Again I point readers to the previous work of Wesley J. Smith. You’ll recall that, in 1992, when he was arguing for more money in his malpractice lawsuit, Michael Schiavo argued that Terri would live a normal life span and that he intended to be a loyal husband to her for the rest of his days. Because of this testimony, Michael Schiavo received $1.3 million, $750,000 of which went into a trust to fund Terri’s rehabilitation.

Shortly after receiving this money, Mr. Schiavo suddenly remembered that Terri didn’t want to live a normal life span. As Smith reported:

One evening, during the second term of President Ronald Reagan, Terri Schiavo and her husband Michael decided to watch a television movie about Karen Ann Quinlan. . . .

While discussing the movie, Michael claims that Terri stated she would not want to live hooked up to a “machine” (she’s not), or be a “burden” (her parents don’t consider her a burden and want to care for her). Michael’s brother, Scott, backs up his claim, while his sister-in-law, Joan, told the court that Terri had approved of pulling the life support from the dying baby of a mutual friend and said that if she ever wrote a “will” she would say that she didn’t want “tubes.”

Little did Terri know that these purported statements, uttered under very casual circumstances, would become the justification used by her husband in his six-year drive to remove her feeding tube and end her life. Indeed, based on these casual statements, Judge George Greer of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Clearwater, Florida ruled that Michael had established “by clear and convincing evidence”–the highest evidentiary standard in civil law–that Terri would rather dehydrate to death over a period of 10-14 days than live on food and water supplied by a feeding tube.

That’s the full extent of Michael Schiavo’s “clear and convincing evidence” that his wife wants him to murder her. Terri’s parents, on the other hand, testify that she had no such desire, leaving us with a he said/she said case–at best.

And that’s before you examine the rest of the mountain of evidence that Michael Schiavo has a profit-motive for this killing. And that’s before you learn that Michael Schiavo has, since Terri became disabled, fathered two children with another woman, to whom he claims to be engaged, which suggests that he has even more motive to be rid of Terri and which, at the very least, suggests that he is sufficiently compromised that there is no moral universe in which he is fit to be her guardian.

In reaction to the Schiavo-Peterson parallels, Galley Friend J.E. asks, “If Terri Schiavo were a condemned prisoner, the would the state be legally allowed to execute her in this condition?” Good question. My guess is, no.

Let me brag: I’ve had one of the best first-rounds of the NCAA tourney that I’ve seen in years. I picked 27 of the 32 games (28 if you count the play-in game). And only one of the teams that I picked for the round of 16 has been eliminated.

The teensy-tiny problem is that the round of 16 team I lost was Syracuse, whom I also picked to be the eventual national champion. Oops! (They sure deserved to lose that game, though.)

The Bookworm Room suggests that Jeb Bush should take a page from Gavin Newsome’s book and commit civil disobedience.

Peggy Noonan is right:

The supporters of Terri Schiavo’s right to continue living have fought for her heroically, through the courts and through the legislatures. They’re still fighting. They really mean it. And they have memories.

On the other side of this debate, one would assume there is an equally well organized and passionate group of organizations deeply committed to removing Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. But that’s not true. There’s just about no one on the other side. Or rather there is one person, a disaffected husband who insists Terri once told him she didn’t want to be kept alive by extraordinary measures.

Noonan is also right that if the Republican party, which controls every important branch of the federal government, can’t be moved to save Terri Schiavo, then it will be worth asking why they should be allowed to stay in control.

Sorry, but this is important.

Peter Byrnes observes that it’s strange that Judge George Greer is refusing to here any evidence or entertain any arguments which might prevent in the killing of Terry Schiavo, yet Scott Peterson is entitled to an automatic appeal to his death sentence. As Byrnes eloquently puts it: “And we find ourselves where we are today. Valuing a murderer’s wasted life over those fragile lives which are just begging for the chance to be taken seriously.”

So, on Monday the media was abuzz with that New York Times story about the “covert propaganda” of the Bush administration. In all, a neat media story. The Bushies employ (horrors!) PR firms to spread word of federal programs and, well, propaganda, footage of interviews with administration spokesmen and the like telling the Bushies’ side of the story on current events. These videos look and feel like regular news video, complete with “reporters” on screen who are not really journalists. The trouble starts when these videos are run by television news teams who do not even bother to tell viewers what they’re watching.

The story struck me as funny, because it’s an open secret in the PR and publicity trade that a good press release, for example, will be plagiarized by the actual press. That’s its purpose, to tell a client’s story in so compelling a way that the journalist is defenseless before its sheer rhetorical power and decides not even to adjust the wording.

Michael Crichton, I just learned, does a riff on this in his new enviro thriller, State of Fear:
A weatherman appears on television reading verbatim from a press release from an alarmist anti-global warming organization.
“’That’s how they do it, these days,’ Kenner said. ‘They don’t even bother to change a phrase here and there. They just read the copy outright. And of course, what he’s saying is not true.’”

The difference with the administration’s videos is only one of medium. Both sides are playing a credulous and incompetent media to their advantage.

From Wesley Smith’s Oct. 28, 2003 article:

Why did Schiavo tell a medical malpractice jury in 1992 that Terri would live a normal life span? After Terri’s collapse, Schiavo sued for medical malpractice. Under civil law, the longer Terri was expected to live, the larger the verdict would probably be. This fact of legal life could explain why Michael presented evidence to the malpractice jury not only that Terri would likely live a normal life span but also that he intended to be a good and loyal husband and care for her for the rest of his life. . . .

Why did Schiavo have a rehabilitation expert testify in front of the malpractice jury to present a detailed plan of therapy for Terri? Schiavo and his lawyer claimed that Terri is incapable of improving physically, but during the 1992 trial, a rehabilitation plan and its anticipated undertaking provided one of the underpinnings for the jury’s $1.3 million award. Of that money, Schiavo received $300,000, lawyers’ fees were paid, and about $750,000 was put in trust to pay for Terri’s rehabilitation. . . .

Given that the jury awarded $750,000 to be used in part for Terri’s therapy, why hasn’t Schiavo provided any rehabilitation for her since 1991? . . . The only efforts ever undertaken to improve Terri’s condition took place in 1990 and 1991. They had ceased by the time of the malpractice trial in 1992 because her insurance coverage had run out. Indeed, the pressing need to restart therapy was an urgent part of the malpractice case. It could have–and should have–paid to restart the rehabilitation that had been abandoned due to lack of funds.

Once Terri’s $750,000 was in the bank, however, Schiavo would not approve a single cent of it to be spent on rehabilitation. Not only that, but once the money was in the bank, Schiavo ordered a “do not resuscitate” order placed on Terri’s chart so that if she had a cardiac event, the doctors would not attempt to save her. And within a few months of the money being deposited, Schiavo also refused to permit curative treatments, such as antibiotics for infections. If Terri had died during the early or mid-1990s, as Schiavo’s orders were designed, he would have inherited somewhere around $700,000. . . .

Is it true that Terri’s money has paid for attorneys to make her dead, instead of therapists to make her better? The answer is, unquestionably, yes. According to court records, George Felos, the dutiful “right to die” attorney who sat at Schiavo’s side on King’s show, has been paid over $350,000 from Terri’s trust fund. Another of Schiavo’s attorneys, Debra Bushnell, has received about $90,000. These two lawyers alone have received more than half of Terri’s entire trust.

According to court records, when Schiavo began his quest to pull Terri’s feeding tube in 1998, she had more than $700,000 in the bank. This was primarily because Schiavo generally refused to authorize payments for any nursing home services on Terri’s behalf beyond the basics of room and board. Thus, only about $50,000 was paid on her behalf in the five years following the jury verdict. Since 1998, about $650,000 (not taking into account any earnings from the fund) has gone out–not for therapy, but primarily for lawyers.

This is chilling stuff, and it explains perfectly why Michael Schiavo is so eager to have his wife killed.