency all-writs petition with the Florida Supreme Court, effectively seeking reversal of Judge Greer’s denial of its motions. The Florida Supreme Court denies this petition.
U.S. House All Writs Petition

The House Committee on Government Reform asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Florida Supreme Court’s denial of its petition. Justice Kennedy, acting for the Court, denies the application for relief.
U.S. Supreme Court Docket, Case No. SC05-449

The PEG tube is removed in mid-afternoon. This is the third time the tube has been removed in accordance with court orders.

The Schindlers, as “next friends” of their daughter, file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court in the Middle District of Florida. That court dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction and refuses to issue a temporary restraining order because “there is not a substantial likelihood that [the Schindlers] will prevail on their federal constitutional claims.”

Schindlers' Habeas Corpus Petition

March 19-20, 2005

The U.S. Senate delays its Easter recess and works on Saturday to reach a compromise with the House on a bill, S.686, closely resembling the special bill it passed on March 17. On Palm Sunday (which holiday is frequently noted in debate), it then passes S.686 and the U.S. House of Representatives returns from Easter recess for a special session to debate S.686.
U.S. Senate Compromise Bill S.686

March 20, 2005

House Democrats and Republicans hold news conferences.

March 21, 2005

Shortly past 12:30 a.m., the U.S. House of Representatives votes 203-58 to suspend its rules and pass S.686.
Congressional Debate on S.686

Roll call vote on S.686

President Bush signs S.686 at 1:11 a.m.

Federal District Court Judge James D. Whittemore, Middle District of Florida (in Tampa), hears arguments on the Schindlers' motion that he order re-insertion of the PEG tube while the lawsuit they will assert pursuant to S.686 is litigated.
Schindlers' Complaint
Response to Motion for Injunction
Government's Statement of Interest

March 22, 2005

Federal District Court Judge Whittemore refuses to order re-insertion of the PEG tube.
Federal Court Order

The Schindlers appeal Judge Whittemore’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Schindlers’ 11th Circuit Appeal
Schindlers' Appeal Exhibits
Michael Schiavo’s Response
Government’s Statement of Interest

The Schindlers file an amended complaint in the federal district court, adding a number of new claims.
Schindlers'
Amended Complaint

A look at Capitol Hill politics in Schiavo case.
NPR "Morning Edition" broadcast

March 23, 2005

The U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, denies the Schindlers' appeal.
11th Circuit Opinion

United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, acting en banc (as a whole), refuses to rehear the Schindlers’ appeal, leaving intact the court’s ruling earlier in the day.
En Banc Rehearing Denial

House Democrats and Republicans hold news conferences.

The Florida Senate, by a vote of 21-18, again refuses to pass S.804. This bill was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 15, 2005.
Senate Bill 804
History of S.804

Florida Governor Jeb Bush reports that a neurologist, Dr. William Cheshire, claims that Ms. Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state. The governor asks the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) to obtain custody of Ms. Schiavo in light of allegations of abuse. Judge Greer holds a hearing on the matter.
DCF Motion to Intervene
Dr. Cheshire's Affidavit

The Schindlers file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Schindlers’ Supreme Court Petition
Respondents’ Brief

Judge Greer issues a restraining order prohibiting DCF from removing Ms.Schiavo from the hospice or otherwise re-inserting the PEG tube.

The Schindlers ask again for a restraining order in federal court.
Second Motion for Restraining Order
Memorandum in Support of Motion

Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives ask the U.S. Supreme Court to file a “friend of the court” brief.
U.S. Supreme Court Docket, Case No. 04A825

March 24, 2005

The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear the Schindlers’ case.
U.S. Supreme Court Order
The Schindlers file a Second Amended Complaint, adding several claims, in the federal court case. Count X, titled “Right to Life,” alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to life because removing the PEG tube is “contrary to [Ms. Schiavo’s] wish to live.”
Second Amended Complaint

The trial court (Judge Whittemore) schedules a hearing for 6 p.m. and orders supplemental briefs on Count X.
Whittemore Order

Judge Greer denies DCF’s motion to intervene. DCF appeals Judge Greer’s order. Judge Greer vacates the automatic stay upon appeal. The 2d District Court of Appeal refuses to reinstate the stay. The Florida Supreme Court dismisses a motion on this matter because it “fails to invoke” the court’s jurisdiction.
DCF Motion in Florida Supreme Court (describing events)
Exhibits to Motion
Florida Supreme Court Order

March 25, 2005

Judge Whittemore denies the Schindlers’ second motion for an order re-inserting the PEG tube.
District Court 2d TRO Order

The Schindlers appeal Judge Whittemore’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit affirms. The Schindlers announce that they will pursue no more federal appeals.
Schindlers’ Brief
Responsive Brief
Second Eleventh Circuit Opinion

The Schindlers file an emergency motion attempting to convince Judge Greer to reinsert the PEG, at least temporarily until the Eleventh Circuit decides their appeal. The motion contends her family heard her try to verbalize "I want to live," according to news reports. (This motion and accompanying affidavits comprise Appendix 7 of the Schindlers’ Petition linked under March 26, just below.)

DCF appeals Judge Greer's March 23 denial of its first motion to intervene to the 2d DCA.
DCF Appeal

March 26, 2005

Judge Greer denies the Schindlers' motion of March 25, 2005.
Judge Greer's Order

The Schindlers appeal to the Florida Supreme Court to reverse Judge Greer's refusal to reinsert the PEG tube, but the Florida Supreme Court refuses to do so, citing a lack of jurisdiction.
Schindlers' Petition
Florida Supreme Court Order

News agencies report the arrest on March 25 of Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview, N.C., for offering $250,000 for the killing of Michael Schiavo and another $50,000 for the death of Judge Greer.
CNN Report

The Schindlers advise supporters demonstrating around the hospice to return home to spend the Easter holiday with their families. The protesters remain.

March 27, 2005

In an interview on CNN, Governor Bush says: "I cannot violate a court order. I don't have power from the U.S. Constitution, or the Florida Constitution for that matter, that would allow me to intervene after a decision has been made."

CNN Report

March 29, 2005

The Rev. Jesse Jackson leads a prayer service outside the hospice and speaks out against removal of the PEG tube.

The 2d DCA upholds Judge Greer's ruling refusing to let the DCF intervene.

Despite earlier indications that they would pursue no further federal appeals, the Schindlers petition the entire Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to file a motion for rehearing en banc although the time to do so has expired. A grant of that petition would enable the Schindlers to ask for review of the Eleventh Circuit decision of March 24.

March 30, 2005

The Eleventh Circuit permits the Schindlers' filing and then, acting both through a panel and as a whole, denies the motion for rehearing.Panel Order

Order of Entire Eleventh Circuit

The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to review the Eleventh Circuit ruling.

U.S. Supreme Court Docket

March 31, 2005

Ms. Schiavo dies at 9:05 a.m. Her body is transported to the Pinellas Country Coroners’ Office for an autopsy.

Hospice of the Florida Suncoast issues a statement.
Text of Statement

Florida Gov. Bush issues a statement.
Text of Statement

Judge Greer authorizes Michael Schiavo to administer Ms. Schiavo's estate.
Greer Order

On this date in 1976, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that coma patient Karen Ann Quinlan could be disconnected from her respirator. She remained in a persistent vegetative state and died in 1985.

April 12, 2005

The Wall Street Journal Online/ Harris Interactive Health Care Poll finds that "most people disapprove of how President Bush, Governor Bush, and the Congress handled the issue." Harris Poll

April 15, 2005

In response to a motion from the media, Judge Greer orders DCF to release redacted copies of abuse reports regarding Ms. Schiavo. Newspapers report that DCF found no evidence of abuse after investigating the 89 reports filed before February 18, 2005. Thirty allegations are outstanding and still being investigated, but Judge Greer earlier had ruled that those allegations duplicated those previously filed.
Order and Reports

* Part I
* Part II
* Part III

May 17, 2005

More than six weeks after Ms. Schiavo's death, Lisa Wilson is the last of the hundreds of protesters outside Ms. Schiavo's hospice.St. Petersburg Times ( Report)

June 15, 2005

Dr. Jon Thogmartin, Florida's District Six Medical Examiner, releases the results of Ms. Schiavo's autopsy. He reports that the autopsy showed Ms. Schiavo's condition was "consistent" with a person in a persistent vegetative state. "This damage was irreversible," he said. "No amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons." No evidence of abuse was found, he said.
Autopsy Report and Supporting Documents

June 17, 2005

Florida Governor Jeb Bush asks a state prosecutor to investigate the circumstances of Ms. Schiavo's 1990 cardiac arrest, specifically the amount of time that elapsed between the time Ms. Schiavo collapsed and Michael Schiavo called 911.

June 20, 2005

Despite earlier statements that he intended to bury Ms. Schiavo's remains in Pennsylvania, Michael Schiavo buries them in Clearwater, Florida. The grave marker reads:

Schiavo
Theresa Marie

Beloved Wife

Born December 3, 1963
Departed This Earth
February 25, 1990
At Peace March 31, 2005

I Kept My Promise

Photo of Grave Marker; and AP Report

June 22, 2005
News organizations report that Randall Terry, leader of a pro-life group that demonstrated against removal of Ms. Schiavo's PEG tube, intends to run for Florida State Senate. In that race, he would challenge Sen. James E. King, Jr., who helped block the Florida Legislature's final efforts to force reinsertion of the PEG tube.

June 27, 2005
Prosecutors find no evidence of wrongdoing by Michael Schiavo after Ms. Schiavo's collapse in 1990. They write: "If the available facts are analyzed without preconceptions, it is clear that there is no basis for further investigation. While some questions may remain following the autopsy, the likelihood of finding evidence that criminal acts were responsible for her collapse is not one of them....We strongly recommend that the inquiry be closed and no further action be taken."
Memo from Prosecutors to State Attorney
Memo from State Attorney to Bush

July 7, 2005

Gov. Bush agrees to drop any further investigation into why Ms. Schiavo collapsed in 1990.
Bush Letter to State Attorney

July 8, 2005
According to The Associated Press, "The fledgling Ave Maria University [in Naples, Florida] has established a scholarship in the name of Terri Schiavo for students planning careers in the priesthood."

August 10, 2005
The New York Times reports that Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), referred to Ms. Schiavo's case during a pre-confirmation-hearing meeting with President Bush's U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Judge John Roberts. Senator Wyden reportedly asked Judge Roberts whether he believed Congress should have taken the action it took. Although Judge Roberts reportedly refused to discuss the Schiavo case specifically, Senator Wyden recounts the judge's reply to a more general question as follows: "I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds."
Times Report (archive access payment required)

August 11, 2005
The New York Times reports that the White House disagrees with Senator Wyden's account. "Ed Gillespie, the chief White House lobbyist for Judge Roberts's Senate confirmation, sent a letter . . . saying that the notes taken by a White House aide during the seesion reflected a different response: 'I am aware of court precedents which say Congress can overstep when it prescribes particular outcomes in particular cases.' " Senator Wyden stands by his earlier statement.
Times Report(archive access payment required)

August 16, 2005
A conservative Catholic group wants 18 academics purged from campus for perpetuating "a culture of death" by backing abortion rights or siding against Terry Schiavo's parents, The Associated Press reports.

October 18, 2005
A state judicial nominating commission announces that the lawyer who headed the DCF efforts to intervene in the Schiavo case is a finalist for two new state judgeships.
Orlando Sentinel Report (payment required)

December 7, 2005
Michael Schiavo establishes a political action committee — TerriPAC — to support or oppose politicians based on their positions regarding "government intrusion" in private lives.
TerriPAC Website
Tampa Tribune (Report)

January 21, 2006
Michael Schiavo marries his long-time girlfriend in a private ceremony in a church in Safety Harbor, some 15 miles northwest of Tampa.
St. Petersburg Times (Report)

Last updated 21-Aug-2006
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Disclaimer | Copyright | ©1997-2006 University of Miami, All Rights Reserved.

http://www6.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/timeline.htm

Terri: "nobody cares if I live or die..........If I had lived I would be..................."Breaking the Law"........

2007-09-04T23:40:00.000-07:00

Something you should know about Breaking The Law Lyrics

Title: Judas Priest - Breaking The Law lyrics

Artist: Judas Priest

Visitors: 448 visitors have hited Breaking The Law Lyrics since Feb 12, 2007.

Print: Judas Priest - Breaking The Law Lyrics

"Breaking the Law" by Judas Priest
There I was completely wasting, out of work and down
all inside it's so frustrating as I drift from town to town
feel as though nobody cares if I live or die
so I might as well begin to put some action in my life
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
So much for the golden future, I can't even start
I've had every promise broken, there's anger in my heart
you don't know what it's like, you don't have a clue
if you did you'd find yourselves doing the same thing too
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
You don't know what it's like.....
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law......

The hottest songs from Judas Priest

Judas Priest - Breaking The Law Lyrics

Judas Priest - Living After Midnight Lyrics

Judas Priest - Before The Dawn Lyrics

Judas Priest - Painkiller Lyrics

Judas Priest - Turbo Lover Lyrics

Judas Priest - Diamonds And Rust Lyrics

Judas Priest - Angel Lyrics

Judas Priest - Electric Eye Lyrics

Judas Priest - Hell Bent for Leather Lyrics

Judas Priest - Love Bites Lyrics

Fans who visit this lyrics also like:

Journey - Faithfully Lyrics

Seether - Gasoline Lyrics

Kylie Minogue - Slow Lyrics

Bryan Adams - Run To You Lyrics

Muse - Blackout Lyrics

I thought it was the "Innncent until proven guilty phase" During the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, appellant testified in her own defense.....

2007-08-11T00:53:00.000-07:00

MAROON 5 LYRICS

"She Will Be Loved"

Beauty queen of only eighteen
She had some trouble with herself
He was always there to help her
She always belonged to someone else

I drove for miles and miles
And wound up at your door
I've had you so many times but somehow
I want more

I don't mind spending everyday
Out on your corner in the pouring rain
Look for the girl with the broken smile
Ask her if she wants to stay awhile
And she will be loved
She will be loved

Tap on my window knock on my door
I want to make you feel beautiful
I know I tend to get so insecure
It doesn't matter anymore

It's not always rainbows and butterflies
It's compromise that moves us along, yeah
My heart is full and my door's always open
You can come anytime you want

I don't mind spending everyday
Out on your corner in the pouring rain
Look for the girl with the broken smile
Ask her if she wants to stay awhile
And she will be loved
And she will be loved
And she will be loved
And she will be loved

I know where you hide
Alone in your car
Know all of the things that make you who you are
I know that goodbye means nothing at all
Comes back and begs me to catch her every time she falls

Tap on my window knock on my door
I want to make you feel beautiful

I don't mind spending everyday
Out on your corner in the pouring rain
Look for the girl with the broken smile
Ask her if she wants to stay awhile
And she will be loved
And she will be loved
And she will be loved
And she will be loved

[in the background]
Please don't try so hard to say goodbye
Please don't try so hard to say goodbye

Yeah
[softly]
I don't mind spending everyday
Out on your corner in the pouring rain

Try so hard to say goodbye

This fund was created to address situations like the one Christine and her husband faced.

2007-07-29T09:19:00.000-07:00

Special Needs Children’s Fund

Health Problems Lead Gibbs Family to Homeschooling
One wintry day last December, Christine Gibbs received a call from the nurse's office at school-her son was complaining of chest pain. Although Aaron suffered from serious health problems that frequently interfered with his schooling, this particular symptom was unusual. Christine hurried to school to find her son pale and exhausted. Continuing to complain of chest pain, Christine rushed him to the hospital.

Raising Aaron has always been complicated for Bill and Christine Gibbs of Merrimack, New Hampshire. Diagnosed with Sotos Syndrome, a disorder marked by rapid physical and delayed intellectual development, and a serious cardiac condition, Aaron's precarious health situation and the accompanying special education needs have required additional care and attention. At one point, Christine pulled him from his school classes two months before a surgery in order to keep him healthy. With his health stable and the one-on-one tutoring from his mom, Aaron made the honor roll for that semester. After his recuperation time was complete, Aaron returned to school. His health and grades then deteriorated to the point that the school wanted to label Aaron with severe learning disabilities and adjust his education accordingly.

Frustrated with the school's inability to realize the true nature of Aaron's situation--that his declining grades resulted from his health situation--and firmly convinced that Aaron could excel beyond the level the school imposed on him, Christine took a step of faith. Deciding it was time for a drastic change, she pulled Aaron from all his public school programs and brought him home.

Christine found the perfect curriculum, but to her dismay, the cost was exorbitant. With the considerable medical bills that Aaron's health situation incurred, buying the curriculum seemed out of the question. That's when she heard about the Home School Foundation's Special Needs Children's Fund.

This fund was created to address situations like the one Christine and her husband faced. Supported by the generous gifts of those who recognize the importance of home schooling and the unique challenges facing families with special needs children, the scholarship gives financial assistance in providing important equipment, materials, or other help.

Over the past several months, Aaron has made significant academic gains. "He learns so much better one-on-one," Christine explained. "It really helped a lot to have the curriculum that he needed. I couldn't have done it on my own, and I wouldn't have been able to afford it. We are so thankful for this gift. We know God will continue to provide for Aaron."

The materials purchased with the scholarship have helped enable Aaron to learn in ways that fit his own educational needs. Since December, his health has significantly improved. Christine is excited about all the progress her son is making, and views the scholarship as a key part of that success.

y was Terri's name not on the list?

2007-07-11T00:43:00.000-07:00

Schindler's List is a multiple Academy Award-winning 1993 film based on the book Schindler's Ark by Thomas Keneally. The movie, adapted by Steven Zaillian and directed by Steven Spielberg, relates the tale of Oskar Schindler, a Sudeten-German Catholic businessman who was instrumental in saving the lives of over one thousand Polish Jews during the Final Solution. The title refers to a list of the names of 1,100 Jews whom Schindler hired to work in his factory and kept from being sent to the Nazi concentration camps.

Schindler's List is consistently ranked amongst the best movies of all time. It is currently ranked as the 8th best domestic film by the American Film Institute [1], and, as of June 27, 2007, rated number six on the top 250 films on the Internet Movie Database with an 8.8/10 rating [2].
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Plot
* 2 Cast
* 3 Production
* 4 Response
o 4.1 Awards
* 5 Controversies
* 6 MPAA
* 7 References
* 8 External links

[edit] Plot

The film begins with the relocation of the Jews to Krakow in September of 1939, shortly after the beginning of World War II. Oskar Schindler, an unsuccessful businessman, arrives from Czechoslovakia in hopes of using the abundant slave labor force of Jews to manufacture goods for the German Army. Schindler makes a very good impression early on, being a member of the Nazi Party, and lavishes bribes upon the army and SS officials in charge. His wife, Emilie, comes to visit him in his new home, and is shocked when another woman answers the door. Schindler tells her that if she wishes to stay, it is up to her. She offers to stay, provided there is no further philandering; Schindler waves goodbye to his wife at the train station.

Sponsored by the military, Schindler acquires a factory for the production of metal wares and gains a contact in Itzhak Stern, a functionary in the local Judenrat (Jewish Council) who in turn has contacts with the now underground Jewish business community in the Ghetto. They will loan him the money for the factory, and he will give them a small share of products produced for trade on the black market. Opening the factory, Schindler pleases the Nazis and enjoys his new-found wealth, while Stern handles all administration and uses his position to suggest to Schindler to hire Jews instead of Poles, because their labour is for free. Workers in Schindler's factory are allowed outside the ghetto, and are certified as "essential workers", guaranteeing that they will not be rounded up at night by the Gestapo. This last point is key, and Stern falsifies documents to ensure that as many people as possible are deemed "essential" by the Nazi bureaucracy. Schindler becomes aware of what is going on, but takes no action to stop it.

We are introduced to an SS officer named Amon Göth who arrives in Krakow to initiate construction of a labor camp, Płaszów. He eagerly appeals to Schindler that the Jewish population is a "virus". While surveying the construction of a new building at a concentration camp, a female Jewish engineer urges him to redo the improperly laid foundation for the barrack. Göth immediately mandates her murder and, in the next breath, Göth orders that everything she requested be done. In due course, Göth razes the Krakow ghetto, sending in hundreds of troops to clear the cramped rooms and shooting anyone who cannot or will not leave. Schindler watches the massacre from the hills overlooking the area, and is profoundly affected, especially when he spots a little girl in a red coat. He meets Göth during a dinner with other important SS officers, and is careful to befriend Göth, keeping his disturbances private, and patiently agreeing with Göth and other Nazis' rambling statements about Jews. Having earned his trust, Schindler convinces Göth to let him keep his workers for considerable bribes and pay-offs. Schindler, now reluctantly sheltering people who have very few skills, starts losing money.

In the labor camp, the Jewish prisoners are made to strip naked and to run around the camp's central square while being "physically examined" by physicans as useful laborers or not, with the clear purpose being to separate those capable of labor from those who are too old, too young, or too frail, and will be disposed of. To Amon Göth's considerable consternation, and to Schindler's horror, an order arrives from Berlin commanding Göth to exhume and destroy all bodies of those killed in the ghetto razing, dismantle Płaszów, and to ship the whole population to Auschwitz. He explains to Schindler that he is being asked to do this immediately, and it is the administrative burden that horrifies him, not the thought of having to destroy "every rag": saying to Schindler that, "the party is over". Schindler is further horrified when he observes the same little girl in the red coat seen during the ghetto massacre, her now lifeless body being wheeled to the pit to be consumed and destroyed by fire. He now realizes the abhorrent evil around him and reaches an epiphany. Schindler prevails upon Göth to let him keep his workers, so that he can move them to a factory in his old home of Zwittau-Brinnlitz, in Moravia, away from the Holocaust, now fully underway in Poland. Göth acquiesces, for a payoff of millions of Reichsmark. So that his workers can be kept off the trains to the killing centers, Schindler, with Stern, assembles a list of them.
Schindler rescues one of his workers
Schindler rescues one of his workers

"Schindler's List" comprises these "skilled" inmates, and for many of those in Płaszów camp, being on it means the difference between life and death. Almost all of the people on Schindler's list arrive safely at the new site, with exception to the trains carrying the women, which is accidentally redirected to Auschwitz. Schindler rushes immediately to Auschwitz and stops their gassing. He bribes the camp commander, Rudolf Hoess, with a cache of diamonds. Hoess reluctantly agrees and the women are spared. As the women board the train to the site of the factory, several SS officers attempt to hold some children back and prevent them from leaving. However, Schindler, who is there to personally oversee the boarding, steps in and demands the officers release the children, giving as his reason that their small hands and fingers can clean the insides of small shell casings. Once the Schindler women arrive in Zwittau-Brinnlitz, Schindler institutes firm controls on the Nazi guards assigned to the factory, permits the Jews to observe the Sabbath, and spends the rest of his fortune bribing Nazi officials. In his home town, he surprises his wife while she's in church during mass, and tells her that she is the only woman in his life. She goes with him to the factory to help out with the inmates. He runs out of money just as the German army surrenders, ending the war in Europe.

As a German Nazi and self-described "profiteer of slave labor", Schindler must flee the oncoming Soviet Red Army. After dismissing the Nazi guards to return to their families, he packs a car in the night, and bids farewell to his workers. They give him a letter explaining his actions and that he is not a criminal, together with a ring engraved with the Talmudic quotation, "He who saves the life of one man, saves the world entire." Seeing his luxurious car, Schindler is consumed with guilt, realizing he could have bribed Göth for ten more Jews with it. Panged with the regret of not having done more, Schindler breaks down in front of his workers, then leaves with his wife. The Schindler Jews, having slept outside the factory gates through the night, are awakened by sunlight the next morning. A Soviet dragoon arrives and announces to the Jews that they have been liberated. The Jews walk to a nearby town in search of a place to go. As they walk abreast, the frame changes to another of the Schindler Jews in the present day at the grave of Oskar Schindler in Israel. In the ensuing epilogue the execution of an indifferent Göth by the Red Army for War Crimes is shown.

The film ends by showing a procession of now-aged Jews who worked in Schindler's factory, who reverently set a stone on his grave. The actors portraying the major characters walk hand-in-hand with the actual persons they portrayed, placing stones on Schindler's grave as they pass. The camera pans to the left, revealing a long line of people consisting of not only those portrayed in the film but also their families. Ben Kingsley walks to the grave holding the hand of Itzhak Stern's widow. The movie then imparts that the survivors and descendents of the approximately 1,100 Jews sheltered by Schindler now number over 6,000. It then mentions that the Jewish population of Poland, once numbering in the millions, was at the time of the film's release approximately 4,000. In a final scene, a man (the unseen face of Liam Neeson) places a rose on the grave, and stands contemplatively over it.

[edit] Cast
Actor Role
Liam Neeson Oskar Schindler
Ben Kingsley Itzhak Stern
Ralph Fiennes Amon Göth
Caroline Goodall Emilie Schindler
Jonathan Sagalle Poldek Pfefferberg
Pawel Delag Dolek Horowitz
Embeth Davidtz Helen Hirsch
Malgoscha Gebel Victoria Klonowska
Andrzej Seweryn Julian Scherner
Norbert Weisser Albert Hujar
Daniel Del Ponter Josef Mengele
Harry Nehring Leo John

[edit] Production
The girl in red
The girl in red

Roman Polanski was asked to direct the film. However, he passed on it, having survived the Kraków Ghetto himself. He felt it would be too personal, and would bring up too many hard memories that he was not prepared to deal with at the time. In 2002, he did direct a Holocaust-themed movie, The Pianist, which earned him an Oscar for Best Director. Martin Scorsese was another prospective director, but feeling it should be made by a Jewish director, he traded it to Spielberg in exchange for the rights to remake Cape Fear, which Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment produced. When Steven Spielberg finally signed on he refused payment for making this movie, saying that it would be like "taking blood money."

Steven Spielberg later spoke of the making of the movie as affecting him deeply.[citation needed] It is shot almost entirely in black and white (with a color prologue and epilogue, a red coat in two scenes, and color candle flames in another). It stars Liam Neeson as Oskar Schindler, Ben Kingsley as Itzhak Stern and Ralph Fiennes as Amon Göth. The publicity for the film used the tagline "Whoever saves one life saves the world entire." Critically acclaimed, the film won praise for depicting — often in exceptional, graphic detail — the horrifying brutality of the Holocaust.

The film is very long, for films of that era: 3 hours and 15 minutes. Parts of the film use a multi-repetitive technique: after a common situation is shown repeated among 3 groups of people, it is extended to be shown among 10 groups. Hence, the emotional impact is prolonged using that technique: so that extending similar scenes A, B, C, yields scenes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J. The repetition of similar situations is repeated over and over and over.

Nominated for twelve Academy Awards, it won seven, including the coveted Best Picture and the Best Director award for Spielberg (his first, although he had previously received the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award). Composer and conductor John Williams also won the Academy Award for Original Music Score, which features violin solos by Israeli violinist Itzhak Perlman. Ralph Fiennes' performance earned him a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination. While he didn't get the Oscar, he did win the Best Supporting Actor BAFTA Award, which is the British equivalent. Liam Neeson was also nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor, but did not win.

[edit] Response

* Roger Ebert's review of Schindler's List
* James Berardinelli's review of Schindler's List

Viewers consistently vote Schindler's List among the top ten movies on the Internet Movie Database Top 250, and the American Film Institute voted it #9 on their AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies series, and in 2007 was voted in at #8 for the tenth anniversary list. In addition, the American Film Institute voted Liam Neeson's Schindler as the 13th greatest movie hero of all time, while Ralph Fiennes' Göth was voted the 15th greatest villain in the AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains series. In 2006 it was selected as the 3rd most inspiring movie of all time by AFI's 100 Years... 100 Cheers. In 2004, the Library of Congress deemed the film "culturally significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry.

Initial critical reception was overwhelmingly positive, as Schindler's List was widely lauded as not just a rare achievement of movie-making but a significant cultural event.[citation needed] In addition to its compelling dramatic themes, Schindler's List was viewed by high-school classes throughout the country to impress the horrors of the Holocaust and serve as fodder for discussion of anti-Semitic attitudes ranging from mild suspicion to overt violence.[citation needed]

Schindler's List won seven Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes were nominated for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, but did not win.

In addition, Schindler's List also featured on a number of other "best of" lists, including the Time magazine's Top Hundred as selected by critics Richard Corliss and Richard Schickel, Time Out magazine's 100 Greatest Films Centenary Poll conducted in 1995, Roger Ebert's "Great Movies"' series, and Leonard Maltin's "100 Must See Movies of the Century". In addition, The Vatican named Schindler's List among the top 45 films ever made (In the Values subsection).

Following the success of the film, Spielberg founded and continues to finance the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation, a non-profit organization with the goal of providing an archive for the filmed testimony of as many survivors of the Holocaust as possible, so that their stories will not be lost.[citation needed]

[edit] Awards

Possessing the cultural and emotional impact that it did, Schindler's List was recognized by a considerably large number of award organizations for its excellence for both its content as well as its presentation.

Academy Awards

* Best Picture - Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg, Gerald R. Molen
* Best Director - Steven Spielberg
* Best Music, Original Score - John Williams
* Best Art Direction-Set Decoration - Allan Starski, Ewa Braun
* Best Cinematography - Janusz Kaminski
* Best Film Editing - Michael Kahn
* Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium - Steven Zaillian

BAFTA Awards

* Best Actor in a Supporting Role - Ralph Fiennes
* Best Cinematography - Janusz Kaminski
* Best Editing - Michael Kahn
* Best Film - Steven Spielberg, Gerald R. Molen, Branko Lustig
* Best Score - John Williams
* Best Screenplay, Adapted - Steven Zaillian
* David Lean Award for Direction - Steven Spielberg

Boston Society of Film Critics Awards

* Best Cinematography - Janusz Kaminski
* Best Director - Steven Spielberg
* Best Film
* Best Supporting Actor - Ralph Fiennes

Chicago Film Critics Association Awards

* Best Cinematography - Janusz Kaminski
* Best Director - Steven Spielberg
* Best Picture
* Best Screenplay - Steven Zaillian
* Best Supporting Actor - Ralph Fiennes

Golden Globes, USA

* Best Director, Motion Picture - Steven Spielberg
* Best Motion Picture, Drama
* Best Screenplay, Motion Picture - Steven Zaillian

Other Awards

* Amanda Awards, Best Foreign Feature Film
* Awards of the Japanese Academy, Best Foreign Film
* BMI Film Music Award - John Williams
* British Society of Cinematographers, Best Cinematography Award - Janusz Kaminski
* CEC Award, Best Foreign Film
* DFWFCA Award, Best Director - Steven Spielberg; Best Picture; Best Supporting Actor - Ralph Fiennes
* DGA Award, Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Motion Pictures - Steven Spielberg
* Evening Standard British Film Award, Best Actor - Ben Kingsley
* Grammy, Best Instrumental Composition Written for a Motion Picture - John Williams
* Hochi Film Award , Best Foreign Language Film
* Humanitas Prize, Feature Film Category - Steven Zaillian
* KCFCC Award, Best Director - Steven Spielberg; Best Film
* Kinema Junpo Awards, Best Foreign Language Film
* London Critics Circle Film Awards, British Actor of the Year - Ralph Fiennes; Director of the Year - Steven Spielberg; Film of the Year
* LAFCA Award, Best Cinematography - Janusz Kaminski; Best Picture; Best Production Design - Allan Starski
* Mainichi Film Concours, Best Foreign Language Film
* Motion Picture Sound Editors, Best Sound Editing
* NBR Award , Best Picture
* NSFC Award, Best Cinematography - Janusz Kaminski; Best Director - Steven Spielberg; Best Film; Best Supporting Actor - Ralph Fiennes
* NYFCC Award, Best Cinematography - Janusz Kaminski; Best Film; Best Supporting Actor - Ralph Fiennes
* Nikkan Sports Film Award, Best Foreign Film
* PGA Golden Laurel Awards, Motion Picture Producer of the Year Award
* PFS Award, Human Rights
* SEFCA Award, Best Picture
* USC Scripter Award - Thomas Keneally (author), Steven Zaillian (screenwriter)
* WGA Award (Screen), Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published - Steven Zaillian

[edit] Controversies

According to Czech filmmaker Juraj Herz, the scene in which a group of women confuse a gas chamber with an actual shower is taken directly, shot by shot, from his Zastihla mě noc (1986). Herz says he wanted to sue, but was unable to come up with the money to fund the effort. [3]

On Sunday, February 23, 1997, the film was shown on television in the United States, being carried by NBC with a pair of intermissions by the Ford Motor Company (they consisted of the Ford logo on a black background, the film's soundtrack playing and a small clock indicating how long before the film resumes). Per Spielberg's insistence, it aired unedited and nearly uncensored, although the sex scene was mildly edited by removing nearly all of the "thrusting." The telecast was the first ever to receive a TV-M (now TV-MA) rating under the TV Parental Guidelines that had been established at the beginning of that year. Many fundamentalist and evangelical Christian groups, which had previously been squeamish about the movie [4], stridently objected to the film being shown on network television at all, due to scenes of nudity, violence, and the use of vulgar language which were not edited out of the TV production. Senator Tom Coburn, then an Oklahoma congressman, stated that NBC, by airing the film, had brought television "to an all-time low, with full-frontal nudity, violence and profanity," adding that airing the film was an insult to "decent-minded individuals everywhere." Under fire from fellow Republicans as well as from Democrats, Coburn apologized for his outrage, saying: "My intentions were good, but I've obviously made an error in judgment in how I've gone about saying what I wanted to say." He said he had reversed his opinion on airing the film, but qualified it ought to have been aired later at night, when there aren't, as he said, "large numbers of children watching without parental supervision." [5]. The film was re-broadcast on NBC on Sunday, March 14, 1999, also with two intermissions, this time by Metlife. In 2000 some PBS stations ran an uninterrupted broadcast.

[edit] MPAA

The film was rated R for "language, some sexuality and actuality violence" by the Motion Picture Association of America, making this the first Spielberg-directed feature film to be given an R rating (all previous Spielberg films were rated PG or PG-13).

[edit] References

[edit] External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Schindler's List

* Official website
* Schindler's List at the Internet Movie Database
* Schindler's List at Rotten Tomatoes
* The Shoah Foundation, founded by Steven Spielberg to videotape and preserve the testimonies of Holocaust survivors and witnesses.

Awards
Preceded by
Unforgiven Academy Award for Best Picture
1993 Succeeded by
Forrest Gump
Preceded by
Howards End BAFTA Award for Best Film
1994 Succeeded by
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Preceded by
Scent of a Woman Golden Globe for Best Picture - Drama
1994 Succeeded by
Forrest Gump
v • d • e
Films directed by Steven Spielberg[hide]

Firelight (1964) • Amblin' (1968) • Duel (1971) • The Sugarland Express (1974) • Jaws (1975) • Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) • 1941 (1979) • Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) • E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) • Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983) • Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) • The Color Purple (1985) • Empire of the Sun (1987) • Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) • Always (1989) • Hook (1991) • Jurassic Park (1993) • Schindler's List (1993) • The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) • Amistad (1997) • Saving Private Ryan (1998) • Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001) • Minority Report (2002) • Catch Me if You Can (2002) • The Terminal (2004) • War of the Worlds (2005) • Munich (2005) • Indiana Jones 4 (2008) • Artemis Fowl (2008) • Lincoln (2008) • Interstellar (2009) • Tintin (2009)
Academy Award for Best Picture: Winners (1981–2000)
v • d • e
[hide]

1981: Chariots of Fire | 1982: Gandhi | 1983: Terms of Endearment | 1984: Amadeus | 1985: Out of Africa | 1986: Platoon | 1987: The Last Emperor | 1988: Rain Man | 1989: Driving Miss Daisy | 1990: Dances with Wolves | 1991: The Silence of the Lambs | 1992: Unforgiven | 1993: Schindler's List | 1994: Forrest Gump | 1995: Braveheart | 1996: The English Patient | 1997: Titanic | 1998: Shakespeare in Love | 1999: American Beauty | 2000: Gladiator
Complete List | Winners (1927–1940) | Winners (1941–1960) | Winners (1961–1980) | Winners (2001– )
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List"

Categories: Articles lacking sources from April 2007 | All articles lacking sources | Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements | 1993 films | AFI 100 Years films | Amblin Entertainment films | American films | Best Drama Picture Golden Globe winners | Best Picture Academy Award winners | Biographical films | Drama films | English-language films | Films based on actual events | Films based on fiction books | Films directed by Steven Spielberg | Films over three hours long | Films whose director won the Best Director Academy Award | Films whose director won the Best Director Golden Globe | History of Kraków | Holocaust films | Polish-language films | United States National Film Registry | Universal Pictures films

Like the owner claims a dead horse...............................

2007-07-05T07:26:00.000-07:00

Nathan Muir: When I was a kid I used to spend summers on my uncle's farm. And he had this plow horse he used to work with everyday. He really loved that plow horse. One summer she came up lame. It could barely stand. The vet offered to put her down. You know what my uncle said?
Charles Harker: No, Muir, what did he say?
Nathan Muir: He said, why would I ask somebody else to kill a horse that belonged to me?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266987/quotes

'Cause love's gonna conquer it all, all

2007-05-24T04:31:00.000-07:00

[ CELINE DION Lyrics ]

"That's the way it is"

All The Way...A Decade Of Song
(center text)

I can read your mind and I know your story
I see what you're going through
It's an uphill climb, and I'm feeling sorry
But I know it will come to you

Don't surrender 'cause you can win
In this thing called love

When you want it the most there's no easy way out
When you're ready to go and your heart's left in doubt
Don't give up on your faith
Love comes to those who believe it
And that's the way it is

When you question me for a simple answer
I don't know what to say, no
But it's plain to see, if you stick together
You're gonna find a way, yeah

So don't surrender 'cause you can win
In this thing called love

When you want it the most there's no easy way out
When you're ready to go and your heart's left in doubt
Don't give up on your faith
Love comes to those who believe it
And that's the way it is

When life is empty with no tomorrow
And loneliness starts to call
Baby, don't worry, forget your sorrow
'Cause love's gonna conquer it all, all

When you want it the most there's no easy way out
When you're ready to go and your heart's left in doubt
Don't give up on your faith
Love comes to those who believe it
And that's the way it is

When you want it the most there's no easy way out
When you're ready to go and your heart's left in doubt
Don't give up on your faith
Love comes to those who believe it
And that's the way it is

That's the way it is
That's the way it is, babe
Don't give up on your faith
Love comes to those who believe it
And that's the way it is.

Love Without End, Amen Lyrics

2007-05-12T03:20:00.000-07:00

Love Without End, Amen Lyrics
» George Strait

I got sent home from school one day
With a shiner on my eye
Fightin' was against the rules and it didn't matter why
When Dad got home I told that story just like I'd rehearsed
Then stood there on those tremblin' knees
And waited for the worst

He said, "Let me tell you a secret about a father's love
A secret that my daddy said was just between us"
He said, "Daddies don't just love their children
Every now and then, It's a love without end, amen
It's a love without end, amen"

When I became a father in the spring of '81
There was no doubt that stubborn boy
Was just like my father's son
And when I thought my patience
Had been tested to the end
I took my daddy's secret and passed it on to him

I said, "Let me tell you a secret about a father's love
A secret that my daddy said was just between us"
I said, "Daddies don't just love their children
Every now and then It's a love without end, amen
It's a love without end, amen"

Last night I dreamed I died and stood outside those pearly gates
When suddenly I realized there must be some mistake
If they know half the things I've done
They'll never let me in
Then somewhere from the other side I heard those words again

They said, "Let me tell you a secret about a father's love
A secret that my daddy said was just between us
You see, daddies don't just love their children
Every now and then It's a love without end, amen
It's a love without end, amen"

A court is in session, a verdict is in

2007-05-10T00:16:00.000-07:00

CREED LYRICS

"My Own Prison"

A court is in session, a verdict is in
No appeal on the docket today
Just my own sin
The walls are cold and pale
The cage made of steel
Screams fill the room
Alone I drop and kneel
Silence now the sound
My breath the only motion around
Demons cluttering around
My face showing no emotion
Shackled by my sentence
Expecting no return
Here there is no penance
My skin begins to burn

(And I said oh) So I held my head up high
Hiding hate that burns inside
Which only fuels their selfish pride
(And I said oh) We're all held captive
Out from the sun
A sun that shines on only some
We the meek are all in one

I hear a thunder in the distance
See a vision of a cross
I feel the pain that was given
On that sad day of loss
A lion roars in the darkness
Only he holds the key
A light to free me from my burden
And grant me life eternally

Should have been dead
On a Sunday morning
Banging my head
No time for mourning
Ain't got no time

(And I said oh) So I held my head up high
Hiding hate that burns inside
Which only fuels their selfish pride
(And I said oh) We're all held captive
Out from the sun
A sun that shines on only some
We the meek are all in one

[Guitar break]

I cry out to God
Seeking only his decision
Gabriel stands and confirms
I've created my own prison
I cry out to God
Seeking only his decision
Gabriel stands and confirms
I've created my own prison

(And I said oh) So I held my head up high
Hiding hate that burns inside
Which only fuels their selfish pride
(And I said oh) We're all held captive
Out from the sun
A sun that shines on only some
We the meek are all in one

(And I said oh) So I held my head up high
Hiding hate that burns inside
Which only fuels their selfish pride
(And I said oh) We're all held captive
Out from the sun
A sun that shines on only some
We the meek are all in one

Should've been dead on a Sunday morning
banging my head
No time for mourning
Ain't got no time

[ www.azlyrics.com ]

I'll do what it takes til' I touch the sky

2007-04-30T23:55:00.000-07:00

KELLY CLARKSON LYRICS

"Breakaway"

Grew up in a small town
And when the rain would fall down
I'd just stare out my window
Dreaming of what could be
And if I'd end up happy
I would pray (I would pray)

Trying hard to reach out
But when I tried to speak out
Felt like no one could hear me
Wanted to belong here
But something felt so wrong here
So I prayed I could break away

[Chorus:]
I'll spread my wings and I'll learn how to fly
I'll do what it takes til' I touch the sky
And I'll make a wish
Take a chance
Make a change
And breakaway
Out of the darkness and into the sun
But I won't forget all the ones that I love
I'll take a risk
Take a chance
Make a change
And breakaway

Wanna feel the warm breeze
Sleep under a palm tree
Feel the rush of the ocean
Get onboard a fast train
Travel on a jet plane, far away (I will)
And breakaway

[Chorus]

Buildings with a hundred floors
Swinging around revolving doors
Maybe I don't know where they'll take me but
Gotta keep moving on, moving on
Fly away, breakaway

I'll spread my wings
And I'll learn how to fly
Though it's not easy to tell you goodbye
I gotta take a risk
Take a chance
Make a change
And breakaway
Out of the darkness and into the sun
But I won't forget the place I come from
I gotta take a risk
Take a chance
Make a change
And breakaway, breakaway, breakaway

[Thanks to WNBA13asketball@charter.net for these lyrics]
[Thanks to freiberger.5@osu.edu, wsuqi85@gmail.com, segaqueen91@yahoo.com, Digdirt17@msn.com for correcting these lyrics]

[ www.azlyrics.com ]

Magic

2007-04-20T03:24:00.000-07:00

Police Lyrics - Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic Lyrics

Artist: Police Lyrics
Song: Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic Lyrics

Though I’ve tried before to tell her
Of the feelings I have for her in my heart
Every time that I come near her
I just lose my nerve
As I’ve done from the start

Every little thing she does is magic
Everything she do just turns me on
Even though my life before was tragic
Now I know my love for her goes on

Do I have to tell the story
Of a thousand rainy days since we first met
It’s a big enough umbrella
But it’s always me that ends up getting wet

Every little thing she does is magic
Everything she do just turns me on
Even though my life before was tragic
Now I know my love for her goes on

I resolve to call her up a thousand times a day
And ask her if she’ll marry me in some old fashioned way
But my silent fears have gripped me
Long before I reach the phone
Long before my tongue has tripped me
Must I always be alone?

Every little thing she does is magic
Everything she do just turns me on
Even though my life before was tragic
Now I know my love for her goes on

It's not over~You've taken away everything ~ 'Cause a part of me is dead and in the ground.

2007-04-05T07:59:00.000-07:00

Artist: Daughtry
Album: Daughtry
Title: It's Not Over

I was blown away.
What could I say?
It all seemed to make sense.
You've taken away everything,
And I can't deal with that.
I try to see the good in life,
But good things in life are hard to find.
We'll blow it away, blow it away.
Can we make this something good?
Well, I'll try to do it right this time around.

Let's start over.
I'll try to do it right this time around.
It's not over.
'Cause a part of me is dead and in the ground.
This love is killing me,
But you're the only one.
It's not over.

Taken all I could take,
And I cannot wait.
We're wasting too much time
Being strong, holding on.
Can't let it bring us down.
My life with you means everything,
So I won't give up that easily.
I'll blow it away, blow it away.
Can we make this something good?
'Cause it's all misunderstood.
Well, I'll try to do it right this time around.

Let's start over.
I'll try to do it right this time around.
It's not over.
'Cause a part of me is dead and in the ground.
This love is killing me,
But you're the only one.
It's not over.

We can't let this get away.
Let it out, let it out.
Don't get caught up in yourself.
Let it out.

Let's start over.
I'll try to do it right this time around.
It's not over.
'Cause a part of me is dead and in the ground.
This love is killing me,
But you're the only one.
It's not over.

Let's start over.
It's not over, yeah...
This love is killing me,
But you're the only one.
It's not over.

Schiavo widower battles politicians over privacyHusband of right-to-die figure in campaign against government intrusion

2006-07-13T23:13:00.000-07:00

Schiavo widower battles politicians over privacy
Husband of right-to-die figure in campaign against government intrusion

Updated: 2:01 p.m. CT July 13, 2006
DENVER - The man who last year won a bruising battle to disconnect his brain-damaged wife from a feeding tube is campaigning against government intrusion around the country.

The political action committee formed by Michael Schiavo — whose wife, Terri, died after a seven-year court and political fight that reached Capitol Hill — has raised about $25,000 and is targeting races in Colorado, Florida and Texas.

Schiavo came to Colorado on Wednesday to support Democratic candidates for the U.S. House, including Angie Paccione, who is challenging Rep. Marilyn Musgrave. Musgrave spoke last year on the floor of the House against allowing Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube to be removed.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I want to ask Marilyn Musgrave who gave her the right to speak about Terri,” Schiavo said. “Who gave her the authority to bring Congress into my family decisions?”

Musgrave, who represents a sprawling district in eastern Colorado, issued a statement saying, “I have only compassion for Michael and Terri’s family, and all those who have lost a loved one.”

Pat Anderson, a Florida attorney who represented Terri Schiavo’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, said she found Michael Schiavo’s political campaigning offensive.

“Somebody needs to tell this guy his 15 minutes of fame are up,” she said.

Terri Schiavo collapsed in 1990, her heart stopped and she suffered what doctors said was irreversible brain damage that left her in a permanent vegetative state. Michael Schiavo said his wife had told him she wouldn’t want to be kept alive artificially, and in 1998 he asked a court to allow her feeding tube to be removed.

Her parents fought the request in the courts, and congressional leaders from both parties agreed on a bill to let a federal court to review the case and prolong Terry Schiavo’s life. Michael Schiavo, 43, won final approval to remove the tube in March 2005.

GOP criticism
State GOP chairman Bob Martinez criticized Schiavo’s involvement in Colorado, saying he thinks most residents “were appalled to learn that Michael Schiavo is helping political candidates profit off his wife’s death.”

But Peggy Lamm, another Democratic congressional candidate, said she is proud of Schiavo’s support.

“He wouldn’t even be here if it weren’t for the shameful way the Schiavos were treated by the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress,” she said in a statement.

Schiavo has remarried, co-authored a book titled “Terri: The Truth” and has said he is determined to develop a political career.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

HARD FACTS SHOULD BE EASY TO RULE --

2006-07-07T23:45:00.000-07:00

1
Power of Life and Power of Death.
On the “Judgement of Solomon”.
Jean-Jacques Delfour *
For a long time, one of the characteristic privileges of sovereign power
was the right of life and death. Michel Foucault is doubtless right to assert
that, during the classical age, “the ancient right to take life or let live was
replaced by a power to foster life or disallow it to the point of death.”1
Thus, as sovereign power became bio-power, power over life, by means
of an anatomo-politics of the human body and a bio-politics of the
population, which consisted in producing and adding to the lifeblood of
the nation, the “right of death” manifested itself “as simply the reverse of
the right of the social body to ensure, maintain or develop its life.”2
This continuity does not prevent there being a “startling
dissymetry” in the old right of life and death:
The sovereign exercised his right of life only by exercising
his right to kill, or by refraining from killing; he evidenced his
power over life only through the death he was capable of
requiring.3
* The author is a senior secondary school teacher of philosophy, preparing students for entrance
examinations to France’s élite “grandes écoles”. He manages the philosophy website of the Toulouse
regional education authority (http://pedagogie.ac-toulouse.fr/philosophie/index.html). 1 Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality (London: Penguin, 1990), p. 138. See also the lecture
delivered at the Collège de France on 17 March 1976 in Foucault, Society Must Be Defended (London:
Penguin, 2004), p. 240. 2 The History of Sexuality, p. 136. 3 Ibid.
2
Sovereign power’s effect on life is exercised only when the
sovereign can kill. The very essence of the right of life and death is
actually the right to kill; it is at the moment when the sovereign can
kill that he exercises his right over life.4
When Foucault characterizes this right of life and death as the right
to “take life or let live”, he eliminates the masking of dissymetry that is
effected by the traditional formula, in order to stress the characteristic of
modern power as “exactly opposite”.5
Among other difficulties, this analysis of the power of life and
death fails to resolve the problem of the articulation between power’s
capacity to kill and the need for that effective possibility of killing not to
be implemented. Indeed, though “the power of life and death” is
exercised over life only at the moment when it can kill, it is nonetheless
certain that this possibility of killing produces power effects if, and only
if, it is not really exercised (at least on those who are to be made subject,
for what point would there be in reigning over corpses?). Admittedly,
power (to kill) may content itself with instilling fear and, thus, with
merely showing that it really possesses the ability to kill and that it is
capable of deciding to use it, though this presupposes that power make its
capacity to kill credible, both as effective and as suspensive capacity.6 Is it
not essential that sovereign power withhold its capability of killing? Is it
not fundamental that power exert this capability to kill only in the mode
of a possibility that is denied to everyone (is this not one of the ends
4 Society Must Be Defended, p. 240. 5 Ibid. 6 As Foucault says, allusively since it is not his main theme, in the first volume of The History of
Sexuality: the sovereign exercises “his right of life only by exercising his right to kill, or by refraining
from killing” (my emphasis); to exercise that power or to refrain from so doing is not to actualize it
purely and simply.

3
assigned to sovereign power: to prevent violent death, killing or being
killed) and also, in a sense, to itself?
So much so that this “power of life and death” has perhaps to be
determined not as power to take life or let live, but precisely as power not
to kill; to the point where its essence would culminate in the suspension
of the capacity to kill. But, at that point, another problem arises for
power. How can it enforce its rule?7 Who would obey a power that
consists precisely in not being exercised? In what ways are we to ascribe
authority to a force that refuses to exert itself? This assumes a dialectic
that cannot be described simply by the difference between “making” and
“letting”, between acting and abstaining from acting. It is neither
withholding the power to kill that produces the effect of authority nor the
threat of killing. In the former case, power would be in danger of losing
its credibility; in the latter, its authority (based on the fear of dying) could
turn into authoritarianism. How to avoid the collapse of power by lack of
authority or by excess of it?
A particular reading of the “Judgement of Solomon” can cast light
on these entanglements and this dialectic. By contrast with the idea that
power pacifies the community by rooting out violent tendencies or by
deterring their expression, this myth shows the many-sided ways in which
power is exercised. It has, admittedly, the ability to resolve conflicts; but
it is a just power if it attunes itself to truth, if it differentiates between true
and false speech, if it grants their proper place to both the desire for life
and the desire for death. It does this by utilising fictions and simulacra in
which possibilities of being human are expressed that are themselves
violent – a death wish. The ordering of these fictions is the work of
power, and in that work are articulated the real and the phantasmic, the
7 Hobbes rarely mentions a power of life and death; there are two occurrences in Leviathan, II, 21 and
III, 38; one occurrence of a right of life and death in De Cive, I, II, 18.

4
destructive potentiality and that which should be - the morally necessary
or the just - which, in the real, is lacking.
Untangling a Situation of Omnipotence
The First Book of Kings begins with the narrative of Solomon’s
accession to the throne. He is named by King David as his successor and
fights against his own brother. The first two chapters relate the violent
acts by which he first seized the kingship and then strengthened it.8
Solomon lays hold of power: he avenges the person who has to be
avenged (David) and punishes his rival (in putting to death his brother
Adonijah). His power is based on putting to death. Obedience to power is
based here on the fear of dying, that is to say, on his real power, potential
and exercized, to take life.
And yet Solomon admits that he does not know how to act as a
leader. One of his difficulties is how to govern a multitude that “cannot
be numbered”, a people so numerous that they are beyond counting.
“Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people,
that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy
so great a people?”9 This multitude is of such variety and dimensions
that it is beyond knowledge. Power is conceived as being incapable of
being backed by knowledge, the possession of which determines the
difference between divine and human power. In fact, according to 2
Samuel 24: 10, it is a sin to number the people, because it is God who
8 1 Kings 2: 46. All refe rences to the Old Testament are taken from the Authorized King James
Version. 9 1 Kings 3: 9.

5
keeps the register of who is to live and who is to die.10 Another reading is
possible. To say that a multitude is innumerable is not simply to make the
exercise of power depend on a technical knowledge that is not so difficult
to obtain, but, above all, to imply the unknowable character of human
subjects. Thus Solomon is saying that he cannot yield power if he does
not know who the subjects of that power are. It is identity, both historical
– of acts and deeds - and psychical, internal, that is beyond grasp.
Solomon, renouncing this total knowledge of the acts and deeds of
his subjects, asks God to bestow upon him the faculty of judgement and
the power to discern good from evil. He is aware that power, as long as it
is reduced to using force for its own preservation, suffers from the lack of
a fundamental element: legitimacy. This is not granted with power or its
possession; nor does it derive from the exercise of power (which can
either cause him to lose it or, conversely, confer it upon him). In the Old
Testament perspective, legitimacy comes to the king from his knowing
how to bring justice into being in the society. Thus, the apparently
irresolvable case of a conflict over maternity that is offered up to
Solomon in his wisdom is the test by which he proves he is worthy to
exercise the royal power David has bestowed upon him.
In the case in question, the father of the child is not identifiable: it
is one of the clients of one of two harlots living under the same roof. The
problem of this child is that he loses his identity by suddenly having two
10 An ambivalent formula that draws a parallel between the act of counting the dead and the living and
the act of taking life or letting live. In this Jewish understanding of power, the right to kill does not
belong to human power. Does it belong to the God? The answer comes at the beginning of Genesis
chapter 9: the God commits himself not only to no longer punishing men (see Genesis 8: 21), but
blesses them and urges them to be fruitful (Genesis 9: 1-3, and also at 1: 29 and 9: 7) on one condition:
that they refrain from killing (Genesis 9: 4-6). In other words, the God gives up the operation of justice
and entrusts it to men themselves. It is because He commits himself to maintaining life and, hence,
because He withdraws from the world as a real power acting on nature, that He asks a reciprocal
commitment from men not to violate human life. In a sense, this Noachic covenant is the prelude to the
sixth of the Ten Co mmandments: “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20: 13). If, then, the God has
renounced the power to kill, to whom or to what does it belong?

6
mothers or, more exactly, by acquiring a dangerous proximity to a
newborn child who is of the same age but dead.
Then came there two women that were harlots, unto the king, and
stood before him./ And the one woman said, O my lord, I and this
woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her
in the house./ And it came to pass the third day after that I was
delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were
together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two
in the house./ And this woman’s child died in the night; because
she overlaid it./ And she arose at midnight, and took my son from
beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom,
and laid her dead child in my bosom./ And when I rose in the
morning to give my child suck, behold, it was dead: but when I
considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my son, which I
did bear.11
The difficulty of the situation is twofold: on the one hand, the
involuntary killing – at least it must be supposed such – of one of the two
children; on the other, the absence of a father, which makes it impossible
to differentiate between the living and the dead children in terms of their
genealogy. Hence the impossibility of pronouncing on the identity of the
child and determining who is the mother of the dead child, who of the
living one. The child’s personality, which is defined by genealogical
discourse, disappears beneath the death of his specular double, the other
child, almost equal in age and indiscernible from him, except to the
mothers. The child’s identity becomes blurred, becomes double,
meandering between that of a live son and a dead one amid an exchange

7
of tragically identical words that mirror each other without any difference
emerging to trouble these claims, for, admittedly, the one speaks in bad
faith, but the other speaks only in good faith:
And the other woman said, Nay; but the living is my son, and the
dead is thy son: and this said, No; but the dead is thy son, and the
living is my son.12
It is not the accidental death itself that gives rise to the difficulty: it
is the desire on the part of each woman to be the mother of a living child,
combined with the absence of a father, that produces the inextricable
situation Solomon has to untangle. The mother of the dead child will not
give up her desire for a child; the substitution she carries out without the
other woman’s knowledge has no other aim than to preserve an actualized
force of being, motherhood, that has accidentally been lost. The fictive
character of this substitution is subjectively acceptable by dint of the
relative anonymity of the newborn and because the desire will not modify
itself in response to the changed facts of the situation – in such a way that
the death is denied. The indeterminacy of the father renders the children
borne by the two women equivalent, to the point where the non-differentiation
between the dead and the living children echoes the
indifference of their fathers to the harlots and the harlots’ indifference to
their “clients”. In the fathers’ existences, the child is a nothing for thought
and a relational nothing.
The eclipsing of the paternal figure here leaves the woman alone in
her status as mother, her situation enhanced by the child (which can be
understood as a force of being waiting to be restored to itself – to be
11 1 Kings 3: 16-21. 12 1 Kings 3: 22.

8
restored to a self, the building of which it falls to culture to set in train).
What the force of being specific to the child may become is governed by
cultural mechanisms and oriented towards socially useful ends. In this
case, the power of child-bearing is left to itself, in isolation from others
and from the social order: “We were together; there was no stranger with
us in the house, save we two in the house.” This “save we two” is a state
both of precariousness (“only we two”) and of freedom – there is no one
to account to, “we two and no one else”. This limited, fusional and
exclusive community is the relational pendant to the social marginality
peculiar to the condition of harlot or prostitute. That condition tends to
delay the child’s passage into the realm of social utility; this utility is a
power with which parents always have to negotiate their right to raise
their children and impress their own “mark” upon them (or at least
attempt to do so).
These three elements, the absence of a father,13 the status of
prostitute and the communal life of these two women, combine their
centripetal tendencies and play their part in setting up a situation of
omnipotence. This situation is characterized by the dependency of the
child and by its being handed over absolutely not just to the desires of its
mother, but also, and above all, to those same desires stripped of the
limitations deriving from the countervailing powers that are the father, an
acknowledged – and therefore norm-governed – individual social position
and the intertwining of the field of immediate life with general social life
(the embedding of the home in the regulative bonds of its
neighbourhood). These three aspects, which are absent here, are sources
of limitation: in each case they provide an obligation to negotiate, share
13 The father here, reduced to the rank of begetter, has no personal face, no identity; his absence of
personality rebounds upon the child himself, who, in terms of phantasy, is almost nothing but an
empty, anonymous biotic receptacle. This child is the residue of prostitutional activity. That socially

9
and combine the force of being with the desires of others, with the father
as much as with the social rules that govern individuals both in their
behaviour and in their internal mental elaborations – negotiations that are
all the more necessary for the fact that childbirth is also, in certain
respects, a phantasmic experience of omnipotence.
The situation of omnipotence derives from the concatenation and
superimposition of several closed psychical spaces devoid of sources of
moderation: genealogically, in the indeterminacy of the child’s identity,
in his lack of a name; instinctually, in the indeterminacy of the sexual and
personal status of the two prostitutes (possible mothers, unwilling
mothers and/or sexual dustbins); socially, in the indeterminacy of the
relational field of the children by dint of the social characteristics of the
place where they live (a “brothel” or “house of ill-repute”).
It is the accumulation and coordination of these different strata
which here produce a real, and not merely phantasmic, omnipotence,
provided that one grants the absence of countervailing power or other
legitimate power and the closure of the living space the character of real
conditions. That closure is not simple, for the life of a prostitute implies a
sort of permanent public exhibition and hence an absence of private or
personal life – or merely a residual one – since that life is, sexually
speaking, an activity linked to the “work” of prostitution. Closure refers
here both to the relaxation of the social norms of regulation of generative
potency and to the absence or contraction of the private space in which
personal imaginative elaboration may exist, a fantasy life uncoupled from
social reality and its ascendancy. It is in this sense that the child is
nothing but a receptacle for phantasmic projections for which there are no
normal outlets. He is, from the outset, separated from the social regimes
outcast status further increases the hold of the two women over their child, a hold that is partially
unbound from a normative reference to the social order by the condition of prostitute.

10
of identification and determination that confer a “reality” on him, that
assign him a field of human possibilities for being. Thus, omnipotence
appears when the force of being has no countervailing powers limiting it,
or dividing lines articulating it to reality.
This is perhaps why, in the myth, one of the two children died, one
night, “because she overlaid it”. To “overlay” – or fall asleep on – a
fantasy or a creature so indeterminate and socially disgraced as that
nameless child is not likely to produce a great disaster. He is, indeed,
detestable, insofar as he represents the involuntary, contemptible
consequence of loveless sexual relations: he is the burden and the living
trace of unknown, uncaring men. Neither entirely hers, because he is not
desired but suffered, nor entirely other, because he is the product of the
activity of prostitution; impossible to refer to another since the begetter is
indeterminate and indeterminable – to the point, perhaps, where the two
children may be brothers – and, at the same time, irremediably hers since
he issued from the mother’s body and she has necessarily to look after
him. Detestable and given, derisory and dependent, this creature is at the
same time very much alive: it is “overlaying him” that kills him - whether
to protect him, to take him back into her womb, to suffocate him, to be
done with him, or to punish his “father” through him and, with that, the
place of his birth, out of vengeance or weariness, in what was probably a
trance-like state, and at any rate an unconscious, involuntary one
(otherwise how are we to explain the subsequent substitution?).
This involuntary killing is the actualization, where the child is
concerned, of the situational omnipotence – of a power to give birth
which becomes a power of life and death in a particular sense. Namely,
that the nocturnal suffocation is in no sense a deed produced by a
conscious, deliberate act, but rather the opposite, unexpected effect of an
effort to protect life; it is, then, as power of life that tragically this mother
11
kills her child. Quite unlike the political power “of life and death”, which
consciously decides to let live or, by the manifest contrary, to kill, the
mother here, by striving to keep him alive puts her own child to death.14
In the face of this factual non-differentiation between life and
death, the mother whose child has died strives to banish that reality by
means of an illusion: the nocturnal substitution, the switching of the
children. This is both the encounter with a real limit to omnipotence and
the attempt to extend the omnipotence in an act of child-snatching that is
the more plausible and the more effective, in spite of its fictive character,
for the fact that the two children are equivalent in their genealogical,
existential indeterminacy. This moment is a divided one. For the extended
omnipotence appears illusory: the abandonment of the dead child and the
exchange of that child for the living one is as much the denial of the
difference between life and death as the implicit or de facto
acknowledgement of an absolute limit. To which there corresponds a
denial de actu.
However, that denial does not continue purely and simply in words
at the point when the protest is made to Solomon and the living child is
claimed. A new element is added to it: the assertion of an identity of her
own by the assertion of a desire of her own – the desire “to be the mother
of a living child” – through the affirmation of a bond of possession. The
desire, on the one hand, wants only the acknowledgement of what is, but
is hidden; on the other hand, it would like the continuation of what is no
longer in the order of reality, but which, as desire, still exists. In both
cases, acknowledgement of the difference between life and death is made,
but nothing can come of it because the reality of the death of one of the
children is incompatible with the desires of each of the women.
14 We shall see that just power (represented by the action of Solomon), by striving to act as if to kill the
child, helps the law of life to prevail.

12
Also, the recourse to a third party, the judge Solomon, implies the
decision to acknowledge that the real situation represents an
insurmountable impasse. Each woman now attempts unsuccessfully to
establish herself in a state of omnipotence: the mother of the living child
would like to be believed simply at her word, whereas the mother of the
dead child would like her desire for a child to be met and the denial of the
death of her child to be accepted without mediation. In reality, both feel
the pain of this difficult situation; each knows that her claim cannot be
met and that a third party has to be brought in if it is to be possible once
again to distinguish desire from reality and accord the reality of the
child’s death its place.
The Apparent Injustice of the Judgement
How does Solomon deal with the difficulty? He listens to the desire
of the two women and, rather than resist, is receptive to the omnipotence
that manifests itself in that desire:
Thus spake they before the king./ Then said the king, The one
saith, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead: and the
other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living./
And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword
before the king./ And the king said, Divide the living child in two,
and give half to the one, and half to the other.15
Solomon registers the silence in respect of the dead child and
listens literally, so to speak, to the desire of the two women, who advance
the same claim on a living child who is, in reality, indivisible into two

13
halves. He acts as though the child were divisible without its integrity
being affected, as though the real, living child were identical to the two
halves of the same dead child. This fiction presupposes, in fact, a
phantasmic support on omnipotence: the sort that can raise human power
to a kind of divine power for which death would be no obstacle.
But this fiction is the fiction of desire itself. The two women do, in
effect, advance an equal claim, which admits neither of compromise nor
negotiation, and which therefore desires to be totally satisfied, and shows
indifference to the other woman’s position. Each shows no concern
whatever for the other’s experiences, the other’s specific situation. This
desire to be blinded to the other masks a tangib le difference between the
significance of their words, even though these are formally identical.
They know exactly how things stand; they know who has a living son and
who a dead one. The woman whose child is dead speaks in the mode of
desire: she would like her son to be alive and the other’s child to be the
dead one. By contrast, the woman whose child is alive acts as though the
pain of having involuntarily killed one’s own son were equal to her own
pain at not having her son, who is still alive, with her; the extreme
violence the other woman undergoes has no other status than that of a
threat to her own possessive enjoyment.
Each woman refers, in her desire, to an omnipotence capable either
of bringing the dead child back to life or containing the other’s desire and
protecting her own. Far from acknowledging the non-differentiation of
life and death in which the child died, Solomon proposes repeating the
killing of the child, but in an entirely new modality: it is a question now
of substituting for the past, involuntary death, the conscious, future act of
murder. In this proposal, Solomon takes upon himself the injustice and
omnipotence immanent in the situation and in the two women’s claims:
15 1 Kings 3: 22-25.

14
but in a way that consists neither in repeating these nor subscribing to
them. Solomon assumes omnipotence in the same way as the two
women’s desire assumes it; but he does not adopt it, does not make it his
own. He obeys the two women, so to speak. They each want an identical
“thing” and will not accept the slightest modification. He attempts to
meet their desire without judging it, without expressing the obvious
consequence of such a division and, prior to that, of such intransigence.
In order to cure them of omnipotence, Solomon accepts a
provisional, strategic identification with the morbid position of each of
the two mothers, the position specific to each of them. For, if the one is
wrong to deny the death of her own son and to demand from the other a
child on whom she has no legitimate claim, but which she has simply
taken by force, the other woman is wrong, for her part, to regard the first
woman’s suffering as negligible, not to consider any compromise solution
and to show no compassion for the woman who has involuntarily killed
her own son. Moreover, the mother of the living child is essentially
focussed on her own desire, her own satisfaction, with no regard for the
personality of the child, here conceived as a thing, whose status resides in
the mother’s desire for him – which desire is a desire to be a mother.
In a general way, Solomon takes upon himself and expresses
openly the death drive every parent feels towards his/her children, for the
child signifies the inexorable passage of time, inevitable ageing,
imminent death. He holds out to the two mothers, and to all who read this
text, a logical mirror in which the unfortunate consequences of situational
omnipotence can be discerned. In this way, he opens up the possibility of
an ethical desire by expressing or reflecting the desire or drive inherent in
the claim in its real consequences. Ethical desire is, ultimately, a drive
that would accept losing, or not possessing, its object.

15
It is because he pretends to subscribe to this omnipotence, because
he submits to their exorbitant claims, because he takes on himself in word
and deed – words pregnant with future deeds – the desire formulated in
their own speech, that they are placed in a situation where they can
modify their desires and renounce omnipotence. The possibility is then
opened up of an ethical choice on the part of the two mothers between
humanity and life, on the one hand, and death and violence, on the other.
Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king,
for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give
her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it
be neither mine nor thine, but divide it./ Then the king answered
and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the
mother thereof./ And all Israel heard of the judgement which the
king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the
wisdom of God was in him, to do judgement.16
The mother whose son is alive chooses life for her son and thus
accepts the modification of the desire underlying her claim: she gives up
treating her son as prize or booty, as the exclusive correlative of her
desire to be a mother. She transforms her desire by introducing into it the
limit of the situational reality and the recognition of the personality of the
child as source – and hence object – of duty. Solomon here merely shows
up the consequences of the mother’s position (the omnipotent
demandingness and exclusivity), in such a way that her obstinacy is in
danger of becoming responsible for the possible, future killing of her
child. Thanks to Solomon, she is able to arrive at the conclusion that her
own desire is incompatible with the condition of motherhood. She then

16
accepts the essence of motherhood, which consists in bringing a child into
the world, in offering the child to the world, in giving him to himself, in
accepting, then, that he has a life in the first person, and that one day he
will leave to live that life elsewhere and with others.
The urgency of the situation and the self-evidence of the criminal
power of Solomon, who is preparing to murder the child, mean that the
renunciation of omnipotence over the child gives rise to an original
ethical position (as choice of life and humanity and also as rejection of
violence and brutal death). This mother’s choice brings justice genuinely
into being. The particularity of this moment consists in the following: that
the renunciation of omnipotence and the emergence of justice are one and
the same event.
The dead child’s mother also changes her tune and, rather than
claiming the infant, seems to choose putting it to death. Yet she is not
entirely outside the realm of justice. She speaks truthfully, in a sense,
though she does so in a veiled way. To say of the child, “Let it be neither
mine nor thine” is to acknowledge that it is not hers (in the sense of
genealogy and filiation). Moreover, she also gives up a total claim on the
child. Admittedly, this is doubtless because it became clear in that very
moment that the mother whose child is alive is the one who can forego
having him near her provided that he remain alive, so that no one is in
any doubt any longer as to the genealogical identity of the child. But the
fact that the child is safe, that justice has reemerged in this inextricable,
confused situation, is what enables her to formulate a desire that the
living child, who is not hers, should die (whereby she in fact attests that
the child is not hers), a desire for death which perhaps signifies the wish
that the other mother should be punished for her good fortune, but a
16 1 Kings 3:26 – 4:1.
17
desire which has, above all, the character of being just that, of being
desire – and hence representation and words, not an act or an acting-out.
There is nothing, it seems, to prevent us from saying that the
mother of the dead child shows herself here to conform to the picture we
had formed of her from the obscure nocturnal event: a woman “of
instinctual drives”, tending to absorb her child into her own body, as
though the image of her child were not that of a person, but of a piece of
herself whose loss would threaten both her psychical and bodily integrity
(this fusional relation having a clear incestuous dimension).17 It is more
judicious, however, to stress here that omnipotence has been abandoned
in favour of renunciation, and of an explicit posture of violence that is of
the order of the force of being and not of omnipotence.
Thus the effect of the “judgement” of Solomon is to restore the
justice appropriate to the given situation (Solomon gives to each his own,
to use the phrase attributed to Simonides); to introduce into the desire of
each of the two mothers a twofold – real and symbolic – limit that is the
internal necessity for the child to live and the legal necessity for the
protection of his person; to restore truth as a match between words and
things; and, lastly, to get back to the original ground of ethics: the choice
of life and humanity, absolute respect for the human person.
The “method” followed by Solomon is enigmatic. On the one hand
it commands admiration by its effectiveness; on the other, it exerts a
violent pressure on the two women. In the implicit ultimatum it addresses
to the two mothers, sovereign power presents itself as the power of death,
17 This is what Denis Vasse does in Un parmi d’autres (Paris: Le Seuil, 1978), p. 68. To refer to the
mother of the dead child as a “non-mother”, to reduce her difficult position to a perversion, is to
disqualify the death wish that is expressed here and is, nonetheless, crucial; this death wish directed at
the child also exists in the other mother, as it does in all parents. To create such a clear-cut opposition
between the “true mother” (p. 62) – the woman who refuses “the death of the child in the name of her
desire and at the cost of giving up the object of her instinctual drive” (ibid.) – and the “non-mother” is
to mask the overlap between these two positions and render incomprehensible the dialectic that is
possible on the basis of that overlap.
18
and does so in its most unjust form: the murder of a child who is wholly
innocent of the affair in which he is caught up. And yet that power, which
runs the risk of being absolutely unjust, receives justice from the hands of
the mother of the living child. It is she, in fact, who chooses life and
humanity, who chooses the renunciation of omnipotence and the justice
which ensues from it, so that power emerges triumphant from the risk it
has taken: it emerges both as just and true. But, on the other hand, it is
because power embodied the greatest possible injustice – and did so in
the virtual mode of speech (in the order of representation) – that it
morally constrained the two women to take upon themselves the task of
bringing justice into being.
The sovereign power forces justice upon them by representing the
consequences of the intransigent positions of the two mothers. For its
own turn toward justice, it depends, then, on the decision of one of the
complainants to choose ethics; by its own power, the power over life and
death, it assumes the countenance of the omnipotence buried in the dark
recesses of the situation, particularly in the most private, hidden recesses
of the two women’s desires. Deep down within themselves lurks a desire
for omnipotence, an omnipotence that takes on solely the mask of a
power of death.
Solomon draws out this terrible countenance buried within the
collusive connection between the similarly selfish desires of the two
mothers, and makes it his own. So, the power to kill is not merely an
attribute of power; it is also a predicate of the desire of human beings in
community. This power to kill was a product of the identity of – and
equally of the contradiction between – maternal claims. Neither woman
produced it herself. This morbid power is a possibility that belongs to the
two women taken together. Sovereign power embodies it, only to

19
abandon it subsequently, after the one woman will have decided for the
two of them – and for power itself – to reject this capacity to kill.
There is a difficulty. Power diffracts into various capabilities and
into what are perhaps heterogeneous moments. The whole of the
operation carried out by Solomon assumes the co-existence and
succession of different forms of power. First, without the real power to
kill, available to Solomon, neither of the two women would feel bound by
any obligation towards him. Second, the power to judge remains in his
hands and yet does he not hand over to the two women the decision and
task of determining the essence of that – violent or just – power? Let us
imagine, in fact, that the two women choose violence and death,
Solomon’s power would seem murderous and, even if the responsibility
for it could be imputed to the two women, the clear failure of the
sovereign power would remain. There would, admittedly, be nothing to
stop him seizing the child and removing it from the two mothers’ violent
grasp. But he would be left in a contradictory position between the initial
proposition of putting the child to death and its rescue in extremis. On the
other hand, he would have failed in the task of manifesting truth, of
saying who is truly the mother of the living child. What, then, is the
dialectic of these shifts of position effected in and by power?
Wishing for Justice
The essential element consists in the exchange between Solomon
and the two mothers. Solomon gives them the possibility of choosing
between life and death, between justice and violence. They give him
legitimacy; they produce a state of affairs in which power is just and
attest to its capacity to have conflictual reality give rise to its own
supersession.

20
More precisely, he enjoins them to make such a choice. When
Solomon says, “Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the
king./ And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to
the one, and half to the other,” he forces each woman to make up her
mind to change her desire so that a solution may appear. Set before the
imminent putting to death of the child, announced by the sovereign
power, they are summoned to choose. This summons has a particular
status since it is aligned to the consequences of their mutual
intransigence. It is because neither woman will let go, that the killing of
the child is possible. Solomon aligns power with their desire taken as a
whole: he makes them the masters of the situation. However, he does not
allow them to act delusionally, but articulates their desire to real acts,
mediated by power. It is thanks to him that each woman’s desire can
encounter reality as a whole – in this case a terrible reality since we are
speaking of the reality of a killing provoked by the intransigence of
desire.
In a sense, this is perhaps the first task of any power: “to ask” the
subjects of that power what reality they wish the power to put in place.
Power runs the risk of injustice in order that the subjects of that power
may be certain to wish for justice.
In that moment, power does violence. Desire is forced to speak
itself, to express itself and, from that point onwards, to consider its own
effects. The initial operation of power is to offer desire, in the mode
chosen by power, the means of its fulfilment, in such a way that desire is
brought face-to-face with the possibility of its satisfaction and hence with
its own reality – that is to say, face-to-face with the possible, potential
world of which it dreams. In this way, it forces desire to manifest itself
and therefore to appear full in the light, in the public space opened up and

21
circumscribed by power. That, perhaps, is the first act of power: to open
up a space of publicness, in which two aspects come together.
On the one hand, all are called to this space and are, then,
constituted as a community by this call, even if it amounts only to a call
to be present. All are then witnesses to the activity of power, to the way
in which it receives the parties and regulates conflict. But to witness the
work of power is also to become matter for power. Power also acts
among us, the “spectators”, by developing effects analogous to those it
induces among the parties in conflict. Namely, first of all, the
interrogation of our own desires and the questioning of our own
intransigence and our capacity to modify those desires; second, the
recognition of the justice of power – or its injustice – and, consequently,
adherence to that power or its rejection.
Solomon’s power exerts itself in the open and this a priori
openness indicates that that power has no hesitation in basing itself upon
justice in its formal structure, namely, as preparation of a liveable world
in which each can develop his possibilities for being human in harmony
with others. For this world to be liveable, it has first of all to be a world,
that is to say, a community, which requires a function of unification, a
space in which it can assume “knowledge” of itself in the sense of a
consciousness of self, an auto-representation of itself. Hence the
philosophical fact that power is a condition of truth, as a character of the
community. There ensues from this a political structure of truth that is
linked, on the one hand, to the essence of community, which, in order to
exist as such in its own eyes, requires a mechanism for self-representation,
but also, on the other hand, to the essence of truth, which,
in order to be something other than a personal conviction, must be
recognized as such by others. If the members of the community know
nothing of each other or, more precisely, if they cannot recognize each

22
other mutually - if, for example, grave uncertainties withdraw certain
members of that community from the common field that brings them
together - then community is impossible. Thus, the first operation of
power is to create that publicness in which the community represents
itself, contemplates itself as human community.
On the other hand, the complainants are called into this public
space not just with what they say, and with what constitutes the substance
of their claims, but also with what they are, that is to say, with their own
ability-to-be, which implies virtual possibilities immersed in desire and
capable of actualization. So long as desire merely dreams or demands, it
has no call to determine itself further. When it intervenes, power appears
first as the capability that can respond to desire in reality. Hence the
question posed to everyone by the existence of power: do I still desire
what I desired before, once the means of fulfilling that desire are offered
to me. This points towards a basic desire for political power as the force
capable of accomplishing desire in reality; yet power is not desired only
as servant of my desire, but also as the mediation of desire in its passage
towards reality. So that it is to an encounter of desire with itself as
“fulfilled” desire that power proceeds. The essential operation of power
in respect of desire is to “im-pose” upon it the question of its ability to
compromise (or, a contrario, of its permanence) as a task it must take on
and determine.
Thus, where the question of the power of life and death is
concerned, the essential aspect is the purging of the social body of its
socially morbid desires. When Solomon calls for the sword, it is the
symbol of the morbid possibility inscribed in the intransigence of desire,
insofar as that desire encounters other desires and other realities. Far
from being only the symbol of the capacity to punish those who disobey
power, the sword is also the symbol of a possibility for being that is
23
immanent in the community of subjects, and hidden. In this sense, the
“power of death” is always at the same time “power of life”, because
political power withdraws the power to kill from the community in such a
way as to let life alone prevail. This power to kill is not originally the
property of sovereign power, but a quality of the whole, considered from
the standpoint of the synthetic effect of everyone’s desires. At the same
time, the power to kill is not entirely eliminated. To the relief of
everyone, it remains available in spite of everything. It is therefore
possible to interpret the ancient formula, “the power of life and death” as
follows: it ensures that life prevails because it contains – in the sense both
of holding within it and of channelling – the capacity to kill. Channelling:
that is to say, offering it to the subjects as an available possibility that has
to be considered here and now in its consequences, by responding
ultimately to the question: will you, now, compromise?
Power Confronted with the Force of Desire
The two aspects referred to above are desire and the real. The
originary event of power is both the encounter of desire with the real, in
which power expresses and annihilates itself as exteriority, and their
separation, in which power appears as necessary and, precisely, as
virtualizing desire, as restoring the distance – and distancing – of desire
from its object and the real. This second moment is the moment in which
the operation of power is repeated within subjects; it is on condition that
this occurs that the external manifestation of power is sufficient. Power in
fact does the work that is its own when it assigns each person to limit
their own desire, to determine a limit; that is to say, ultimately, when it
forces desire to become the object or matter of power, but of a power
over oneself.

24
What is it, in fact, that takes place within the mother who chooses
life and justice? The text indicates that her pity is stirred for her son (1
Kings 3:26) and that she then decides to give up possession if that
renunciation is to result in the preservation of the child’s life. In other
words, the mother takes power over her desire and subjects it to a rule –
that of the preservation of life and of the personality of the child – to the
detriment of the satisfaction of her own desire, which treated the child as
a means. Power’s effect on the subject is to make the subject a being that
has power over itself.
Solomon says to the two mothers: “I am making your desires
king”; that “kingship” enables the desire to attain its own truth and, from
there, to encounter the real. Now, this encounter in the mode of
actualization would have the effect of destroying the real being that is the
still living child. If desire is intransigent, and if it has the means to
actualize itself in reality, then it becomes lethal. It is violence; it leads to
death and injustice. By offering the desire of the two mothers the means
to actualize itself, power expresses this essential connection with desire,
namely, that it is its servant: it is, therefore, with the lack inherent in
desire, with its radical impotence, that the personal relation to power
articulates itself. But if it merely made itself an accomplice of desire it
would destroy itself; more precisely, it would destroy itself as a just
power and, ultimately, in the long term, as power, for in that case it would
be the capacity to destroy the obstacles to desire indefinitely set by desire
itself on its own pursuit.
In fact, power submits itself to desire not as predicate of an
individual, but as predicate of a collectivity, which has a de facto
existence as soon as persons desire common objects. Summoned to
decide whether to continue to be what it was or to modify itself as a
function of the real consequences of their intransigence, each woman’s

desire is obligated to consider the other’s existence, not just as legitimate
source of desires (the other mother or others in general), but also as real
being (the child who manifests no desire, but who exists as a person
whose personality and life must be respected). Suddenly, under the
impact of the violent summons by power to choose itself in reality and
not merely in words, desire changes, and the expectation from power
changes with it. Rather than expecting power to satisfy desire, desire
actually expects that it should not do so.
It is in this ebbing movement that power itself is born; both as
collective and external agency and as internal agency (there is doubtless
real power only when these two types of agency are reciprocally
connected). Subjectively, power inscribes itself in the want-in-being
[manque à être] inherent in desire, in such a way that desire has need of
another agency [instance] before it can be satisfied. The fact of the
existence of other desiring agents or the mere fact of the existence of
obstacles to desire arouses the expectation which power makes good. But,
on the other hand, if desire made power its accomplice, it would become
tyrannical and, consequently, lethal, since it would destroy the desires of
others. Now, desire does not seek satisfaction, and the object that is the
most appropriate to it is the human being (and not, in any sense, things).18
Thus, it is objectively that power takes its place in the collective
existence. Desire, in its “complete” essence, demands the community of
human beings and requires, therefore, a just power: that is to say, a power
that is capable of leading desire back to its essence and its object, which
18 Others, understood as other forces of being, are the entities whose structures connect most
adequately with desire. Human desire does not wish fundamentally to be satisfied, but to be maintained
as force of being that is open once again to new potentialities. The desired satisfaction must not kill
desire. There is, then, no desire for things, but a desire for that which, within the thing, is liable to
unfold my force of being. The object most adequate to human desire is the object which, of all things,
involves an indefinitely reiterable and unfillable lack. It is the human being that best responds to this
status of ideal object of desire. It is thanks to the ontological structure of others that I am a force of
being capable of unfolding itself in possibilities for being of unforeseeable productiveness.

is other than the ego. However, when it is unaware of its essence, desire
requires power, but requires it as tyrannical. Unjust power is appropriate
to the desire that wishes to be hegemonic, the desire which believes that
its essence prescribes solely that it be satisfied, whereas just power is
appropriate to the desire which knows that frustration is not the other of
desire, but a constitutive aspect of its essence.
Jean-Jacques Delfour

“tailored to give the Federal District Court jurisdiction in the Schiavo case,”

2006-07-07T23:30:00.000-07:00

March 20, 2005 [Email This]

Judge Rules No Reinseration of Feeding Tube

“Compromise Bill” Re: Terri Schiavo Signed Into Law

The “compromise bill” shown below was introduced on Saturday, March 19, 2005, passed by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on Sunday, March 20, 2005, and signed into law by President Bush early Monday morning on March 21, 2005.

According to lawyers for Terri Schiavo’s parents, the Bill is similar to a U.S. Senate Bill passed on Thursday “tailored to give the Federal District Court jurisdiction in the Schiavo case,” while the Bill originally proposed by the U.S. House of Representatives “sought broader legislation.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AN ACT

For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Related Links:
The Terri Schiavo Case

Powers of Attorney, Living Wills, and Advance Directives

Lawyers in the Case

Health Care Lawyers

Wills, Trusts, and Estate Planning Lawyers

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.

After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.
SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--
(1) to assisting suicide, or
(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.
SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self- Determination Act of 1990.
SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.

What did you expect to find?

2006-06-10T03:31:00.000-07:00

Memories are just where you laid them
Dragging the waters til the depths give up their dead
What did you expect to find?
Was it something you left behind?
Don't you remember anything I said when I said,

[Chorus:]
Don't fall away and leave me to myself
Don't fall away and leave love bleeding in my hands, in my hands again
And leave love bleeding in my hands, in my hands
Love lies bleeding

Oh hold me now I feel contagious
Am I the only place that you've left to go?
She cries her life is like
Some movie in black and white
Dead actors faking lines, over and over and over again she cries

[Chorus]
And I watched as you turned away

You don't remember, but I do

You never even tried

Don't fall away and leave me to myself
Don't fall away and leave love bleeding in my hands, in my hands again
Leave love bleeding in my hands, in my hands again
Leave love bleeding in my hands, in my hands again, oh

freezen hell

2006-06-10T03:13:00.000-07:00

Satan, you know where
I lie Gently
I go into that good night

All our lives get complicated

Search for pleasures overrated
Never armed our souls
What the future would hold
When we were innocent
Angels, lend me your might

Forfeit all my lives to get just one right
All those colors long since faded
All our smiles are confiscated
Never were we told
What the future would hold
When we were innocent
This prayer is for me tonight
This far down that line and still ain't got it right
And while confessions not yet stated
Our next sin is contemplatd
Never did we know
What the future would hold
Or that we'd be bought and sold
When we were innocent

fuel-"innocent"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
memories arent just where you laid them

drag the waters to the depth skilled of the dead

what did u expect to find?
was it something you left behind?
dont you remember,
everything i said when i said..
Dont fall away, and leave me to myself
Dont fall away, and leave life bleeding in my hands
in my hands, again,'
leave life bleeding in my hands, in my hands...
leave life bleeding......

iam hoping now i feel contagious
am i the only place that you have left to go?
she cries her life is like,
some movie in black and white
and just naked lies, over and over and over again she cries..

Dont fall away, and leave me to myself
Dont fall away, and leave life bleeding in my hands

in my hands, again,
leave life bleeding in my hands, in my hands..
.leave life bleeding......
and i wanted,
you turned away,
you dont remember, but i do...
you never read im trapped
Dont fall away, and leave me to myself
Dont fall away, and leave life bleeding in my handsin my hands, again,leave life bleeding in my hands, in my hands again
leave life bleeding in my hands,
in my hands
againohhhh

in my hands-fuel

cruelty with intent to harm and murder

2006-06-06T23:54:00.000-07:00

cruelty to animals...........Posted on June 5, 2006 at 02:02:29 AM by dannoynted1

is a crime but to starve a dog is that cruelty?
in florida schindler was not on the list
starving a human with malice and forthought is not cruelty?
she breathed on her own
she had her eyes open
she had a parent(S)who loved her her
husband should NOT have been custodian of her healthcare
why NOT?
cuz
a)he no longer had her health as his best interest

b)his interest was ceased when he refused her healthcare
c)by starting another family he can not claim both women best interest especially their healthcare-
d)by refusing to allow custody of "her body" for autopsy is a selfish and not in schindler's best interest but his own

e)if he was husband wat happened to in "sickness and in health"

f)where is terri schindler"s starved to death body?

i truly cant beleive the nerve of politicians and their that and this "illegal immigrant crap" when they could not even be humane enough
to speak up on this murder with malice and forethought by starvation!!!!!!!!!!
if they cant help 1
wat could they possibly do for anyone else?
as I WAS TOLD BY MY 4TH GRADE TEACHER "florida--- IS NO WHERE TO RAISE CHILDREN!"
i guess she was "Right" or maybe ESP!

see 13-01-005========esp=====msp=====$$$
ecclesia =============================== lawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlaw