Obama Makes Lawyer for Terri Schiavo's Husband Third-Ranking Justice Official

Washington, DC – Barack Obama has named the lawyer who represented Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael in his efforts to kill his disabled wife as the third highest attorney in the Justice Department. Thomas Perrelli, who won an award for representing Schiavo’s former husband, had severed on Obama’s transition team.

Full story at: LifeNews.com/bio2685.html

Unbelievable. But I suppose this shouldn’t surprise any of us who have known that his presidency would open doors to the most liberal pro-death supporters ever. God help us in America to see the light…We need to be children of light, not of the darkness of sin. More reasons to pray.:gopray2:

It is no surprise that the culture of death permeates every corner of the Obama administration.

How is that possible? He is not president yet.

I actually thought he would at least PRETEND not to be a lover of death. What’s next? “Tiller the Killer” as ambassador to the Vatican?

I think some of you are being unnecessarily harsh and judgmental. If you looked very closely at the Schiavo case, Florida Law, AND the Catechism of the Catholic Church…and spent less time reading hyperbolic media blather…you might actually understand the case better.

  1. Terri Schiavo was not “disabled”. She was certified by numerous MD’s through much testing as being essentially braindead, and the only reason that she continued to breath or anything else was due to the “autonomic response function of the cerebellum”. Most of her brain had deteriorated into nothing and had been replaced by spinal fluids. She was originally felled by a heart attack at the age of 27 due to bulimia and the lack of intake of potassium which is necessary for proper heart function. Her brain was starved of oxygen for an excessive period of time resulting in essentially brain death. This is not a disability. This is what is medically known as a “vegetative state”.

  2. Under Florida Civil Laws, when a person becomes incapacitated to the extent that they cannot communicate their desires regarding their care or treatment, if married…the spouse is automatically the legal guardian and charged with that responsibility. If not married, then the next closest kin or family member is named guardian. There were no documents such as a living will on hand that outlined the individuals desires in the event of a catastrophic event such as this. Thus, the husband was her guardian.

  3. In the Catechism, item # 2278 makes the Church’s stand on the issue clear, 2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected In fact the Archbishop in St. Petersburg, FL made a statement to that effect.

If you are interested in more enlightenment where this subject is concerned I recommend that you read these links:

abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

marriage.about.com/od/celebritymarriages/p/schiavo.htm

What happened to the Schiavo’s, all of them…was horrific, and I pray that I will never have to go through something like that. I also think it is wrong to backseat drive this situation without an unbiased viewpoint. The two links above are rather unbiased and make clear statements.

On another note… I think it a bit disingenuous to attack an incoming president…before he or she is sworn in. No-one knows anything of substance at this point… so all said is conjecture. I prefer a wait and see posture, afterall, the electorate spoke, and its a done deal.

You mean 57 million people voted for him and didnt know anything of substance about him? I would tend to agree because those who did know things of substance about him would never vote for him.

No, what I am saying is that “no-one knows anything of substance” with regards to what will actually transpire after he takes office. I would have to probably agree with you on some points, but possibly disagree on others… All that is really known is what the media really wanted to say, and what the RNC put out. I wonder how many Catholics and others know of Obamas history where the Catholic Church is concerned?

You need to remember that 57 million people voted against continuation of the antics of the outgoing regime. It was as much a “repudiation” as it was a positive vote for the incoming POTUS.

Rob–please enlighten me, and all of us, as to the achievements of PE BHO as pertains to the Catholic Church. From what I can tell from my own reading (BTW, I’m not a Republican, and don’t glean my information from any political site) he is pro abortion, pro fetal research, pro homosexual marriage, pro human cloning and pro euthanasia. That’s quite enough, my friend, for me to brand him as no friend of the Catholic Church.

I can’t believe someone can stand and take those beautiful pictures with beautiful kids and beautiful wife and have the adament views and soon to be policy changes I’m he will make. Let’s not be a spectator on the sidelines folks.

I do agree Terri was from outward appearance and I think in a way that our priests would also say let her die with dignity.

…he is pro abortion, pro fetal research, pro homosexual marriage, pro human cloning and pro euthanasia…

His position on abortion is clear. But if you think he supports gay marriage or any of those other things, you obviously weren’t paying that much attention to the campaign. He even stated in his forum with pastor Rick Warren that does not support gay marriage.

But that’s beside the point.

Terri Schavio would not have survived much longer. Her medical condition would’ve only gotten worse. Mrs. Schaivos husband knew her better than anyone on this board and would’ve had a better understanding than any of us of her wishes as far as end-of-life decisions. It’s not unfathomable that her parents, in their desperation, would’ve had her cryogenically frozen if possible to keep her alive. Life does not mean a beating heart and involuntary cerebral functions.
This was a terrible situation, one that many families have been confronted with. Sometimes a more peaceful death is the best possible solution, but that is a choice that should not have been dragged into the public eye to such an extent. End of life care is a decision that should be kept soley in the hands of the family of the person in question or, if possible, the person themselves.
Even if it was possible for Obama to appoint him before he was even sworn in, I would see no issue with it.

Therefore it was imperative that Terri Schiavo be starved to death. After all, as was explained above, giving someone food and water is “over-zealous” medical treatment.

– Mark L. Chance.

I guess we will be charitable and say that the Catholics who voted for him did not have a clue as to his history with the Catholic Church. I mean they voted for a man who flat-out rejects basic core moral doctrines of the Church. There has never been a presidential candidate who was more in confilct with church teachings than Brock Obama

You need to remember that 57 million people voted against continuation of the antics of the outgoing regime. It was as much a “repudiation” as it was a positive vote for the incoming POTUS.

Perhaps you had a different ballot than I did. Bush wasn’t on my ballot.

My friend, I’m chalking up your lack of charity to the fact you are new to the forum…Mr Obama has demonstrated the ability to speak out of both sides of his mouth on more than one occasion.
Alice B Toklas is a homosexual Democrat activist organization. Please read Mr Obama’s own words. alicebtoklas.org/abt/newsletters/newsletter0807.htm#obama

For purposes of this forum, I have excerpted the following from the letter,“Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today’s celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.”

These do not appear to be the sentiments of one who is truly an opponent of homosexual marriage, at least not IMHO.

His campaign made another such statement opposing the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman after the Warren “debate”. You may also want to peruse it.

noonprop8.com/articles/2008/10/31/no-on-prop-8-campaign-slams-dishonest-mailer-targeting-african-american-voters/

These articles were all over the California papers…I didn’t miss them, I read them… they are still available with a quick google search.

In my opinion, Mr Obama, his chosen advisers, and the Democrat party hierarchy, are fully in communion with the culture of death and the dismantling of the traditional family unit.

Disgusting! Just utterly disgusting! :mad: I am seriously beginning to believe that this is going to be the worst regime in the history of America. :frowning:

It was immoral to kill Terry by not keeping her hydrated. Dehydration is very painful and keeping her hydrated was called for.

At this risk of “censure” I am going to say this: He (Obama) will have to work very hard to beat his predecessor out of that honorific!

I guess then that you obviously didn’t bother to read my post # 6 in this thread… especially this:

**3. In the Catechism, item # 2278 makes the Church’s stand on the issue clear, 2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

  • In fact the Archbishop in St. Petersburg, FL made a statement to that effect.***

Are we to assume that the Archbishop of St. Petersburg, FL and the Catholic Church is “immoral”, and you sit at the right hand of God and have the right to judge others?

Additionally, Terry Schiavo had been certified as “braindead”. People in that condition are not conscious of “pain”.

Why not also quote the Church when she explains that food and hydration are considered ordinary, not extraordinary care, and cannot be withdrawn unless not doing so would lead to further, more serious health problems?

I mean, other than the fact that doing so points out quite clearly the gross immorality of allowing someone to slowly die from lack of food and water.

– Mark L. Chance.

Mark, I understand all of that, but have you read the Catechism? And specifically the one that I cited above?

My point is not to support what transpired, because I pray sincerely that I am never faced with that possibility. One of my close friends had a similar situation…very similar, in fact extremely similar…darn near identical…but she had to make the decision. My own wife has suffered a massive heart attack, losing 40% of her heart to irreparable damage. A second heart attack will more than likely kill her. But if she was to survive it, and end up on “life support”…she has made her desires known in writing that are certified. Even the chance of viable candidacy for a transplant is extremely minimal due to her age… so I would be faced with the decision.

My only points have really been:

  1. Do not judge another on the merits of articles, especially when we have not walked in their shoes.

  2. It is not ours to judge, as Christ taught us, and that was backed up by the Archbishop’s statement.

  3. Mr. Schiavo will have his moment before God, at which time he will be judged for his actions. Judgment is God’s, not ours.

  4. It is most inappropriate, in my opinion for those of us who cast judgment to do so, especially at a distance, especially when there is no vested interest, specifically financial or emotional liability. To me that is reminiscent of anti-abortion people who are absolutely unwilling to do anything more than mouth words and shout slogans… They don’t put their money where the mouth is…so its mostly “dark noise”.

Further, where are all these pro-lifer’s screaming to high heavens about health insurance companies denying funds for surgeries and treatments to save lives, or screaming and railing against the high, no …EXORBITANT COSTS of medication and treatment…for the poor and even middle class who even have health insurance???

There is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy…and even a lot of it exists within the “Pro-Life” movement…

I believe in the Sanctity of Life, but I also believe in being responsible for my beliefs beyond “mouthing words and making keystrokes”.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.