Talking Seniors to Death

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Panzer"
To: "Hospice Patients Alliance"
Subject: "Talking Seniors to Death" how health care reform pressures seniors to give up, not get treated, and die
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:31:07 -0400

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

An Excellent Credit Score is 750
See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!

Hi,

Prof. Rita Marker has written a great article exposing the scam behind the Congress's H.R. 3200 known as "health care reform" bill. See the article below.

Best wishes,
If people contemplate and really see the sanctity of life, their "quality of life" arguments fall away and they will understand that we are here to care for each other, not to kill each other. Caring, and not convenience, is the sign of a civilized and just society!
Preserving the original hospice mission...
Ron Panzer
for Hospice Patients Alliance
http://www.hospicepatients.org
"What I do you cannot do
but what you do, I cannot do.  
The needs are great, and none of us, including me, ever do great things.  
But we can all do small things, with great love, and together we can do something wonderful."  -  Mother Teresa
*************************************************
The Hospice Patients Alliance is a 501(c)(3) charitable patient advocacy organization acting to preserve the original hospice mission and to promote quality end-of-life services. Many ask us "what can I do to help? The answer is that you need to get involved, share what you know and please, support us by donating to our nonprofit! You can donate at our secure donation page:
https://id304.securedata.net//hospicepatients/donations.html
Your support helps us help others in need. Thank you for your continued support!
Also, please share this newsletter with others who you know are concerned about the quality of end-of-life care, the sanctity of life and protection of the vulnerable patients.
Ron is available to speak to your group. For more information about hospice or speaking arrangements, visit Hospice Patients Alliance online or call [616] 866-9127. The information provided by Hospice Patients Alliance is provided in the spirit of consumer advocacy in the belief that informed consumers of health care are best able to access quality care. Hospice Patients Alliance does not provide legal or medical advice. If you are seeking legal or medical advice, then a competent and experienced attorney or physician should be consulted. If anyone wishes to be added to the Hospice Patients Alliance newsletter list, just send an email with the subject line "Subscribe" to newsletter@...
In order to assure you get the newsletter, add the domain "hospicepatients.org" to the "friends" list of your email software, so that email/spam filters do not block the newsletter. If you need a specific email address to add, add patientadvocates@... and rpanzer@...
*************************************************
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/talking_seniors_to_death.html
 September 06, 2009 The American Thinker

Talking Seniors to Death

By Rita L. Marker

First, the bad news. For the first time since 1975, Social Security recipients are being told they won't be receiving an annual cost of living increase in their monthly benefits. At the same time, their Medicare premiums will go up, so monthly checks will actually shrink next year. Not to worry, though. Here's the good news. Seniors may not have to live on such meager funds for long because the government is going to help them plan how they want to die.

This benevolent plan is in Section 1233 (p. 424) of the health care reform bill known as "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" (HR 3200). It didn't just show up on the doorstep of health care reform, but was packaged and delivered by Compassion & Choices (C & C), the assisted-suicide advocacy group previously known as the Hemlock Society.

Under Section 1233, a doctor would be paid for having an "advance care planning consultation" with a patient. The consultation wouldn't be mandatory, at least for now. But if the doctor wants to get paid for it, the consultation's contents are very specifically prescribed. For example, each consultation "shall include" an explanation of legal documents such as living wills and durable powers of attorney, and information about the "continuum of end-of-life services." Patients need not be ill but, because they are over a certain age, their doctors will suggest that it's time to talk about death.

So, if George, a healthy 70-year-old marathon runner, goes to the doctor because of tendonitis, his doctor will have the all-important discussion with him, reminding him that he's not getting any younger and that it's time to decide how he'll die. Sure, George may or may not be adversely affected by this. But consider Clara, an 84-year-old widow who needs a hip replacement. If the doctor tells her that the government health plan won't pay for her surgery but will pay for pain pills, and then tells her it's really time to discuss her end-of-life options, what message is she getting? Isn't it likely that Clara will acquiesce, if her doctor suggests that she "choose" to forgo treatment for any future illnesses so she won't be a burden on her family?

To hear proponents of Section 1233 talk about it, one would think that people have no access now to information about advance directives. But for years, federal law has required that patients be provided with general information about advance directives.

In 1992, Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act. It requires every health care organization receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds to do the following: at the time of admission, provide a written summary of a patient's rights under state law to make health care decisions, including the right to have an advance directive; ask all adults entering for treatment whether they have an existing advance directive; and document the existence of an advance directive in the patient's medical record.

Cheerleaders for more advance care planning claim that physicians won't tell their patients about options regarding available treatments and the right to accept or reject them unless they receive reimbursement for doing so. But physicians already have a responsibility to provide that information to patients so they can give or withhold consent to available treatments. This is known as informed consent.

Yet there are calls for more details about end-of-life planning. Perhaps those who are advocating this are unaware that, beginning in 2009, doctors have been required to discuss end-of-life planning, including advance directives, with all Medicare patients at their initial "Welcome to Medicare" physical exam.

With all of these current requirements, isn't paying doctors to have another talk with grandma just a bit of, shall we say, overkill? Is foisting yet another death planning chat with her really necessary? And what would be part of the "end-of-life continuum" discussion?

In most states that continuum would culminate in such services as palliative care and hospice. However, in Oregon and Washington the continuum extends to the provision of a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs under those states' "Death with Dignity" laws. This should be of concern to all.

The background of Section 1233 sheds some light on its inclusion in the health care reform bill.

According to C & C's newsletter, the organization has worked long and hard for such language, which is "part of a great advance in end-of-life care, building upon several years of thoughtful and strategic groundwork." C & C proudly acknowledges its leadership role in placing Section 1233 in the bill: "Compassion & Choices and its supporters have worked tirelessly with supportive members of Congress to include in proposed reform legislation a provision requiring Medicare to cover patient consultation with their doctors about end-of-life choice (section 1233 of House Bill 3200)." And it plans to continue leading the charge:

"As Congress debates health insurance reform, Compassion & Choices is leading the charge to make end-of-life choice a centerpiece of any program that emerges. We are working hard to reach our goal to make end-of-life choice a centerpiece of national health insurance reform."

C & C has worked hand in hand with Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer who it describes as a "long-time supporter of individual choice." Indeed, Blumenauer has been an outspoken supporter of Oregon's assisted-suicide law, the "Death with Dignity Act." During a floor speech in 1998, he stated:

"In Oregon, our legislation, Death with Dignity, is still a work in progress, but the fact is the preliminary evidence suggests that this option may actually reduce the incidence of violent suicide while easing the burden on both the individual and their family....

"As we age as a society, exponentially, with the increase of the elderly population, and just the growth in our population, this will become more serious....The evidence suggests that Americans support the principles of Death with Dignity."

In a 2004 press release, he applauded a court ruling that upheld the assisted-suicide law.

"This is a great victory for the people of Oregon who decided not once, but twice that people should have the right to make personal end-of-life decisions without federal interference," he said. (Blumenauer seems to ignore the fact that, also in 2004, he said the government shouldn't meddle in personal end-of-life decisions. Yet, now he's attempting to dictate the content of communication between patients and their doctors.)

He continued, "Every day people across the country struggle with these end-of-life decisions but Oregon is the only state that has protections and safeguards in place." (Note that he, like other assisted-suicide activists, refers to assisted suicide as an "end-of-life decision.")

Blumenauer's "end-of-life" terminology is part and parcel of Section 1233. Clearly expressing his ownership of the section, he described an incident that took place when he was presiding over House proceedings. Writing about Section 1233 in the Huffington Post, Blumenauer stated, "Actually, I know a little bit about this section because it's a bill that I wrote which was incorporated into the overall legislation."

His earlier incorporated bill is HR 2911, called the "Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act." In fact, a portion of that bill, (Sec. 211, p. 50) makes up almost the entirety of Section 1233.

Although Blumenauer and other defenders of Section 1233 vociferously deny that it could have anything to do with assisted suicide, his earlier bill acknowledged that assisted suicide would be included in such consultations. Since federal law currently prohibits federal funding from being used for "items and services" related to assisted suicide, Blumenauer inserted language into HR 2911 (Sec. 111, p. 19) stating that advance care planning "shall not be construed to violate the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997." That exception did not make its way into HR 3200, probably because any reference to assisted suicide would raise red flags. Also, not contained in HR 3200 is a provision from Blumenauer's earlier bill (Sec. 121, p. 31) to "encourage providers to discuss advance care planning with their patients of all ages."

Blumenauer is not the only lawmaker to propose advance care planning consultations. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) introduced a similar bill, curiously called the "Senior Navigation and Planning Act of 2009" (SB 1251). Warner told Medical Futility that he submitted the legislation because Congress is considering health care reform and he would like to see some of his ideas incorporated into that legislation. His bill (Sec. 6, p. 14) would force doctors to provide information on advance directives and other end-of-life planning tools in "a form and manner, and at a time, determined to be appropriate by the Secretary [of Health and Human Services]." The consequence for not doing so would be severe. No payment would be made to physicians for any items and services furnished after January 1, 2014, unless they agreed (under a process established by the Secretary) to provide individuals with information on advance directives and other end-of-life planning tools.

Technically, a patient would not be forced to have an advance care planning consultation. However, physicians would be unlikely to treat them unless they agreed to do so since doctors who didn't provide the end-of-life talk would not be paid for any other services.

Could coercion like this be avoided by deleting the advance care planning consultation from HR 3200? Clearly, the answer is "No." If a particular intervention is not mentioned in HR 3200, it can easily be reinserted when the details of covered benefits are determined by one of the myriad committees that would be charged with formulating the particulars through the rule-making process. In the final analysis, any "benefit" that is not explicitly prohibited in a health care reform bill could become a covered benefit.

Would the actual provision of assisted-suicide drugs be covered? That would certainly be cost effective, since dead patients don't consume Medicare dollars. But coverage of the actual lethal prescription wouldn't be necessary. As Oregon's suicidal approach to health care has demonstrated, a government health plan could deny wanted and needed treatment and then suggest assisted suicide as an alternative. Initially, an organization like C & C could pay for the oh-so-inexpensive lethal prescription.

Such assistance by C & C would undoubtedly be touted as compassionate, would advance the organization's agenda and could, eventually, lead to the repeal of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. C & C has many powerful friends on Capitol Hill, including Senator Dianne Feinstein (D -CA). Feinstein, who is the honorary co-chair for a November 5 fund-raiser for C & C, is on record endorsing a failed proposal for an Oregon-style assisted-suicide law in California. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that, if HR 3200 passes, assisted suicide could eventually be an included benefit in any qualified health benefit program.

However, passage of the bill is far from assured, thanks to seniors across the country. They have read Section 1233. They are making it clear that they want no part of government-designed death talk. They are savvy. They are informed. They are not angry mobs. They are intelligent citizens who have been expressing their strong opinions. For now, they are successfully fending off the soft smothering cushion of deadly governmental paternalism. But they cannot stop now.

Only by continuing to speak up and speak out will seniors be spared the subtle and not so subtle pressure to die and get out of the way.

Rita L. Marker is an attorney and executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/talking_seniors_to_death.html at September 08, 2009

#398

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Tue Sep 1, 2009 4:33 am
Subject: Fw: Father of Terri Schindler Schiavo, Bob Schindler, Sr. passes away after fighting valiantly for the rights of the vulnerable

vesselofmerc...

Offline

I am sad to hear of the death of Robert Schindler, Terri's father.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Panzer"
To: "Hospice Patients Alliance"
Subject: Father of Terri Schindler Schiavo, Bob Schindler, Sr. passes away after fighting valiantly for the rights of the vulnerable
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:54:36 -0400

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

An Excellent Credit Score is 750
See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!

Hi,

It is with great sadness that we share the news that Bob Schindler, Sr, father of Terri Schindler Schiavo, passed away of a heart attack. I had spoken with him a few times this year, as he had many concerns about the advancing culture of death and the victimization of the vulnerable today. He and his family started the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation to fight against the victimization of so many who cannot defend themselves. I am forwarding below a message from his son, Bobby Schindler, Jr. It is still astounding to me to note that every A.P. article about Terri Schindler Schiavo either lied or misrepresented what her condition was. She was not on life support. She never had a heart attack or heart condition, and she did not have an eating disorder. She was neglected and abused for years in the nursing homes where her husband/guardian forbade any rehabilitation to be provided for her. She did have a neck injury that prevented her from turning her head fully to one side. The A.P. never reported that.

Bob tried his best to save the daughter he loved, but the deck was stacked against him, with lawyers, judges and courts pre-determining the outcome of the long fight Bob and his family suffered untold anguish through the years, and I heard in his voice when I spoke with him. To see the daughter he loved and would care for, killed right in front of his eyes! Terri was chosen to be placed in a hospice, though she was not terminal at all. She was dehydrated to death, though she stated she wanted to live. Nurses who cared for her stated she had been able to communicate. She was executed to further an agenda of imposing death on the vulnerable within a hospice. since that time, there have been many, many similar deaths in hospices reported to Hospice Patients Alliance and other patient advocacy groups.

Best wishes,
If people contemplate and really see the sanctity of life, their "quality of life" arguments fall away and they will understand that we are here to care for each other, not to kill each other. Caring, and not convenience, is the sign of a civilized and just society!
Preserving the original hospice mission...
Ron Panzer
for Hospice Patients Alliance
http://www.hospicepatients.org
"What I do you cannot do
but what you do, I cannot do.  
The needs are great, and none of us, including me, ever do great things.  
But we can all do small things, with great love, and together we can do something wonderful."  -  Mother Teresa
*************************************************

Statement from Bobby Schindler Regarding the Death of His Father, Robert Schindler

Schiavo court orders don't mention "feeding tubes"

by Arthur Weinreb, Associate Editor,
Wednesday, March 23, 2005

It is hard to think of a situation in recent times, with the exception of the events of September 11, 2001, that has drawn as much attention as the plight of 41-year-old Terri Schiavo. At the time of this writing, the appellate court in Atlanta, by a vote of 2 to 1, voted not to reinsert Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, and the family is moving to appeal that decision to the supreme court.

In the current round of legal proceedings, constant references are being made, both by the media and others, about the "feeding tube" that was keeping her alive. It is constantly being said that the feeding tube has been removed and the argument, both in Congress and the courts is whether or not the tube should be reinserted to allow Schiavo to continue to live.

But none of the decisions of the courts make any mention of "a feeding tube". For example, the last decision that was made by Judge George W. Greer of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, on February 25 that led to the last removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, read in part as follows:

"Therefore it is� ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 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 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005." [Emphasis added]

The court order doesn't just require that the feeding tube be removed � it orders that Terri Schiavo be deprived of all food and water.

The decision of the Florida court is not the equivalent of "pulling the plug". If someone needs mechanical assistance to breathe and the ventilator is removed, it is not unusual for some patients to start to breathe on their own. To compare the situation that Terri Schiavo is in with someone who is on a ventilator would be the equivalent of the ventilator being removed, the person starting to breathe on their own and then requiring that they be smothered because the court has ordered that they not be given any air. What is truly amazing is that there has been virtually no mention in the massive media coverage about the prohibition against all food and water. All that is discussed is the feeding tube.

Newsmax.com reported earlier this week about a nurse, Heidi Law, who swore an affidavit back in 1997. Law, a certified nursing assistant who had been one of Schiavo's caregivers, swore under oath that on occasion Terri could swallow water and eat small amounts of Jell-o. Law also swore that Schiavo used to respond positively when ice cubes or juice was put on a washcloth and held over her lips. The nursing assistant also stated that these "feedings" of Terri had to be done surreptitiously and infrequently because Michael Schiavo would not allow it if he knew about it.

Either Terri Schiavo can eat and drink or she can't. If she can, then she really isn't in any different position than a quadriplegic who can eat but needs assistance to get the food and water into their mouth. And if she really cannot eat and drink enough to keep her alive, what possible harm could be done by allowing little bits of soft food and water into her mouth?

This case goes a lot further than situations where people are being kept alive by mechanical means and those means are disconnected, allowing the person to die a natural death. The Florida court's order that all nutrition and hydration be removed from Terri Schiavo is nothing short of barbaric.

Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Men's News Daily, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck and The Rant. Arthur can be reached at: aweinreb@...

Lisa's articles about this are here:

http://libertytothecaptives.net/terri_died_illegal_court_order.html

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!

#390

From: "jenna_j68" <jenna_j68@...>
Date: Sun Nov 9, 2008 1:41 pm
Subject: Survival priorities,1600 US Military Survival Manuals

jenna_j68

Offline

Survival priorities,1600 US Military Survival Manuals On 2 Disks
$20, Other survival skills

Master collection of Survival Books and Manuals, U.S. military
manuals, civil defense manualsand government manuals. There are
1,600 manuals on this two DVD set. Face it, at any army surplus
store, gun store, Amazon, bookstore or other website you would pay
at least $5.00 to $10.00 for each of these manuals. But here you can
get this package of 1,600 U.S. military manuals, government manuals,
and civil defense manuals for only $20.00 and this also includes
free shipping. You are getting each of these manuals for less then 2
cents each. You can't beat that deal any where.


Take a look at the below links if you are interested in reading more
or buying this 1,600 ebook DVD package please click on either of the
links below.
http://www.survivalebooks.com/products.html
http://www.specialforcesebooksbooksus.com/

Here is another offer master collection of 2,100 FIREARM MANUALS ON
ONE DVD DISK for only $20.00, click on the below link for a detailed
list of what is on the disk or if you wish to order it.
http://www.survivalebooks.com/2100_firearm_manuals_plus_more.html

Go green with this Alternative Energy package of over 480 manuals on
one disk for only $25.00, about how to build solar cells, solar
panels and solar arrays, windmills and or wind turbines, hydrogen
generators. And how to make your own biodiesel and ethanol. For more
info or to order click the link below.
http://www.survivalebooks.com/AlternativeEnergy.html

Here is a free copy of the U.S. Army Survival Field Manual FM 21-76
3-05.70

http://www.survivalebooks.com/survivalfm3-0570.html

"If you have ever paid between $5 to $30 for just one of these great
books on paper at a surplus store or gun show
  (and usually only a few to choose from), then you already know that
this one of the best deals you will ever find."
  Even if these ebooks were only $.99 each, these 2 DVDs have 1,600
ebooks... that is at least over a  $1,600  value!

EXACT COPIES OF THE ORIGINALS MANUALS

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF BOOKS ON TWO DVD-ROMs.  YOU OWN THEM
NO LINKS, NO JUNK, VIEW THEM ANYTIME YOU WANT, OFFLINE, ETC...


THE DVD-ROMs START HERE! THE ULTIMATE U.S. MILITARY LIBRARY DVD
1,600 SELECT U.S. ARMY, CIVAL DEFENSE EBOOKS, U.S. NAVY & U.S.
MARINE EBOOKS ORGANIZED ON THESE TWO (2) DVDs!!

YES! You get over 1,600 select Military Ebooks organized on this one
(2) DVD disc set for your PC No Tricks, Not Links, No Downloads, Not
Online..Your books.

ORDER NOW!! FREE USPS FIRST CLASS SHIPPING TO THE U.S. AND OVER SEAS.

The titles you see below, and what you see is what you get on your 2
DVDs!


TACTICS & STRATEGY EBOOKS  (all included!)
1967 US Army Vietnam Enemy Jungle Tact. Plat. Leaders  44p.
1974 US Army Vietnam Tactical Land Clearing  105p.
1989 US Army Weather Support for Army Tactical Ops  146p.
1990 US Army Terrain Analysis  205p.
1991 US Army Tactical Record Traffic System  147p.
1998 US Army Preparation Analysis of Battlefield Area 85p.
1999 US Marines Logistics Operations  90p.
2000 US Army Tactics vs. Electronic Attack  117p.
2000 US Marines Tactical Level Logistics  153p.
2001 US Army Tactics  564p.
2001 US Marines Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare  16p.


URBAN OPERATIONS EBOOKS (all included!)
1979 US Army Military Ops Urbanized Terrain MOUT  276p.
1992 US Army Combat in Built up Areas  211p.
1993 US Army Infantrymans Combat Guide Built Up Aeas 302p.
1998 US Marines Military Ops on Urban Terrain MOUT  368p.
1999 US Army Rifle Platoon Urban Combat II  174p.
2002 US Army Combined Arms Ops in Urban Terrain  643p.
2002 US Army Training for Urban Operations  149p.
2003 US Army Urban Operations  349p.
2006 US Army Urban Operations  316p.


SNIPER EBOOKS (all included!)
1954 Mosin-Nagant 1891-1944 Rifles Carbines Sniper  37p.
1968 US Army Vietnam M14 M14A M2 Bipod Rifle  68p.
1969 US Army Vietnam M1 Garand Rifle Snipers  43p.
1974 US Army Vietnam M14 M14A1 Rifle Marksmanship  237p.
1994 US Army Sniper Training  327p.
2004 US Marines Sniping  203p.
US Army Counter Sniper Marksmanship Guide 32p.
US Army M21 Sniper Weapon System (from FM 23-10)  16p.
US Army Primary Sniper Weapons of the World  7p.
US Army Sniper Sustainment Training  21p.
US Marine Sniper  183p.
US Navy Seal Sniper Training Syllabus  301p.
US Sniper Carlos Hathcock  22p.


MILITARY INTELLIGENCE EBOOKS (all included!)
1944 US Navy WWII ECM Mark 2 Cipher Machine 107p.
1954 US Army Official UFO Manual  25p.
1986 US Army Intelligence & Electronic Warfare Ops  324p.
1987 US Army Photography in Climatic Extremes  30p.
1990 US Army Intelligence Analysis  429p.
1992 US Army Intelligence Interrogation  177p.
1993 US Army Counterintelligence Liaison Activities  56p.
1993 US Army Use of Intelligence Products  135p.
1993 US Navy Photography (Advanced)  480p.
1994 US Army Introduction to the Intel. Analyst  31p.
1995 US Army Captured Document Handling  35p.
1995 US Army Counter Intelligence  229p.
1995 US Army Intelligence Preparation Of Battlefield  279p.
1995 US Army Interrogation Approaches  31p.
1995 US Army Interrogation Operations  80p.
1995 US Navy Photography (Advanced)  226p.
1996 US Army Interrogation Use of Interpreters  23p.
1996 US Navy Intel Specialist 3 & 2 Vol 1  402p.
1997 US Army Interrogation Questioning Techniques  35p.
1997 US Army Strategic Intelligence  94p.
1998 CIA Remote Viewing Manual 1986 Released in 1998  98p.
1998 US Army Counterintelligence Investigations  95p.
1998 US Army Intelligence in Combatting Terrorism  98p.
1998 US Army Intelligence in Sup. of Internal Def. Ops  63p.
1998 US Army Intelligence Officers Handbook  212p.
1998 US Army Interrogation Screening Operations  48p.
1998 US Army Interrogation Terminate an Interrogation  23p.
1998 US Army Intro to Battlefield Tech Intelligence  57p.
1998 US Army Technical Intelligence  191p.
1999 US Army Intelligence Officer Responsibilities  51p.
1999 US Marines Signals Intelligence (SIGINT)  123p.
2000 US Marines Geographic Intelligence (GEOINT) 203p.
2002 US Marines Imagery Intelligence  210p.
2003 FBI Guide to Conceallable Weapons  89p.
2003 US Army Information Operations  314p.
2004 US Army Intelligence  211p.
2004 US Operational Law Handbook  563p.
2005 US Army PSYOPS Psychological Ops Leaders Guide  80p.
CIA Psychological Ops in Guerrilla Warfare   64p.
CIA Real Life Spy Gear From CIA Site  2p.


MARKSMANSHIP EBOOKS (all included!)
WWII W.E. Fairbairn Shooting To Live  110p.
1959 US Army Vietnam Cleaning Match Weapons  4p.
1971 US Army Vietnam Match Weapon Standards  6p.
1974 US Army Vietnam M14 M14A1 Rifle Marksmanship  237p.
1987 US Army Ammo Data Sheets Small Caliber Firearms  327p.
1988 US Army Combat Training Pistols & Revolvers  100p.
1997 US Army Standards In Weapons Training  180p.
2001 US Marines Rifle Marksmanship  117p.
2002 US Marines Pistol Marksmanship  111p.
2003 US Army Combat Training with Pistols M9 M11  71p.
2005 US Army Weapon Handling Procedures  8p.
BATF Curio & Relic License
BATF Curio Classifications
US Army How to Shoot Your M-16 AR15 in Combat  82p.
US Army How to Zero an M16A2 Rifle  5p.
US Army International Rifle Marksmanship Guide  137p.
US Army Pistol Marksmanship Training Guide  94p.
US Army Trainers Guide To Successful Marksmanship  29p.
US Navy SeaBee Combat Rifle and Pistol Guide  94p.


RIFLE EBOOKS(all included!)
50 Caliber Sniper Rifle - Investigation of Capabilities  14p.
1917 US Army WWI M1917 Enfield US GPO  33p.
1954 Mosin-Nagant 1891-1944 Rifles Carbines Sniper  37p.
1965 US Army Vietnam 7.62MM M14 & M14E2  51p.
1968 US Army Vietnam M14 M14A M2 Bipod Rifle  68p.
1969 US Army Vietnam M1 Garand Rifle Snipers  43p.
1969 US Army Vietnam M16A1 Rifle CARTOON Manual  30p.
1969 US Army Vietnam SKS Rifle Simonov Type 56  23p.
1973 Ruger Mini-14 .223mm Cal Autoloading Rifle  48p.
1980 M16A1 Colt Rifle Maint & Repair Manual 65p.
1983 US Army M16 Rifle Manual  202p.
1984 US Army M203 40mm Grenade Launcher  107p.
1985 US Army M16 M16A1 Rifle Maintenance and Op 154p.
1987 US Army M4 Carbine  5.56MM  56p.
1993 US Army M16A2  5.56mm Rifle  66p.
1994 US Army M4A1 Carbine  5.56MM  58p.
1997 Armalite AR10 M15 Operators Manual  24p.
1999 Bushmaster M17S Bulpup Manual  11p.
AR-7 Survival Rifle Do Everything Manual
Bushmaster XM15 Operators Manual
FN 49 Semi Automatic Rifle  53p.
FN 98 Mauser Model 98 Rifle Operators Manual  28p.
FN FAL Assault Rifle Manual  42p.
Heckler & Koch HK33 5.56mm x 45 Nato Auto Rifle  55p.
Heckler & Koch HK416 Enhanced Carbine 5.56x45mm NATO
Heckler & Koch HK G3 GMBH 7.62 x 51 Nato Auto Rifle  57p.
Israeli Galil ARM AR SAR Model 5.56mm Rifle  33p.
Olympic Arms Inc. OA Series Firearms Owners Manual  34p.
Olympic Arms Inc. PCR & AR Owners Manual  26p.
POSP 4x24 PSO-1 Rifle Scopes Instruction Manual
Robinson Armament Co. M96 Recon & Expedition 2002  23p.
Robinson Armament Co. Super VEPR .308 Cal Manual  27p.
Robinson Armament Co. VEPR II Rifle Manual   28p.
Romak-3 Dragunov Rifle 7.62x52R Owners Manual  7p.
Ruger 7.62 Mini Thirty Autoload Rifle 1987  21p.
Ruger 10-22 10-17 & Magnum Autoload Rifles  51p.
Ruger 10-22 by Trigger  5p.
Ruger 10-22 Carbine .22 cal  Manual 1998  21p.
Ruger 10-22 Magnum Parts List
Ruger 10-22 Parts Diagram and Numbers
Ruger 10-22 Sniper Rifles 2005  2p.
Ruger 2005 Firearms Catalog 52p.
Ruger M-77 Bolt Action Rifle Operators Manual  9p.
Rugers 2004 Firearms Catalog  51p.
SAR Romanian Semi Automatic Rifle Manual 2001  12p.
Soviet BLOC SKS Carbine Tech Info 2002  28p.
SVD Dragunov Sniper Rifle 7.62 Tech & Service 1999  27p.
US Army AK-47 Operators Manual  42p.
US Army M21 Sniper Weapon System (from FM 23-10)  16p.
US Army Vietnam AR15 Car15 M16 Rifle Manual    121p.
Valmet M76 Simiautomatic Rifle Operators Manual  11p.
WWII  The Fighting Garand  85p.
WWII British Lee Enfield Rifles Operators Manual  11p.
WWII M1 Carbine Rifle Manual  97p.
ZDF VEPR Rifle and Carbine Manual 1998  15p.


SHOTGUN EBOOKS (all included!)
US Marines - FRAG-12  High Explosive Shotgun Shells  1p.
1942 WWII US War Department Shotguns All Types  258p.
1967 US Army Vietnam Shotguns All Types  257p.
Remington 870 & Super Mag Pump Shotgun Manual  20p.
Remington 1100, 11-87 & Super Mag Auto Shotguns  26p.


PISTOL EBOOKS  (all included!)
WWII German Luger Pistol Manual  19p.
WWII Walther P-38 Owners Manual  24p.
1961 US Army Vietnam .45 w hip & shoulder holsters 15p.
1968 US Army Vietnam .45 with holsters  56p.
1985 US Army 9mm M9 Pistol Use & Maintenance 120p.
1987 US Army M9 9mm Pistol  71p.
2000 US Marines M9 Service Pistol  13p.
Browning 9mm High Power Automatic Pistol Manual    17p.
COP Compact Off Duty Police Manual  10p.
Glock 9mm Semiauto Safe Act. 17,19,20,21,22,23  1992  60p.
HS 2000 9x19mm Parabellum Pistol  36p.
Ruger Mark III Autoloading Pistol Manual   44p.
Safari Arms .45 Automatic Pistols Manual   42 p.


MACHINE GUN EBOOKS (all included!)
1942 US Army WWII Thompson Submachine Gun .45 14p.
1942 WWII British Sten Mk II Carbine 9mm  9p.
1970 US Army Vietnam M60 Machine Gun Manual  31p.
1974 US Army Vietnam Submachine Guns Grease Gun M3 M3A1
1984 US Army .50 Cal Machine Gun Maint. & Op. 112p.
1991 US Army Browining MG Caliber 50 HB M2  201p.
1996 US Marines Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery  430p.
1998 UN Protocol against Illicit Manufacture Firearms  14p.
1998 US Army M60 Machine Gun Maintenance & Op. 220p.
2002 US Army Browning .50 cal Machine Gun  246p.
2003 US Army Crew Served Machine Guns 5.56mm 7.62mm
Heckler & Koch H&K MP5 Submachine Gun   119p.
MAC 10  M10-M11 Submachine Gun Op  Maitenance  36p.
Uzi Sub Machine Gun Operation Manual   25p.


HEAVIER WEAPON EBOOKS (all included!)
1943 US Navy WWII 5 Inch Gun Operations manual  102p.
1944 US Navy WWII 16 Inch Gun Range Tables  72p.
1947 US Navy WWII 8 Inch 3 Gun Turrets  220p.
1965 US Army Vietnam 90mm Recoilless Rifle M67  71p.
1981 US Army Principles of Artillery Weapons  131p.
1996 US Army Tactical Employment of Mortars  296p.
2000 US Army Mortars Gunnery 424p.
2000 US Marines Mortars  412p.
2000 US Marines Mortars Gunnery  346p.
2001 US Army Light Antiarmor Weapons  136p.
2001 US Army M47 Dragon Med Antitank Weapon Sys.  148p.
2002 US Army Mortars 347p.
2003 US Army 40mm Grenade Launcher M203  144p.
2005 US Army Grenades and Pyrotechnic Signals  156p.


AMMUNITION EBOOKS (all included!)
1993 US Army Ammunition General  243p.
1998 US Army Munitions Support in Theater of Ops  86p.
2001 US Army Ammunition Tactics Munitions Handlers 254p.
2003 US Army Large Ammo Data Sheets  913p.
2005 US Army Small Arms Ammo Hot Weather Desert Ops 2p.
US Army Ammunition Storage  74p.
US Army Identifying Ammunition 7  78p.
US Army Interpreting Ammo Markings and Color Codes  19p.


NUCLEAR BIOLOGICAL & CHEMICAL EBOOKS (all included!)
1964 US Army Vietnam Nuclear Play Calculator  48p.
1986 US Army Field Behavior of NBC Agents  79p.
1990 US Army Potential Mil.Chem.BioAgents.Compounds  130p.
1992 US Marines NBC Protection  195p.
1993 US Army Chemical Staffs and Units  260p.
1993 US Army NBC Field Handbook  204p.
1994 US Army Commander's Tactical NBC Handbook  119p.
1994 US Army Nuclear Contamination Aviodance  316p.
1995 US Air Force Counter NBC Nuc. Bio. Chem. Ops  63p.
1996 NATO  Medical Aspects of NBC Defense  443p.
1997 US Army Chemical Weapons Tech Sec. VI  38p.
1997 US Army Corps of Engineers Radiation Protection  175p.
1998 US Air Force Nuclear Operations  50p.
2000 US Army NBC Decontamination  229p.
2000 US Army The Medical NBC Battlebook  303p.
2000 US Multiservice NBC Defense Fixed Sites  233p.
2000 US Multiservice NBC Defense Tactics  220p.
2000 US Multiservice Treat. of Bio. Agent Casualties  115p.
2000 USDOT Emergency Response to Hazardous Materials  383p.
2001 BioWarfare and US Strategic Risk  116p.
2002 US Army Health Service Support NBC Environment  240p.
2004 US Multiservice Biological Surveillance  248p.
2005 US Multiservice Potent Chem Bio Agent Compound  318p.
2006 US Army Chem,Bio,Radiolog,Nuclear,Explosive  75p.
FEMA 1988 Recovery From Nuclear Attack  29p.
FEMA An Introduction to Hazardous Materials   131p.
FEMA Chemical Emergency  11p.
FEMA Radiological Accidents  4p.
US Army Biological Weapons Tech Section III  27p.
US Army Treating Chem. & Bio. Agent Casualties  81p.
US Multiservice Treat Nuclear & Radiolog.Casualties 180p.


MILITARY POLICE & SECURITY EBOOKS (all included!)
1966 US Army Vietnam Polygraph Examinations  9p.
1967 US Army Vietnam Crimes Involving Poisons  17p.
1967 US Army Vietnam Enemy Prisoners and Civillian  81p.
1967 US Army Vietnam Invest. Assault Suicide Homicide 25p.
1968 US Army Vietnam Civil Disturb. and Disasters 214p.
1969 US Army Vietnam Military Police Support Arm. Div. 64p
1971 US Army Vietnam Guard Duty  122p.
1977 US Army Military Police Traffic Operations  245p.
1985 US Army Civil Disturbances  160p.
1985 US Army Law Enforcement Investigations  281p.
1987 US Army Military Police Law and Order Operations  238p.
1993 US Army Military Police Investig. Sup.Materials 393p.
1993 US Army The Army Physical Security Program  64p.
1995 US Army Military Police Tactics Techn. Proced.  88p.
1997 US Army Public Affairs Operations  77p.
1999 US Army Operations Security (OPSEC)  52p.
2001 US Army Military Police Internment Resettle. Ops 317p.
2001 US Army Physical Security  317p.
2001 US Navy Physical Security  119p.
2002 Arizona Police Special Response Team SRT Guide  69p.
2002 US Army Military Police Leaders Handbook  640p.
2005 US Army Civil Disturbance Operations  256p.
2005 US Army Command & Control of Detainee Ops  19p.
2005 US Army Law Enforcement Investigations  507p.
2006 US Army Civil Disturbance Operations  115p.
2006 US Army Military Police Interview Investig. Appreh. 86p
2006 US Army Military Police MP Detainee Proced. Ops 53p.
Drug Enforcement Agency Narcotics Investigators Manual 255p.
FBI Handbook Of Forensic Science  130p.


COMMAND EBOOKS (all included!)
1961 US Army Vietnam Military Leadership  87p.
1961 US Army Vietnam Quartermaster Sales Co.  83p.
1964 US Army Vietnam The Chaplain  78p.
1968 US Army Vietnam Drill and Ceremonies 202p.
1975 US Army Vietnam How to Conduct Mil Training  180p.
1988 US Army A History of US Army Lessons Learned  177p.
1990 US Army Military Leadership  96p.
1992 US Army Operations in Low Intensity Conflict  260p.
1993 US Army Leadership  15p.
1995 US Army Decisive Force The Army in Theater of Ops 248p
1997 US Army Operational Terms & Graphics  339p.
1997 US Army Public Affairs Operations  77p.
1998 US Marines Personal Financial Management  151p.
1998 USDOE Human Factors & Ergonomics  231p.
2000 US Army Public Affairs Tactics Techniq. Proced. 202p
2000 US Navy Operations Specialist Volume 1  294p.
2000 US Navy School Management Manual  352p.
2001 US Army Joint Force Land Component Command  144p.
2001 US Army Operations  313p.
2001 US Army Risk Management  61p.
2001 US Army The Army FM 1  49p.
2001 US Marines Iraqi Culture Brief  5p.
2002 US Army Command Policy  97p.
2002 US Army Dictionary of Military Terms  616p.
2002 US Army Military Operations  162p.
2002 US Army Preparing & Managing Correspondence  34p.
2002 US Marines Iraq Intro to Country and People  123p.
2002 US Marines Troop Leaders Guide  359p.
2002 US Military Almanac 2001-2002  94p.
2003 US Army Civil Affairs Tactics Techniq. Proced.  535p.
2003 US Army Drill and Ceremonies  277p.
2003 US Army Peace Operations  191p.
2003 US Army Religous Support  201p.
2003 US Army The Army Universal Task List  450p.
2003 US Marines Afghanistan Intro to Country & People  67p.
2003 US Marines Drill and Ceremonies Manual  138p.
2003 US Navy Instructional Theory  160p.
2005 FEMA Decision Making & Problem Solving  122p.
2005 FEMA Effective Communication  158p.
2005 FEMA Leadership and Influence  191p.
FEMA Emergency Management for Business & Industry  81p.
US Army Domestic Operations  163p.
US Army Effective Speaking  169p.


COMMUNICATION EBOOKS (all included!)
1936 US Army WWII Radio Receiver Instruction BC-224A 88p.
1942 US Air Force WWII Radio Manual BC-348 Radios  88p.
1944 US Navy WWII  ECM Mark 2 Cipher Machine  107p.
1945 US Navy WWII Radar Operators Manual  407p.
1946 US Navy WWII Intro to Radio Equipment  308p.
1953 US Army Signal Generator  60p.
1960 US Army Vietnam Field Wire and Field Cable Techniques
1962 US Army Vietnam Film and Equipment Exchange Ops  131p.
1964 US Army Vietnam Topographic Symbols  149p.
1969 US Army Vietnam The Military Band  105p.
1978 US Army Piano and Guitar  69p.
1985 US Army Journalist Perform as Announcer & Maintain. 50p
1985 US Army Photojournalism I  82p.
1985 US Navy Aircraft Colors & Markings  308p.
1986 US Army Application of TV Test Equipment  97p.
1986 US Army Electronic Radio Wave Propagation Antennas 186p
1986 US Army TV and Audio Systems  64p.
1986 US Army TV Field Television Production  205p.
1986 US Navy Ear Training For Musicians  94p.
1987 US Army Basic TV Lighting Audio Scenery  65p.
1987 US Army Send a Radio Message  7p.
1987 US Army Tactical Single Channel Radio Techniques  186p.
1987 US Army TV Basic Lighting Techniques  46p.
1987 US Army TV Filming Uncontrolled Action  38p.
1987 US Army Visual Signals  72p.
1988 US Army TV Analyzing Color Vid. & Test Signals  80p.
1988 US Army TV Filming Controlled Action  41p.
1988 US Army TV Graphics Broadcast Journalists  25p.
1988 US Army TV Script Writing Ed. Visual Info Programs 83p
1989 US Army Journalist Planning & Product. Field & TV  33p.
1989 US Army Photojournalism II  46p.
1989 US Army Photojournalism III  34p.
1989 US Army Still Photography for Journalists  122p.
1990 US Army Electronic Journalism II   98p.
1990 US Army Journalism Advanced Broadcasting  1990  43pgs
1990 US Army TV Documentation Cinematography  49p.
1991 US Army Electronic Journalism I  76p.
1991 US Navy Basic Music  61p.
1992 US Army Communications Jamming  77p.
1993 US Army Journalism Feature Writing & Editorials  57p.
1994 US Army Electronics Plan Tactical Telephone Sys.  73p.
1994 US Army Signal Data Ref. Signal Equipment  410p.
1997 US Multiservice Brevity Codes  34p.
1998 US Navy Radio Frequency Comm. Principles V17 201p.
1999 US Army Electronics Basic Communications Info  51.p
1999 US Army Electronics Radio Direction Finding  53p.
1999 US Marines Antenna Handbook  192p.
2001 US Marines Radio Operator's Handbook  148p.
2002 US Army Comm. Procedures for Tactical Radio  92p.
2002 US Marines Communications for the FMF Marine  83p.
2003 US Marines Antenna Handbook  191p.
2003 US Multiservice Brevity Codes  50p.
2004 US Army Wave Propagation Trans. Lines Antennas  269p.
2005 Multiservice Tactics & Procedures Hi Freq. Radio  108p.
US Army Abbreviations & Codes  172p.
US Army Basic Circuits of TV Studio Equipment  65p.


MECHANIC & DRIVER EBOOKS (all included!)
1962 US Army Vietnam Vehicle Recovery Operations  168p.
1980 US Navy Driver's Handbook  84p.
1983 USDOD Handbook for Rustproofing Vehicles  84p.
1988 US Army Mechanic-Elec. Sys. Component Repair  254p.
1991 US Army Mechanic Principles of Auto Electricity  112p.
1991 US Army Mechanic Principles of Auto Engines  77p.
1991 US Army Principles of Auto Electricity  57p.
1992 US Army Vehicle Unit Maintenance 1  622p.
1997 US Army Vehicle Unit Maintenance 2  893p.
US Army High Mobil. Multipurpose Wheeled Veh. (HMMWV) 59p
US Army Introduction to Wheeled Vehicles  60p.
US Army Mechanic Hand Tools  158p.
US Army Mechanic Internal Combust Engines  105p.
US Army Mechanic Metal Auto Body Repair  60p.
US Army Mechanic Principles Gas Diesel Fuel Systems 127p.
US Army Mechanic Wheel Vehicle Clutches Trans Transfer 116p
US Army Mechanic Wheel Vehicle Elecrical Systems II  115p.
US Army Mechanic Wheel Vehicle Steering Systems  54p.
US Army Mechanic Wheel Vehicles Fuel & Exhaust Sys. 78p.
US Army Mechanic Wheeled Vehicle Brake Systems  88p.
US Army Mechanic Wheeled Vehicle Electrical Systems I  126p.
US Army Mechanic-Wheel Veh Drive Lines Axles Suspens.  81p.
US Army Mechanic-Wheel Vehicle Engines  162p.
US Army Simplified Test Equip- Intern Combust Engine  75p.


NAVAL EBOOKS (all included!)
1942 US Navy WWII PT Boat Tactical Doctrine  134p.
1944 US Navy WWII Detail Specs for Building PT Boats  116p.
1945 US Navy WWII Know Your PT Boat  55p.
1992 US Army Mechanic Cooling Water Marine Diesel Eng. 15p
1992 US Army Preventive Watercraft Maintenance  18p.
1992 US Navy Corrosion Control  306p.
1993 US Navy Civilian Diving Program  27p.
1994 US Army Introduction to Marine Electricity  369p.
1994 US Navy Master at Arms course  716p.
1995 US Army Painting of Watercraft  135p.
1996 US Army Watercraft Equip. Character. & Data  135p.
1996 US Army Watercraft Safety  251p.
1997 US Army Shipboard Operations  277p.
2000 US Army Military Diving  931p.
2000 US Navy Shipboard Pest Control  170p.
2001 US Marines Amphibious Ships & Landing Craft Data  39p.
2002 US Coast Guard You're in Command - Boat Safely  13p.
2003 US Navy Maintainence Policy for U.S. Ships  74p.
2003 US Navy Nautical Skills Course Quartermaster  486p.
US Dept Ocean Engineering Maneuvering Marine Vehicles  200p.


AIRCRAFT EBOOKS (all included!)
1968 US Army Vietnam Aerial Observer Techniques  71p.
1985 US Navy Aircraft Colors & Markings  308p.
1996 Op Manual UH-60A UH-60L EH-60A Helicopter 841p
1996 US Army Visual Aircraft Recognition  364p.
1997 US Army Attack Helicopter Operations  351p.
1997 US Army Helicopter Ops Utility and Cargo  179p.
2003 US Army Aerial Delivery in Theater of Ops  56p.
2003 US Navy Aviation Weather Student Guide  158p.
2004 US Army Chinook Helicopter  714p.
2004 US Marines Helicopterborne Operations  136p.


RAILROAD EBOOKS (all included!)
1976 US Army Railroad Military Railway Equipment  52p.
1976 US Army Railroad Rail Operations Theater  85p.
1999 US Navy Railway Operating Handbook  207p.
US Army Diesel Electric Locomotives  155p.
US Army Loading Blocking Bracing Rail Cars  96p.
US Army Maint Diesel Elec. Loco. Roll Stock  107p.
US Army Military Train Ops  125p.
US Army Rail Dispatching Operations  172p.
US Army Rail Operations 2003  233p.
US Army Rail Ops Planning  169p.
US Army Rail Yard Operations Ed. 7  172p.
US Army Railway Rolling Stock Ed. 4  144p.
US Army Railway Track Maintenance I Ed.8  120p.
US Army Railway Track Maintenance II Ed.1  120p.


FIRST  AID EBOOKS (all included!)
1976 US Army Medical First Aid For Soldiers  160p.
1982 US Army Special Forces Medical Handbook  210p.
1990 US Army Medical Poisonous Snakebite Treatment  4p.
1992 US Army Medical Foreign Body Airway Obstruction  4p.
1993 US Army Venomous Arthropods Spiders Bees Ants etc.  4p.
2002 US Army First Aid For Soldiers (Fast Index!)  309p.
2005 US Army Medical Self Aid and Buddy-Aid  271p.
2006 US Army Medical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation CPR 131p
2006 US Army Medical Taking Vital Signs  120p.
2006 US Army Medical Treating Fractures in the Field  113p.
2006 US Army Tactical Combat Casualty & Wound Care  177p.
NATO Emergency War Surgery  446p.


MEDICAL EBOOKS (all included!)
1984 US Army Medical Specialist  718p.
2001 US Army Medical Aspects of Harsh Environments V1  624p.
2001 US Army Medical Aspects of Harsh Environments V2  611p.
2001 US Army Medical Platoon Leader Handbook  224p.
2003 US Navy Hospital Corpsman  574p.
2004 US Navy Manual of Naval Preventive Medicine 561p.
2005 US Army Medical General Chemistry  117p.
2005 US Army Medical Obstetric & Newborn Care I  185p.
2005 US Army Medical Obstetric & Newborn Care II  260p.
2005 US Army Medical Storage and Sanitation  135p.
2006 Medical Respiratory Diseases & Disorders  101p.
2006 US Army Medical Anesthesia Apparatus  61p.
2006 US Army Medical Bacteriology  265p.
2006 US Army Medical Environmental Diseases Injuries I  96p.
2006 US Army Medical Environmental Injuries  92p.
2006 US Army Medical Environmental Injuries II  79p.
2006 US Army Medical Health Care Ethics I  127p.
2006 US Army Medical Health Care Ethics II  202p.
2006 US Army Medical Immunization & Enviro. Injuries  157p.
2006 US Army Medical Inpatient Dispensing  60p.
2006 US Army Medical Laboratory Centrifuge  33p.
2006 US Army Medical Operating Room Table  42p.
2006 US Army Medical Parasitology I  124p.
2006 US Army Medical Parasitology II  2006  254p.
2006 US Army Medical Pharmacology IV  195p.
2006 US Army Medical Surgical Dressing Sterilizer  64p.
2006 US Army Obstetrics & Pediatrics  114p.
US Army Basic Medical Terminology  204p.
US Army Blood Donor Operations I  Ed.101  192p.
US Army Management of Patients Resperatory Dysfunct. 72p.
US Army Medical Arthropod Control  62p.
US Army Medical Arthropod Identification & Surveys  124p.
US Army Medical Basic Electrical Circuits Ed.200  37p.
US Army Medical Basic Electricity Ed.200  37p.
US Army Medical Basic Human Anatomy Ed.100  255p.
US Army Medical Basic Human Physiology Ed.100  307p.
US Army Medical Basic Mathematics Ed.100  124p.
US Army Medical Basic Patient Care Procedures  122p.
US Army Medical Blood Donor Operations II Ed.101  101p.
US Army Medical Cardiac Impairment Ed.100  108p.
US Army Medical Chest & Airway Problems Ed.100  62p.
US Army Medical Communicable Diseases Field Sanitation 139p
US Army Medical Decontaminating Casualties Ed.100  48p.
US Army Medical Diseases of Military Importance E100 165p.
US Army Medical Drug Dosage and Therapy Ed.100  237p.
US Army Medical Environmental Injuries Ed 100  86p.
US Army Medical Eye Ear and Nose Injuries  62p.
US Army Medical Intro to Military Preventive Medicine  178p.
US Army Medical Introduction to Practical Nursing  46p.
US Army Medical Laboratory Mathematics  182p.
US Army Medical Pharmaceutical Calculations  149p.
US Army Medical Pharmacology I  202p.
US Army Medical Pharmacology II  205p.
US Army Medical Pharmacology III  179p.
US Army Medical Pharmacology Math for Practical Nurse  167p.
US Army Medical Principles Epidemiology Microbiology 89p.
US Army Medical Rodent Biology Survey and Control  60p.
US Army Medical Routine Procedures for an Operation  98p.
US Army Medical Solid Waste Disposal Ed. 100  93p.
US Army Medical Special Surgical Procedures II  166p.
US Army Medical Sterile Procedures Ed.100  82p.
US Army Medical The Central Nervous System  123p.
US Army Medical The Endocrine System Ed.100  50p.
US Army Medical The Gastrointestinal System Ed.100  145p.
US Army Medical The Genitourinary System I  Ed.100  90p.
US Army Medical The Genitourinary System II Ed.100  84p.
US Army Medical The Musculoskeletal System Ed.100  49p.
US Army Medical The Sensory System Ed.100  100p.
US Army Medical Wastewater Treatment Ed 100  155p.
US Army Medical Wound Care Ed.100  78p.
US Army Nursing Cardio Related Respiratory System  109p.
US Army Nursing Care of the Surgical Patient  96p.
US Army Nursing Gastrointestinal Related & Urinary  137p.
US Army Nursing Related to Musculoskeletal System  71p.
US Army Nursing Sensory & Neurological System Related  113p.
US Army Pesticides in the Military  101p.


HEALTH & FITNESS EBOOKS (all included!)
1970 US Army Vietnam Field Hygiene and Sanitation  90p.
1987 US Army The Army Weight Control Program  43p.
1996 US Navy Nutrition Weight Control Self Guide  123p.
1998 US Marines Personal Financial Management  151p.
1998 US Navy Personal Fitness Training Plan  16p.
1999 US Navy Peak from Nutrition & Exercise  132p.
2000 US Army Combat Stress  94p.
2000 US Army Field Hygiene  161p.
2001 US Army Soldier Stay Healthy at High Elevations  2p.
2002 US Marines Fitness Test & Body Comp. Program  124p.
2003 US Army Soldier Health Maintinance  103p.
2004 US Navy Manual of Naval Preventive Medicine  561p.
2004 US Navy Sexual Health Primer  79p.
2005 US Army Individual Safety Card  10p.
2006 US Army Mental Health  112p.
2006 US Army Psychosocial Issues  86p.
US Army Soldiers Guide to Stay Healthy  2p.
US Navy Muscular Exercise Program  7p.


DENTAL EBOOKS (all included!)
2006 US Army Dental Chair JSA-R  77p.
2006 US Army Dental Specialist General Duties  75p.
2006 US Army Preventive Dentistry  102p.
US Army Dental Anatomy & Physiology Ed.200  169p.
US Army Dental Instrument Setups Ed.200  174p.
US Army Dental Materials  Ed.100  99p.
US Army Dental Materials Ed.200  86p.


CARPENTRY EBOOKS (all included!)
1990 US Navy Wood Protection  226p.
1995 US Army Engineer Carpentry 223p.
1995 US Army Engineer Carpentry I  117p.
1995 US Army Engineer Carpentry II  104p.
1995 US Army Engineer Carpentry III  66p.


CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING EBOOKS (all included!)
1960 US Army Vietnam Engineers Infantry Division 202p.
1962 US Army Vietnam Field Paint Letters Stencils  141p.
1963 US Army Vietnam Engineer Shore Assault Unit  113p.
1966 US Army Vietnam Engineer Battalion Airborne Div.  47p.
1967 US Army Vietnam Engineers Nondiv. Combat Unit  122p.
1986 US Army General Engineering 162p.
1986 US Navy Blast Resistant Structures  358p.
1988 US Army Engineer Landscape Design & Planting  60p.
1989 US Navy Weed Control & Plant Growth Reg.  179p.
1990 US Marines Heavy Construction Equipment - Grader  39p.
1990 US Marines Heavy Construction Equipment - Scraper  37p.
1992 US Army Engineer Builders Hardware  16p.
1992 US Army Engineer Construction Management Course  52p.
1994 US Navy Blueprint Reading Sketching  221p.
1996 US Army Engineer Survey I-Math & Survey Princip.  166p.
1997 US Army Topographic Operations  157p.
2001 US Army Engineer Survey III Topograph.Geodetic  283p.
2001 US Army Topographic Surveying  330p.
2001 USDOD Inspection Mainten.Test-Fire Protect Sys.  39p.
2001 USDOD Systems Engineering Fundamentals  222p.
2002 US Army Engineer Mil. Nonstandard Fixed Bridging  558p.
2002 US Marines Engineering Operations  89p.
2003 US Army Contractors on the Battlefield  124p.
2004 US Army Corps of Engineers Diving Operations  54p.
2004 US Army Engineer Operations FM 3-34  339p.
2004 USDOD Fire Protect. Engineering for Facilities  119p.
2004 USDOD Tropical Engineering  92p.
2006 US Army Engineer Design Forms for Concrete Wall  47p.
US Army Engineer Cartography I Map Mathematics  183p.
US Army Engineer Cartography II  146p.
US Army Engineer Cartography III Aerial Photo.  103p.
US Army Engineer Cartography IX Map Overlays  72p.
US Army Engineer Cartography VII Color Separation  96p.
US Army Engineer Cartography VIII Map Editing  88p.
US Army Engineer Field Fortifications Course  215p.
US Army Engineer Intelligence & Recon  456p.
USDOD Protective Coatings and Paints


WELDING EBOOKS (all included!)
1985 US Army Welding Design Procedures Inspection  96p.
1991 US Navy Welding Materials Handbook  215p.
2002 US Navy Underwater Cutting & Welding  200p.
US Army Welding Operations I  113p.
US Army Welding Operations II  80p.
US Army Welding Theory  52p.


MACHINIST EBOOKS (all included!)
1988 US Army Machinist Milling Machine Operations 52p.
1993 US Navy Machinist Machinery Repairman  406p.
1996 US Army Machinist Fundamentals-Machine Tools  310p.
US Army Machinist Band Saw Operations Ed. 8  101p.
US Army Machinist Drafting Shop Drawing  117p.
US Army Machinist Lathe Operations  Ed. 8  140p.
US Army Machinist Machine Shop Calculation Ed.7  127p.
US Army Machinist Metal Prop. Characteristics Codes  98p.
US Army Machinist Milling Machine Operations  81p.
US Army Machinist Precision Measuring & Gaging  96p.
US Army Machinist Precision Measuring Instruments  50p.
US Army Machinist Shop Safety Ed. 9  83p.


ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS EBOOKS (all included!)
1984 US Army Electrical Power Plant Design  135p.
1985 US Army Electrical Cathodic Protection  60p.
1985 US Army Electrical Lightning Static Elec. Protect. 20p
1990 USDOD Soldering Electronics  212p.
1994 US Army Electrical Hydroelectric Pwr. Plant Design 118p
1995 US Army Electrical Power Supply & Dist.  122p.
1995 US Navy Electronics Tech 7 Antennas Wave Propag.  124p.
1996 US Army Basic Electronics Schematic Interpret. 82p.
1996 US Army Electrical Work Power and Energy  32p.
1996 US Army Electronics Intro to Logical Troubleshoot  59p.
1997 US Navy Electronics Technician 1 Safety  58p.
1997 US Navy Electronics Technician 3 Comm. Sys.  220p.
1998 US Army Electronics AC Math & Generation Sine Wave 81p
1998 US Dept. Of Energy Electrical Safety Handbook  324p.
1998 US Navy Electrical Safety Field Guide  154p.
1998 US Navy Electronics Microwave Principles  192p.
1998 US Navy Intro Elec.Conduct.Wiring.Schem.Read 152p.
1999 US Army Electrical Foreign Voltages Frequencies  31p.
1999 US Navy Electrical Measuring Test Instruments  42p.
1999 US Navy Electrical Motors and Controllers  50p.
1999 US Navy Electrical Power Generating Equipment  56p.
2004 USDOD Electrical-Safety-Elec.Trans.&Distrib.Sys.  187p.
US Army Basic Electricity Part 1  120p.
US Army Electrical DC AC Formula Data  2p.
US Army Electronics Intro to Cells and Batteries  32p.


HYDRAULIC EBOOKS (all included!)
1990 US Navy Fluid Power  206p.
1994 US Army Basic Hydraulic Systems  67p.
1994 US Army Basic Hydraulics and its Plumbing  76p.
1997 US Army Hydraulics  172p.
1999 US Army Engineer Const.Equip.Repairer Hydraulics 82p


ILLUSTRATION & DRAFTING EBOOKS (all included!)
2002 US Navy Illus. Draftsman 1 Equip.  372p.
2002 US Navy Illus. Draftsman 2 Drafting Pract.Theory  428p.
2003 US Navy Illus. Draftsman 3 Execution. Practices 582p
2003 US Navy Illus. Draftsman 4 Presentation Graphics  272p.


HEATING & COOLING EBOOKS (all included!)
1990 US Navy Maint. & Op of Active Solar Heating Sys.  277p.
1992 USDOE Instrumentation & Control Temp Detector  280p.
1992 USDOE Thermodynam.Heat Trans.Fluid Flow 1  138p.
1992 USDOE Thermodynam.Heat Trans.Fluid Flow 3  102p.
1995 USDOD Heating,Vent,Air Cond.Dehumid.Sys.  227p.
2002 USDOD Active Solar Preheat Systems  98p.
2004 USDOD Heating Sys. Op & Maintenance  282p.
2004 USDOD Passive Solar Buildings  201p.
2004 USDOD Solar Heating of Build. & Hot Water  167p.
US Army Engineer Refriger. & Air Cond. I Fundamentals  86p.
USDOE Fire - Primer on Spontaneous Heating and Pyrophoricity


PLUMBING EBOOKS (all included!)
2001 US Army Plumbing Pipe-Fitting Sewerage 340p.
US Army Plumbing I Prepare Plumbing Takeoff List  25p.
US Army Plumbing II Water Supply  78p.
US Army Plumbing III Waste Systems  102p.
US Army Plumbing IV Plumbing Fixtures  96p.
US Army Plumbing V Repair Valve Fixture Control Devices 57p
US Army Plumbing VI Clear Waste Sys. Stoppages  32p.


BASIC SUBJECT EBOOKS (all included!)
1985 US Navy Basic Maths and Algebra  304p.
1991 US Army Basic Statistics  118p.
1992 US Dept. Of Energy - Classical Physics  142p.
1992 US Dept. Of Energy - Mathematics 1of2  206p.
1992 US Dept. Of Energy - Mathematics 2of2  112p.
1993 US Dept. Of Energy - Chemistry 1of2  140p.
1993 US Dept. Of Energy - Chemistry 2of2  138p.
2005 US Army  Basic Math-Convers.Factors.Comm.Formula  2p.
US Army Basic Mathematics I Add Sub. Multiply Divide 75p.
US Army Basic Mathematics II Decimal Fractions  48p.
US Army Basic Mathematics III Area and Volume  55p.
US Army Basic Mathematics IV Ratio and Proportion  33p.



Ebooks are simply amazing.
Compact - Thousands of pounds of heavy paper books and a truck load
of space will fit in your jacket pocket.
Affordable - Some of these books in paper form are selling for $18-
$24 each online right now.
Printable - Most ebooks are printable so you can make your own copy
or print them to sell.
Options - Tools and back lit PC screen make viewing books so much
easier. Zoom, Grab Tool, Scroll and more.
Availability - Most of these titles are not available anywhere in
print. Many are vintage or very rare.
Versitility - Read these anywhere and anytime at home, on your
laptop, PDA or Digital Reader.
Sharable - Trade ebooks with other collectors, or sending a great
gift ebook is just an email away.
Windows and Mac - cross platform to work on either system with Adobe
Reader (always free)
The Future is Here! - Ebooks are universal, simple and user
friendly. The world gets more paperless everyday.



Q? WHAT IS AN EBOOK?
A. An ebook means electronic book. It is a copy of a book that has
been created for view on your computer as a PDF book.

Q? WHAT IS (Adobe!) PDF?
A. Portable Document Format (PDF) is a common and universal type of
file format that records and keeps the images, fonts and
arrangement of documents and books.  PDF Files are complete,
compact, sharable, viewable, searchable and printable. With
Adobe Reader, anyone can open a PDF. It is always free and usually
comes with new computers as a standard for reading most
documents. PDF files also have hyperlinks, and can also used on
mobile pocket type PC devices. Language Support means
you can view, search, and print PDF documents that contain Central
and Eastern European, Cyrillic, and Asian.

Q? DO YOU HAVE TO BE ONLINE TO VIEW THESE BOOKS?
A. No, these are complete books that you own and can view anytime
you wish. These are not links, although some books have
related links in them for more information etc.

Q? DO YOUR DISCS PLAY ON TV TYPE PLAYERS?
A.  Our DVD-ROMs are created for view on your home PC, laptop, etc.
Many handhelds, palm pilots etc...also read PDF!

Q? DO YOUR DISCS WORK ON A MAC AS WELL AS WINDOWS?
A.  Our DVD-ROM and CD-ROM contain Adobe PDF books that are cross
platform and work on either Operating System.


PERFECT FOR ANYONE THAT OWNS A COMPUTER AND LOVES THE OUTDOORS OR
MILITARY!
Any Library, Soldiers, Police, Fire and Rescue, Hunters, Fishermen,
Campers, Hikers, Boaters, Special Forces, Law Enforcement, Pilots,
Guides,
Survivalists, Martial Artists, Bounty Hunters, Private
Investigators, FBI,CIA,ATF Agents etc., Veterans,Collectors,
Teachers, Students, Scholars,
Hobbyists,  Border Patrol, DOC, Divers, Sailors, Travelers, RVs,
Bikers, Adventurers, Missionaries, Security, SWAT, Historians,
Suppliers,
Stratagists, Instructors, Trackers, Trappers, Welders, Book and
Ebook Collectors, Mountainmen, Modelers, Gamers, Reinactors...


"FREEDOM ISN'T FREE! THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE"
SUPPORT YOUR VETERANS AND TROOPS! COME HOME SAFE!
PLUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE & RESCUE, MEDICAL, TEACHERS...AND SO MANY
OTHERS
You know who you are.This page is dedicated to you all, the real
life everyday Heroes.


United States Army (USA!)    United States Navy (USN)   United
States Air Force (USAF)   United States Marine Corps (USMC) US Army
National Guard (USANG)
U.S. Corps Of Engineers (USCE)  United States Coast Guard (USCG)
Office Of Strategic Services (OSS)   Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA)   Federal Beaurea of Investigations (FBI)
Beaurea Of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms (BATF) Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)   US Department Of Defense (USDOD)   US
Department Of Energy (USDOE)
US Department Of Oceanic Engineering (USDOE)   North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) Unites States Army Corps Of Engineers (USACE)
Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
United Nations (UN)  Centers For Disease Control (CDC)  and More!


If you are interested in reading more or buy this ebook DVD package
please click on the link below.
http://www.survivalebooks.com/products.html

#389

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:14 am
Subject: Fw: Denying Medical Care in Oregon and then pressuring patient to accept assisted killing + "Selling Suicide in Seattle"

vesselofmerc...

Offline

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Panzer"
To: "Hospice Patients Alliance"
Subject: Denying Medical Care in Oregon and then pressuring patient to accept assisted killing + "Selling Suicide in Seattle"
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:06:59 -0400

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!

Hi,

We have two articles that illustrate the push to not only legalize
assisted suicide (permission to kill), but show the actual "end-game"
goals of the euthanasia zealots who are behind these dark changes in our
society.  What is the end-game goal?  .... mandatory "permission" to
kill, i.e., the duty to die.  This is what it has always been about,
just as Terri Schindler Schiavo was admitted to Hospice of the FL
Suncoast illegally, as she was not terminal at all, but disabled, and
then killed against her expressed wishes regarding life care (never
reported in the news media).  An abused woman, who was denied proper
rehabilitation over several years time, resulting in further degradation
of her condition (never reported in the major media).

The future of health care is now health-kill, and these articles prove
it.  See below.


Best wishes!

If people contemplate and really see the sanctity of life, their
"quality of life" arguments fall away and they will understand that we
are here to care for each other, not to kill each other. Caring, and not
convenience, is the sign of a civilized and just society!


Ron Panzer
for Hospice Patients Alliance
http://www.hospicepatients.org

"What I do you cannot do
but what you do, I cannot do.
The needs are great, and none of us,
including me, ever do great things.
But we can all do small things, with great love,
and together we can do something wonderful."  -  Mother Teresa

*************************************************

The Hospice Patients Alliance is a 501(c)(3) charitable patient advocacy
organization acting to preserve the original hospice mission and to
promote quality end-of-life services.


*************************************************


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392962,00.html

Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of
Medical Care
Monday , July 28, 2008
By Dan Springer

This is part of the America's Future series airing on FOX News Channel,
looking at the challenges facing the country in the 21st century.

PORTLAND, Ore. � Some terminally ill patients in Oregon who turned to
their state for health care were denied treatment and offered
doctor-assisted suicide instead, a proposal some experts have called a
"chilling" corruption of medical ethics.

Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of
Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to
pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon's state-run health
plan for help.

Lane Individual Practice Association (LIPA), which administers the
Oregon Health Plan in Lane County, responded to Stroup's request with a
letter saying the state would not cover Stroup's pricey treatment, but
would pay for the cost of physician-assisted suicide.

"It dropped my chin to the floor," Stroup told FOX News. "[How could
they] not pay for medication that would help my life, and yet offer to
pay to end my life?"

The letter, which has been sent to other terminal patients throughout
Oregon, follows guidelines established by the state legislature.

Oregon doesn't cover life-prolonging treatment unless there is better
than a 5 percent chance it will help the patients live for five more
years � but it covers doctor-assisted suicide, defining it as a means of
providing comfort, no different from hospice care or pain medication.

"It's chilling when you think about it," said Dr. William Toffler, a
professor of family medicine at Oregon Health & Science University. "It
absolutely conveys to the patient that continued living isn't worthwhile."

In issuing their latest Prioritized List of Health Services, state
officials reported a new emphasis on preventive care and cost
effectiveness. Dr. John Sattenspiel, LIPA's senior medical director,
defended the measures.

"I have had patients who would consider knowing that this is part of
that range of comfort care or palliative care services that are still
available to them, they would be comforted by that," Sattenspiel said.
"It really depends on the individual patient."

Toffler called it a callous practice that went against medical
convention.. "It corrupts the consistent medical ethic that has been in
place for 2,000 years," he said. "It's absolutely breathtaking."

Oregon is the only state to legalize doctor-assisted suicide, which came
into effect in 1997. Since that time, there have been 341 reported cases
where doctors provided lethal doses of medicine to patients to end their
lives.

Oregon voters have upheld the "Death with Dignity" law three times, and
Sattenspiel says it is the state's duty to inform patients of all their
legal options.

For Stroup, however, suicide was never an option. He fought back, and
the Oregon Health Plan eventually reversed its decision and is now
paying for his chemotherapy, giving him hope he'll be around a little
longer for his 80-year-old mother and five grandchildren.


********************

and in Washington:



http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=830&category=News%20&%20Me\
dia~News

Elenor K. Schoen
Selling Suicide in Seattle

( 14/08/08) A report on the state of the assisted suicide proposal in
Washington, and how efforts to lobby the state�s medical association
paid off.

OLYMPIA, Wash. As volunteers lugged boxes of signed petitions for
assisted suicide up the steps of the Washington Legislature, former Gov.
Booth Gardner announced: "We've crossed the first hurdle, and we�ve
crossed it cleanly, with room to spare. And I think we�re going to go
all the way. I'd bet on it."

His "Death With Dignity" supporters presented the secretary of state's
office with 320,000 signatures July 2. That's well above the minimum
requirement of 224,880.

Counting and verifying signatures has been completed, as of July 25,
allowing Initiative 1000 to be included on the November ballot.

Nancy Niedzielski symbolically signed the final petition. Two years ago,
Niedzielski watched her husband, Randy, die of brain cancer. At his
request, she is trying to change the law favoring physician-assisted
suicide, personally getting more than 1,600 signatures.

"Terminally ill patients in Washington should have the same choices that
they have in Oregon," Niedzielski said. "It is a compassionate act to
honor a person�s final wish. � Nobody, not the government and not the
Church, should tell you how much you have to suffer if you are
terminally ill." She said that if you wish to "choose a death with
dignity, that decision should be your decision."

But equally represented at the July 2 event were opponents of Initiative
1000. Duane French, a quadriplegic and director of Not Dead Yet,
Washington, joined fellow member Joelle Brouner, crippled by cerebral
palsy, and Drs. Susan Rutherford and Paddie O'Halloran for a press
conference.

French stressed that Gardner's campaign spent almost $1 million to
collect signatures, proving "they have very little public support and a
very small volunteer base."

Most funding for I-1000 has come from out-of-state, to which he
remarked: "To all the people in California and New York who sent money
so we in Washington can more easily kill ourselves, I think we have to
say, 'Thanks, but no thanks.'"

Peg Sandee, the executive director of the Portland, Ore.-based Death
With Dignity National Center, stated recently that: "Most of our
donations come from Washington, Oregon, California, New York and Florida."

She explained that the average donor to the non-profit effort is "a
55-year-old white woman from Portland." The center is dedicated to
seeing that the Oregon law is replicated in other states.

O'Halloran stressed the impact of assisted suicide on the most
vulnerable, low-income and disabled patients.

"We're concerned that an option to die by assisted suicide will come to
be perceived as a duty to die," she said.

Rutherford added: "I-1000 is dangerous because it permits bad medical
practice and shrouds it in secrecy."

The initiative has no peer review, no requirement for competence in
end-of-life care, while providing immunity for the participating
doctors, eliminating disciplinary actions or lawsuits for malpractice.

"Proponents often tell us to look how well things have worked in
Oregon," said O'Halloran. "But we really can�t be sure what's going on
in Oregon." The law prevents state officials from investigating deaths
caused by assisted suicide, with no penalties for non-reporting of
cases, or incomplete or inaccurate information.

The Washington State Medical Association agrees that I-1000 is a bad idea.

In a July 2 press release, the association said that members voted
against assisted suicide during a 2007 annual meeting and has opposed
the practice since 1991.

"We believe physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible
with the role of physicians as healers," said Washington State Medical
Association president, Dr. Brian Wicks. "Patients put their trust in
physicians, and that bond of trust would be irrevocably harmed by the
provisions of this dangerous initiative."

The American Medical Association, along with 49 state medical
associations, opposes assisted suicide. Even the Oregon Medical
Association supported repealing the state's "Death With Dignity Act" in
1997, characterizing it as "fundamentally flawed."

Wicks stated that I-1000 gives doctors power that we do not want and
that we believe is contrary to good medical practice � [distracting]
from symptom-directed end-of-life care, providing comfort for dying
patients and their families. Good care, Wicks emphasized, should remain
the focus, never shifting toward helping patients kill themselves. He
added that even those supporting assisted suicide in principle would
find problems with I-1000.

"Under I-1000, if a physician prescribes a lethal overdose, when that
physician completes the death certificate, he or she is actually
required to list the underlying disease as the cause of death, knowing
full well that the patient died due to the suicidal overdose he or she
prescribed," Wicks said. "To my knowledge, there�s no other situation in
medicine in which the death certificate is deliberately falsified and in
which this falsification is mandated by law."

Meanwhile, 15 Washington Democrat and Republican legislators have
declared their opposition to I-1000.

State Rep. Mark Miloscia, D-Federal Way, said: "We want to make certain
that people are pain-free, have dignity and control over their medical
treatment. ... But, Initiative 1000 replaces quality care with a cheap,
quick exit."

State Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton, a registered nurse, agreed: "We
need to work together to protect those who might feel financial
pressures to end their lives early."

Boots on the Ground

The Coalition Against Assisted Suicide's chairman, Chris Carlson, says
he is "cautiously optimistic" about defeating I-1000. A seasoned
political campaigner, Carlson was press secretary to Idaho Gov. Cecil
Andrus and director of public affairs for the U.S. Department of the
Interior under President Carter. He is also in remission from cancer.

With enough signatures gathered for the ballot, "our natural allies will
be galvanized," he believes. And although the coalition may not outspend
Booth Gardner's campaign, Carlson believes they will outwork Gardner's
supporters.

Carlson sees a replay of the state�s initiative battle in 1991, where
sufficient doubts changed the minds of the undecided �squishy middle� to
defeat physician-assisted suicide in Washington, 54% to 46%.

He noted that there is "a not too thinly veiled, anti-Catholic bigotry"
in the pro-initiative campaign, but hopes Catholics will focus on this
life and death decision, saying: "This issue will rise or fall on how
strongly people of faith rise to the occasion."

Seattle Archbishop Alex Brunett stated recently: "Assisted suicide
suggests that the terminally ill have a responsibility to hurry up and
die.� But he said that the very real challenge of pain and suffering at
the end of life �tests our human resolve to reach out compassionately to
the dying."

In his pastoral capacity, Archbishop Brunett has seen that "when those
who are near death receive adequate care, [while being with] those who
love them, their last days can take on special meaning,� offering family
and friends �an opportunity for final expressions of love and
reconciliation."

Said the archbishop: "I believe that saying No to Initiative 1000 is a
meaningful way of saying Yes to life."

Elenor K. Schoen writes from Shoreline, Washington.


On the Net:

For more information, visit the Washington State Catholic Conference
website: www.TheWSCC.org/legislation.

#388

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Sat May 31, 2008 6:34 am
Subject: Fw: Terminal Sedation Bill Passes California Assembly, moves to Senate for final action

vesselofmerc...

Offline

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hospice Patients Alliance"
To: "Hospice Patients Alliance"
Subject: Terminal Sedation Bill Passes California Assembly, moves to Senate for final action
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 00:05:38 -0400

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

Mail.com Autos - Powered by Oncars.com: Drive By Today!

Assisted Suicide Bill Passes California Assembly
Democrats voted for the bill, Rebublicans voted against it
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052901.html

By Tim Waggoner  May 29, 2008  LIFESITENEWS.COM

SACRAMENTO, May 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An assisted-suicide bill
that allows doctors and nurses to suggest death by unconscious
dehydration has barely passed the California State Assembly.

AB 2747 would authorize total sedation without nutrition and hydration
for depressed and confused patients, whether or not their natural death
was imminent. The bill would also allow family members to order the
death of a mentally disabled person when a nurse opines they have less
than a year to live, similar to Terry Schindler Schiavo's death at the
hands of her husband.

AB 2747 passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Wednesday afternoon on a
41-32 vote, a one-vote margin of victory in the 80-member lower house.
The vote was virtually party line, Democrats for, Republicans against.
AB 2747 is authored by the same Democrats who unsuccessfully carried
physician-assisted suicide bills for the last three years.

"This deceptive bill will cause death and shorten life, despite its
claims," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and
Families, a leading California-based pro-life, pro-family organization.
"Drying up and shriveling to death through dehydration is a fate worse
than lethal injection. By transforming palliative sedation into a
vehicle for assisted suicide, AB 2747 would transform doctors and nurses
from healers and comforters into killers like Dr. Jack Kevorkian."

AB 2747 would allow a doctor or a nurse to opine that a patient has
"less than one year to live," and then ask depressed patients if they
would like to be totally sedated into unconsciousness. Total sedation is
usually an irreversible procedure that does not include nutrition and
hydration. If patients or decision-making family members fall prey to
suggestions of total sedation, death from dehydration will usually occur
within five days.

This is the fourth time that the assisted suicide bill has been pushed
by Assembly Democrats Patty Berg and Lloyd Levine. But this year,
instead of proposing to have doctors administer lethal injections, AB
2747 aims to produce death by sedation abuse, a clear violation of
life-affirming medical ethics. Until now, total sedation has been used
only when death was imminent - within hours or days - and when strong
pain medication was not enough. Medical ethics require that food and
water (nutrition and hydration) not be removed when sleep-inducing drugs
are used, since doing so would cause unnatural, as opposed to natural,
death. Yet AB 2747 pushes total sedation even if patients have not
rejected food and water.

"Just as the assisted-suicide bills of the last three years have been
rejected, so should the California Legislature reject AB 2747," said
Thomasson. "Assisted suicide by total sedation ignores the sanctity of
human life and violates life-affirming medical ethics. People who are
ill need support, spiritual care, and counseling if they're depressed.
But AB 2747 would ensure the death of innocent Californians at the hands
of an increasingly unscrupulous insurance industry that regards people
cheaper dead than alive."

Dr. Howard M. Ducharme is past chair of the philosophy department at the
University of Akron. On January 24, 2002, Dr. Ducharme participated in
"The Debate over Total/Terminal/Palliative Sedation," sponsored by The
Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
(http://www.cbhd.org/resources/endoflife/kingsbury-ducharme_2...), where
he detailed how total sedation prematurely kills people:

Total sedation (TS) -- called by some "terminal sedation," "palliative
sedation," or "slow euthanasia" -- is a protocol recently added to the
lexicon of contemporary medical interventions and is a construct
actively promulgated by the National Hospice and Palliative Care
Organization (NHPCO). It is defined as "the application of
pharmacotherapy to induce a state of decreased or absent awareness
(unconsciousness) in order to relieve the burden of otherwise
intractable suffering." With only this much said, there may seem to be
no ethical objection to TS -- a patient who is terminally ill,
imminently dying, and suffering overwhelming physical pain may simply
request temporary TS to get some sleep today with the hope that the pain
will be endurable tomorrow. However, any quick acceptance of TS would be
ill-advised because of the many "devils in the details."

TS is not limited to patients with terminal illness who are imminently
dying. The NHPCO's policy explains that TS can be used "in the last day
or two of life," but it can also be used "at multiple points" in a
"patient's trajectory toward death," when the patient is not imminently
dying. Thus, TS is not limited by standard clinical criteria as put
forth in the AMA's policy on forgoing life-sustaining treatment (FLST)
-- i.e., that the patient be terminally ill and imminently dying.

TS protocol allows that the sedation may be "partial or complete," and
that it can be initiated as a temporary and reversible sedation. There
is no problem with this application of sedation; however, TS policy does
not limit the time frame, or require reversibility, of sedation. Though
the NHPCO states that "[TS] need not be considered irreversible," TS can
be titrated to produce a "complete unresponsiveness of patients" with
the "intent" to provide "deep sedation until death occurs, without
concern for reversibility." When a permanent TS treatment is
administered upon the patient's directive, it cannot be revoked; no
totally unconscious patient will ever have the opportunity to reverse
her directive, say, to look at the face of a loved one just one last
time. By contrast, when a DNR order is in effect, it can be revoked by
the patient at any time. Absolute final farewells must precede permanent
TS -- just as in an act of euthanasia.

TS protocol also allows that any concomitant therapies may be added to
the TS patient's protocol, each "based on their own merits." Thus, a
terminally ill patient (e.g., an HIV+ or early-stage ALS patient) who is
not imminently dying can be given TS concomitant with a decision to
forego (withhold or withdraw) life-sustaining treatment (FLST). When the
patient's life does depend upon the continuation of life-sustaining
treatment, the cause of his death may be ambiguous. Would the immediate
cause be regarded as FLST and not at all dependent upon the active
interventions of TS policy? What if such a patient refuses to forego
life-sustaining treatment without first undergoing TS? In such a
scenario, TS is necessarily implicated in the immediate cause of the
death of the patient. Such a context carries TS into the frontiers of
euthanasia. Furthermore, TS plus concomitant patient decisions can place
TS squarely in the arena of euthanasia, e.g., when a TS patient elects
to have her organs harvested per the Non-Heart-Beating Cadaver Donor
Protocol. Here the result is an act, elsewhere argued, of
"thrift-euthanasia."

Another troubling aspect of TS is that strict respect for patient
autonomy is compromised on several fronts.

According to the NHPCO, "When patients do not have [autonomous]
capacity, their designated decision-makers may make the decision on
their behalf." This element of TS policy dissolves two fundamental
boundaries set up to protect patients. When irreversible TS is deemed
appropriate by family members (third-party, outside observers) of a
non-competent patient, TS is then administered as non-voluntary or
involuntary TS -- on a parallel with non-voluntary and involuntary
euthanasia. Additionally, TS decisions made by substituted
decision-makers will not be based on first-hand descriptions of the
level of suffering experienced by the patient. Rather, they will be mere
inferences based on observations and value-laden evaluations of
onlookers -- who may have low pain thresholds and/or high sensitivity to
the perceived suffering of others. Family members may (or may not) have
the best of intentions, but they are nonetheless incapable of knowing
for certain whether or not the patient has crossed over from tolerable
to intolerable distress, the supposed symptom required for TS.

The ugly reality is that irreversible TS may too often be treatment
given to a patient for the comfort of the family.

If the patient does want to die, then TS will be readily accepted. If
she does not want to die, then simply being approached to consider TS
will communicate to her that she must be a burden on others and/or that
her life just cannot be worth living any longer. Such reflections by the
patient may be exactly enough to shift an individual's suffering from
bearable to unbearable.

The psychological distress added to the patient's life by others
initiating this conversation may be the existential push that takes them
over the TS cliff. Furthermore, when TS becomes hospice and hospital
policy, it will be incumbent on the agency to inform all patients of
their TS options at admission. Therefore TS policy adds significantly to
the so-called "culture of death" mentality already inundating society.

Lastly, given the details unpacked above, a health care team can
initiate the discussion of TS of an incompetent patient with family
members and carry it out all without any patient involvement. This is a
dire and shadowy way to end the lives of others via paternalistic,
non-voluntary, existential euthanasia.

###

for more info:

Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide Information
http://www.californiaprolife.org/euthanasia/euthanasia.html

AB 2747 BARELY PASSES
IN THE ASSEMBLY

AB 2747 barely passed the Assembly 41-32.  The bill now moves, likely to
the Senate Judiciary Committee


HELP STOP ASSISTED SUICIDE IN CALIFORNIA
http://www.californiaprolife.org/update/materials.html

#387

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Tue May 13, 2008 11:15 pm
Subject: Fw: "Mississippi Supreme Court to Hear Hospice Overdose Case"

vesselofmerc...

Offline

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hospice Patients Alliance"
To: "Hospice Patients Alliance"
Subject: "Mississippi Supreme Court to Hear Hospice Overdose Case"
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 16:33:37 -0400

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

See Exclusive Video: 10th Annual Young Hollywood Awards

Hi,

This reporter has been covering the case of a women who was sent
to hospice on the "diagnosis" of cancer, and when an autopsy was later
done, it was found she had no cancer.  She died of an overdose of
Dilaudid, an opioid medication which acts somewhat like morphine.  I
spoke with the reporter last week and provided him with background
information on hospice, opioids and what is going on in our nation.

Intentionally misdiagnosing a patient with a bogus label such as
"cancer" is a common ploy used in order to get a patient into hospice,
and then killed.  What happened in this case is not known.  why the
patient was wrongly labeled as having cancer is the real question.   And
we have jad many complaints over the years of patients who did NOT have
cancer who were labeled as having cancer, sent to hospice, who died
shortly after entering hospice, and then autopsies showed no cancer.

Obviously, in any case, the hospice does not diagnose patients and must
rely on the diagnosis from the experts.

Pain which is not well-managed with an opioid may respond to other
medications, such as anti-spasmodic medications (if pain is due to
severe intestinal cramping/spasms.  I have seen cases where morphine did
nothing for pain, and nurses were just raising the dose up and up.  I
called the doctor for an order of an antispasmodic and once
administered, the pain subsided within 20 minutes!  No morphine was
needed at all.

Good clinical judgment is necessary to provide appropriate care.
Opioids are not always the best for all types of pain and every good
hospice nurse knows that.  Simply increasing dosages of the wrong
medication obviously does no good, and can cause death.

Why the patient was given a diagnosis of cancer when there was no
evidence to support that is the real issue.  But the case is ongoing.
We will have to watch this to see what happens.

See article below.

Best wishes!

If people contemplate and really see the sanctity of life, their
"quality of life" arguments fall away and they will understand that we
are here to care for each other, not to kill each other. Caring, and not
convenience, is the sign of a civilized and just society!


Ron Panzer
for Hospice Patients Alliance
http://www.hospicepatients.org

"What I do you cannot do
but what you do, I cannot do.
The needs are great, and none of us,
including me, ever do great things.
But we can all do small things, with great love,
and together we can do something wonderful."  -  Mother Teresa

*************************************************

The Hospice Patients Alliance is a 501(c)(3) charitable patient advocacy
organization acting to preserve the original hospice mission and to
promote quality end-of-life services.

The information provided by Hospice Patients Alliance is provided in the
spirit of consumer advocacy in the belief that informed consumers of
health care are best able to access quality care.  Hospice Patients
Alliance does not provide legal or medical advice.  If you are seeking
legal or medical advice, then a competent and experienced attorney or
physician should be consulted.

*************************************************



"Miss. Supreme Court to hear hospice overdose case"

By HOLBROOK MOHR   Associated Press Writer   May. 11, 2008
http://www.sunherald.com/306/story/551730-p2.html


JACKSON, Miss. -- After 66-year-old Ersel Allen was diagnosed with
pancreatic cancer and admitted to a hospice, she was dead within weeks.

The problem is, according to autopsy results and attorneys for her
family, Allen never had cancer. She died of an overdose.

Allen's family won a $4.5 million award in 2006 after suing Dr. William
Causey and Hospice Ministries in Ridgeland. The hospice settled. Causey,
who is in prison for child molestation, is appealing the verdict.

"This woman was not terminally ill. She was put to sleep," said
Philadelphia attorney Dan Mars, who is representing Allen's family.

Ray McNamara, Causey's attorney, acknowledges that Allen did not have
cancer, but said she suffered from other ailments.

The Mississippi Supreme Court was scheduled to hear the case Tuesday,
but that was postponed when a faulty sprinkler system flooded the court
building.

A former district attorney investigated Allen's death, but apparently
abandoned the investigation when Causey was charged in Louisiana with
molesting a 13-year-old boy.

"They didn't do anything because (the doctor) would never get out of
prison, anyway," said Allen's daughter, Reitha Sanders.

Causey was convicted in 2005 and sentenced to 25 years for molesting the
boy.

Hospice experts agree that Allen's case is different.

"Certainly a case like this garners sensational headlines, but it's not
the norm," said Todd Sitzman, past president of the American Academy of
Pain Medicine and the director of advanced pain therapy at Forrest
General Cancer Center in Hattiesburg.

"Unfortunately a case like this makes palliative care suspect," he said.

Accusations that hospices or their employees have given overdoses to
patients date back years. Most of the allegations were determined to be
unfounded.

Two employees of Sanctuary Hospice House in Tupelo were indicted last
month on misdemeanor charges related to neglect and practicing medicine
without a license. The relatives of several people claim their loved
ones were given lethal does of morphine. Dr. Paul White, the hospice
medical director, and clinical director Margaret Lehman, say they are
innocent and will be vindicated along with the facility.

In 1998, a panel of doctors found there was no evidence to support
claims by a medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., that at least five
patients from two hospices were killed with lethal doses of morphine. A
grand jury in Oregon declined to indict a nurse accused of giving lethal
doses of morphine to four patients at a nursing home who died from
1987-1998.

In Allen's case, autopsy results say she died of an overdose of Dilaudid
after being admitted to the Ridgeland hospice in 2001. The story began
months earlier when Allen was diagnosed with gallstones and sent to the
University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson for treatment.

UMC physicians allegedly diagnosed Allen with terminal pancreatic cancer.

"They verified she had some kind of tumor but they never were able to
confirm it microscopically," McNamara said. "They considered exploratory
surgery but because of the weakened condition due to emphysema and
cardiac problems, they discussed it with the family, and a decision was
made not to operate."

UMC officials declined to comment on Allen's case.

That Allen never had cancer was discovered when her life insurance
company asked for an autopsy before paying benefits, Mars said. Allen's
family sued Causey, the hospice and the hospital.

"UMC was a party to the case and settled for a very nominal amount,"
said McNamara, adding that the hospice settled, too, but only because
its insurance company "paid to get the hospice out."

Mars said the case has far-reaching implications, because, he claims,
hospice physicians routinely overmedicate patients, sometimes with dire
consequences. He points to Causey's own defense to bolster the claim.

"While there are recommended dosages for the use of Dilaudid, morphine
and other opiates in an acute-care settings such as a hospital, there is
no upper limit on an amount that a person can take in the hospice
pain-care situation," according to testimony included in court documents
from Causey's expert witness.

Other hospice specialists agree that there are no maximum limits to the
amount of opiates that can be given to comfort the dying, but they say
hospices aren't in the business of accelerating anyone's death.

Dying patients build tolerances and need larger doses over time, hospice
specialists say.

"As long as the dose is calibrated against their pain severity, even at
very large doses patients can remain awake and alert," said Dr. David
Casarett, a professor with the University of Pennsylvania and a former
board member for the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

"So please don't get the idea that those patients who receive very large
doses are choosing something like euthanasia."

That sentiment is lost on Allen's daughter.

"I lost a very important part of my life," Sanders said. "It's hard
everyday when you wake up knowing that she would be here if it wasn't
for that doctor."

Causey's attorney says the doctor should not have been held liable
because he worked for the hospice and it wasn't the facility's role to
re-diagnose Allen's condition.

"She'd been treated by a dozen specialists at UMC and they believed in
good faith she was terminal," McNamara said. "She had a number of
conditions that would have brought about her death."


� 2008 Sun Herald. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.sunherald.com

#386

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Sun May 4, 2008 4:40 am
Subject: Scientology: The Secret Force Behind Terri Schiavo's Murder?

vesselofmerc...

Offline

Scientology: The Secret Force Behind Terri Schiavo's Murder? by Zen Garcia

http://www.endeavorfreedom.org/Art91.htm

Also see: http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/scientology_and_terri_schindler_schiavo_death_connection.html

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!

#385

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Sun May 4, 2008 4:20 am
Subject: Website with information about Michael Schiavo and Terri's case

vesselofmerc...

Offline

http://michaelschiavo.org

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!

#384

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:36 am
Subject: Fw: Lake Elmo woman makes miracle recovery from "brain dead"

vesselofmerc...

Offline

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hospice Patients Alliance"
To: "Hospice Patients Alliance"
Subject: Lake Elmo woman makes miracle recovery from "brain dead"
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:20:52 -0500

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!

Hi,

Here's another story showing that the "all-knowing" docs are quite often
wrong when the pronounce some patient as "brain-dead," which is just a
convenient label created so that patient's organs could be harvested.
Death is death, meaning no heart beating, no breathing, no signs of life
at all.  While it is true that the brain can be damaged severely, if the
patient is alive, they are disabled, brain-injured, but not "dead."

See article below.

Best wishes!

If people contemplate and really see the sanctity of life, their
"quality of life" arguments fall away and they will understand that we
are here to care for each other, not to kill each other. Caring, and not
convenience, is the sign of a civilized and just society!


Ron Panzer
for Hospice Patients Alliance
http://www.hospicepatients.org

"What I do you cannot do
but what you do, I cannot do.
The needs are great, and none of us,
including me, ever do great things.
But we can all do small things, with great love,
and together we can do something wonderful."  -  Mother Teresa

*************************************************

The Hospice Patients Alliance is a 501(c)(3) charitable patient advocacy
organization acting to preserve the original hospice mission and to
promote quality end-of-life services.



*************************************************







Lake Elmo woman makes miracle recovery from "brain dead"

By Allen Costantini, KARE 11 News
Feb 13, 2008

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=498009


St. Paul, MN -- How many people get a second chance at life? Rae
Kupferschmidt has. In mid-January, the 65-year-old former medical
secretary suffered a devasting cerebral hemorrhage, a massive bleeding
on the brain.

"They thought I was dead," she says.

In fact, on January 17th, doctors declared her "brain dead." One word,
"dead," is handwritten on that date on the calendar in Rae's room at
United Hospital in Saint Paul. In that same hospital room where Rae
fielded questions from reporters on Tuesday.

Clearly, Rae did not die, but even now, her family is not
second-guessing the decision to disconnect life support. Medically, Rae
was gone. Daughter Lisa Sturm is an operating room nurse at Regions
Hospital in Saint Paul.

"So, I've seen many, many CT's and I never, ever saw one that looked
like my mother's. Ever. It was black, meaning there was just so much
blood in the head that you couldn't even see any anatomy of the brain,"
says Sturm..

In grief, Alan Kupferschmidt took his wife of 45 years back to Lake Elmo
so she could take her last breath in her own bed. The house was soon
full of friends and family who came to say goodbye. Rae says she is glad
she was unconscious while everyone was mourning what they thought was
her inevitable death.

"If I had seen all the tears and the gnashing of teeth and all that
stuff, I'd have felt bad," she says.

As it was, the family began planning Rae's funeral, believing the end
was just hours away. Then, Lisa tried to wet her mother's lips.

"When I touched her mouth with the ice cube and then a second time and
then I asked if she was in there and she shook her head, yes and mouthed
the word, yes," Sturm says.

At first, Lisa did not believe her mother was waking from her coma. She
knew that terminal patients can seem to waken for a moment before death,
but Rae began talking. Alan's roller-coaster of emotions suddenly sped
upwards on a hill.

"For her to start talking to us and everything working, she wasn't
paralyzed. She just kept climbing the ladder," he says.

It was a ladder back to awareness after being given up for dead. Rae sat
up in her room. A prayer shawl covered her legs. She knitted many such
shawls for others in distress but never thought she would need one
herself. Rae says she does not remember anything that occurred during
the coma.

"I remember my daughter, Lisa, asking me questions about angels," says Rae.

Lisa wondered what her mother was seeing in the room at home. Rae says
she did see angels, but no one she recognized. "I said these angels are
not here to take me home to my father. They're here to help me, to help
me get over this," says Rae.

Doctors at United Hospital, including Physical Medicine physician Brad
Helms are amazed by Rae's recovery.

"This is extremely unusual. It's virtually never heard of. You have some
people who get better after a bleed, but in Rae's case, she was
essentially brain dead and when she was in the intensive care unit, just
was not responding to any sort of stimuli or any sort of activity. I've
been here since 1999 and this is the first case like this I've seen,"
says Dr. Helms.

Rae has been undergoing physical therapy twice a day for three weeks.
Dr. Helms expects her to be able to walk unaided in a few months. He
says she has the possibility of a full recovery.

Rae and Alan have a zest for life that has carried them across the
globe. They are continuing plans for a "roadtrip" to Washington, D.C.
and Williamsburg, Virginia in May. Then, they plan to tour Greece in
October. Rae Kupferschmidt intends to make good use of her second chance
at life.

Others may call her survival a "miracle." She does not.

"I'm not a miracle lady. I am just a very blessed lady that God chose
not to be done with," says Rae.

#383

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:26 am
Subject: Re: The Tragic Case of Lauren Richardson

vesselofmerc...

Offline

http://politvideo.com/Political-Videos/TV-Shows/Lauren-Richardson-The-Next-Terri-Schiavo.html

----- Original Message -----
From: jy22077@...
To: forthelifeofterrischiavo@yahoogroups.com, Commissioned@...
Subject: Re: [forthelifeofterrischiavo] The Tragic Case of Lauren Richardson
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:38:04 -0500
Yes, the Lauren Richardson case is new case virtually identical to the Terri Schiavo case. The case is on appeal now and the family is deperately trying to help Lauren despite mother's and court's actions. The Governor of Delaware is starting to take some heat and case is slowly gain more attention.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Ruby <Commissioned@groupmail.com>
To: forthelifeofterrischiavo@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 6:07 pm
Subject: Re: [forthelifeofterrischiavo] The Tragic Case of Lauren Richardson
Thank you for sharing this. I did not know about Lauren until now.

Lisa

----- Original Message -----
From: "jy77_2000"
To: forthelifeofterrischiavo@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [forthelifeofterrischiavo] The Tragic Case of Lauren Richardson
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:34:59 -0000

Another Terri Schiavo case is unfolding.

Dear Friends for Life,

Life for Lauren Richardson has dedicated itself to organize a 24-Hour
Prayer Vigil for Lauren beginning Sunday, 2/10. We are asking people
to sign-up to pray for Lauren's situation at the same time every
day. Any amount of time is appreciated in anyway you wish. This
way, we will storm heaven to get Lauren safe at home where her family
waits to love and take care of her. Please respond to this email at
lifeforlauren@aol.com , letting them know the approximate time you
can commit to prayer. A schedule will soon be posted on the website
below.

Please forward this on to anyone around the world who you know would
be interested in helping Lauren.

God bless you all for your generous support!

Randy and Melissa Richardson
For more information about our fight to save Lauren's life, go to:
www.lifeforlauren.org24
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
--
Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!

#382

From: jy22077@...
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:38 pm
Subject: Re: The Tragic Case of Lauren Richardson

jy77_2000

Offline

Yes, the Lauren Richardson case is new case virtually identical to the Terri Schiavo case. The case is on appeal now and the family is deperately trying to help Lauren despite mother's and court's actions. The Governor of Delaware is starting to take some heat and case is slowly gain more attention.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Ruby <Commissioned@...>
To: forthelifeofterrischiavo@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 6:07 pm
Subject: Re: [forthelifeofterrischiavo] The Tragic Case of Lauren Richardson

Thank you for sharing this. I did not know about Lauren until now.

Lisa

----- Original Message -----
From: "jy77_2000"
To: forthelifeofterrischiavo@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [forthelifeofterrischiavo] The Tragic Case of Lauren Richardson
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:34:59 -0000

Another Terri Schiavo case is unfolding.

Dear Friends for Life,

Life for Lauren Richardson has dedicated itself to organize a 24-Hour
Prayer Vigil for Lauren beginning Sunday, 2/10. We are asking people
to sign-up to pray for Lauren's situation at the same time every
day. Any amount of time is appreciated in anyway you wish. This
way, we will storm heaven to get Lauren safe at home where her family
waits to love and take care of her. Please respond to this email at
lifeforlauren@aol.com , letting them know the approximate time you
can commit to prayer. A schedule will soon be posted on the website
below.

Please forward this on to anyone around the world who you know would
be interested in helping Lauren.

God bless you all for your generous support!

Randy and Melissa Richardson
For more information about our fight to save Lauren's life, go to:
www.lifeforlauren.org24

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!

More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

#381

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:07 pm
Subject: Re: The Tragic Case of Lauren Richardson

vesselofmerc...

Offline

Thank you for sharing this. I did not know about Lauren until now.

Lisa

----- Original Message -----
From: "jy77_2000"
To: forthelifeofterrischiavo@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [forthelifeofterrischiavo] The Tragic Case of Lauren Richardson
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:34:59 -0000

Another Terri Schiavo case is unfolding.

Dear Friends for Life,

Life for Lauren Richardson has dedicated itself to organize a 24-Hour
Prayer Vigil for Lauren beginning Sunday, 2/10. We are asking people
to sign-up to pray for Lauren's situation at the same time every
day. Any amount of time is appreciated in anyway you wish. This
way, we will storm heaven to get Lauren safe at home where her family
waits to love and take care of her. Please respond to this email at
lifeforlauren@aol.com , letting them know the approximate time you
can commit to prayer. A schedule will soon be posted on the website
below.

Please forward this on to anyone around the world who you know would
be interested in helping Lauren.

God bless you all for your generous support!

Randy and Melissa Richardson
For more information about our fight to save Lauren's life, go to:
www.lifeforlauren.org24

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!

#380

From: "jy77_2000" <jy22077@...>
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:34 pm
Subject: The Tragic Case of Lauren Richardson

jy77_2000

Offline

Another Terri Schiavo case is unfolding.

Dear Friends for Life,

Life for Lauren Richardson has dedicated itself to organize a 24-Hour
Prayer Vigil for Lauren beginning Sunday, 2/10.  We are asking people
to sign-up to pray for Lauren's situation at the same time every
day.  Any amount of time is appreciated in anyway you wish.  This
way, we will storm heaven to get Lauren safe at home where her family
waits to love and take care of her.  Please respond to this email at
lifeforlauren@... , letting them know the approximate time you
can commit to prayer.  A schedule will soon be posted on the website
below.

Please forward this on to anyone around the world who you know would
be interested in helping Lauren.

God bless you all for your generous support!

Randy and Melissa Richardson
For more information about our fight to save Lauren's life, go to:
www.lifeforlauren.org24

#379

From: chris9_112005
Date: Thu Nov 1, 2007 5:21 am
Subject: Doctors Say Abortion-Cerebral Palsy Link

chris9_112005

Offline

Doctors Spooked by Abortion-Cerebral Palsy Link

Abortion continues to claim more victims, but new research shows
that the suffering extends well beyond the unborn. Physicians in
Canada and the U.S. teamed up for a sobering study about the
lingering effects of "choice," the results of which appear in this
month's Journal of Reproductive Medicine. The authors, who examined
data from more than four million births, make a direct correlation
between preterm births and mothers who have undergone prior
abortions. Dr. Byron Calhoun, Professor and Vice Chair of Obstetrics
and Gynecology at West Virginia University, estimates that roughly a
third of babies who are considered "very pre-term" result from a
woman's decision to abort her previous child(ren). Babies who spend
less than 32 weeks in the womb almost certainly suffer from very-low-
birth-weight. The researchers estimated that of the 32 percent of
babies who suffer from very-low-birth- weight, eight percent develop
cerebral palsy. For years, we have warned that abortion harms women,
and children, and now researchers are certifying that the victims'
future siblings incur a greater risk of lifelong anguish and
disease. The time has come for everyone to pause and reconsider the
cycle of suffering that society continues to inflict on future
generations in the name of "choice." Women deserve to be informed--
not encouraged to conform--on the issue of abortion.
                                        Christopher Merritt Group Owner
                                                           Support_Life

#378

From: chris9_112005
Date: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:24 pm
Subject: FIVE BAD WAYS TO ARGUE ABOUT ABORTION

chris9_112005

Offline

FIVE BAD WAYS TO ARGUE ABOUT ABORTION

By Scott Klusendorf

Pro-life advocates argue their case with science and philosophy, but
their pro-choice critics do not always respond in kind.

Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the
life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion
controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the
unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to
benefit others is a serious moral wrong. Conversely, if the unborn
are not human, elective abortion requires no more justification than
having a tooth pulled.

Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development,
the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading
embryology textbooks confirm this.[1] Prior to advocating elective
abortion, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was
perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would question
these basic scientific facts. "This all seems so simple and evident
that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the
common knowledge," he wrote in his book Life in the Making.[2]

Philosophically, there is no morally significant difference between
the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Differences of
size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are
not relevant in the way that abortion advocates need them to be. The
simple acronym SLED can be used to illustrate these non-essential
differences:[3]

Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is
that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more
valuable than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but
that doesn't mean they deserve more rights. Size doesn't equal value.

Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed
than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old
girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children
have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that
the immediate capacity for self-awareness and a desire to go on
living makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not
qualify as valuable human beings. Infants do not acquire distinct
self-awareness and memory until several months after birth.[4] (Best
case scenario, infants acquire limited self-awareness three months
after birth, when the synapse connections increase from 56 trillion
to 1,000 trillion.) As abortion advocate and philosopher Dean
Stretton writes, "Any plausible pro-choice theory will have to deny
newborns a full right to life. That's counterintuitive."[5]

Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your
value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not,
how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly
change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human?
If the unborn are not already valuable human beings, merely changing
their location can't make them so.

Degree of Dependency: If viability bestows human value, then all
those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and
we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily
systems also have no right to life.

In short, although humans differ immensely with respect to talents,
accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless
equal (and valuable) because they all have the same human nature.

Five Bad Ways to Argue

Nonetheless, some people ignore the scientific and philosophic case
that pro-life advocates present and argue for abortion based on self-
interest. That is the lazy way out. If we care about truth, we will
courageously follow the facts wherever they lead. Here are five
common mistakes people make arguing for abortion.

Mistake #1: confuse objective claims with subjective ones

When pro-life advocates say that elective abortion is morally wrong
because it unjustly takes the life of a defenseless child, they are
making a particular type of claim.[6] Specifically, they are making
a moral claim about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Of
course, moral claims can sometimes be mistaken, as for example, when
a man equates eating peanuts with racial genocide. But just because
the claim is false does not mean it's purely subjective. The man
making it is not offering an opinion; he's claiming to be right.

Many people, however, misconstrue the kind of claim the pro-lifer is
making in order to respond to one they like better, thus avoiding the
hard work of demonstrating why, exactly, the pro-lifer is mistaken.
Consider the following responses to the moral claim, "Elective
abortion is morally wrong."

"That's just your view."

As a guest on the television show Politically Incorrect, former super-
model Kathy Ireland gave a carefully reasoned scientific and
philosophic defense of the pro-life position. The show's host, Bill
Maher, ignored her evidence completely and shot back with
(paraphrase) "Kathy, that's just your view."

What's wrong with this response? Maher was confusing a moral claim
with a preference claim. But there is a difference between disliking
something (say, for example, a particular flavor of ice cream) and
thinking it is morally wrong. Put simply, when pro-life advocates
say that abortion is morally wrong, they are not saying they
personally dislike abortion or would prefer that people not have
one. Rather, they are saying that elective abortion is objectively
wrong for everyone, regardless of how one feels about it. This is
why the popular bumper sticker "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"
misses the point entirely. It confuses the two types of claims.
(Try this: "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave!")

Now it may be the case that pro-life advocates like Kathy Ireland are
mistaken about their claim. Perhaps their evidence that abortion
unjustly takes the life of a defenseless child is weak and
inconclusive. But instead of proving this with facts and arguments,
abortion advocates like Bill Maher ignore the evidence
altogether. "Well, that's just your view." This not only
relativizes the pro-lifers claim, it is intellectually lazy. It
attempts to dismiss evidence rather than refute it.

Imagine if I were to say, "There is a pink elephant in the corner of
the room just beneath the window."[7] How should you respond to my
claim? Perhaps I'm mistaken (and chances are I would be), but it
would do no good to say, "That's just your view." The problem is I
was not offering an opinion, I was claiming to be right. To refute
me, you must show that my claim is false. The correct response is to
say, "Your evidence is lousy. We looked in the corner and there is
no elephant."

But again, Maher did not do that. At no point did he challenge her
facts and arguments. What he said in effect was "Go away Kathy. You
have your views and I have mine." This was very condescending
because he did not even entertain the possibility that she had good
evidence for her claim. Nor did he acknowledge the type of claim she
was making.

To sum up, Maher was confusing a preference claim with a distinctly
moral one. Preference claims cannot be evaluated as true or false
because they are matters of personal taste. You cannot reasonably
argue that vanilla ice cream is objectively better than chocolate.
But moral claims are different. They can be evaluated as true or
false based on the evidence. They do not say, "This is better
tasting," they say, "This is right". Kathy Ireland's claim was,
Abortion is wrong because it takes the life of a defenseless child,
and I think I'm right. Maher's glib response did nothing to refute
this. In fact, one could stop Maher dead in his tracks by
saying, "Bill, it's just your view that it's just my view."

"Don't force your morality on me."

A student at a Southern California college said this to me after I
made a case for the pro-life position in her sociology class. She
was in effect saying, "Morality is relative; it's up to me to decide
what is right and wrong." We call this moral relativism, the belief
that there are no objective standards of right and wrong, only
personal preferences. Therefore, we should tolerate other views as
being equal to our own.

But as Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith point out, relativism is
seriously flawed for at least three reasons.[8] First, it is self-
refuting. That is to say, it cannot live by its own rules. Second,
relativists cannot reasonably say that anything is wrong, including
intolerance. Third, it is impossible to live as a relativist.

1) Relativism is self-refuting�it commits intellectual suicide. The
student said it was wrong for me to force my views on others, but she
could not live with her own rule. Although our dialogue was
pleasant, she clearly tried to force her views on me.[9]

Student: You made some good points in your talk, but you shouldn't
force your morality on me or anyone else who wants an abortion. It's
our choice, isn't it?

Me: Are you saying I'm wrong?

Student: I'm not sure. What do you mean?

Me: Well, you think I'm wrong, don't you? If not, why are you
correcting me? And if so, then you're forcing your morality on me,
aren't you?

Student: No, I just want to know why you are telling people what they
can and cannot do with their lives.

Me: Are you saying I shouldn't do that? That it's wrong? If so,
then why are you telling me what I can and cannot do? Why are you
forcing your morality on me?

Student (regrouping): I'm confused. Look, the simple fact is that
pro-choicers are not forcing women to have abortions, but you want to
force women to be mothers. If you don't like abortion, don't have
one. But you shouldn't force your beliefs on others. All I am
saying is that pro-life people should be tolerant of other views.

Me: Is that your view?

Student: Yes.

Me: Why are you forcing it on me? That's not very tolerant, is it?

Student: What do you mean? I think women should have a choice and
you don't. It's your view that's intolerant, wouldn't you say?

Me: Okay, so you think I'm wrong. What is it you want pro-lifers
like me to do?

Student: You should let women decide for themselves and tolerate
other views.

Me: Tell me, what exactly do pro-choicers believe?

Student: We believe everyone should decide for themselves and
tolerate other views.

Me: So you are demanding that pro-lifers become pro-choicers?

Student: What? No way.

Me: With all due respect, here's what I hear you saying. Unless I
agree with you, you will not tolerate my view. Privately, you'll let
me think whatever I want, but you don't want me to act as if my view
is true. It seems you think tolerance is a virtue if and only if
people agree with you.

Put succinctly, her argument for tolerance was in fact a patronizing
form of intolerance. She spoke of moral neutrality, but tried to
force her own views on me.

I once read an editorial in the Toronto Star that was similarly
intolerant of pro-life advocates. While decrying the "single-minded
moral supremacism" of those who call abortion killing, journalist
Michele Landsberg writes:

Will no priest or minister publicly resolve to stop the
indoctrination of youth to view abortion as murder? Is none ashamed
of the blood-drenched holocaust vocabulary used so cynically (and
anti-semitically) to whip up fervor for the crusade? Where are the
outspoken cries of conscience by bishops and cardinals who should be
appalled by the evidence of links between anti-abortion fanatics and
far-right militias, neo Nazis, and white supremacists? Is there no
religious leader who regrets his church's role in feeding this blind
frenzy? Will none of them repent of their excesses, will none call a
halt to their sickeningly manipulative campaigns of "precious little
feet," their fake "documentaries" about screaming fetuses? You'd
think that the world had enough lessons in the dangers of hate speech.

Like hers? It doesn't seem to trouble Ms. Landsberg that her own
vitriolic rhetoric could incite abortion advocates to commit acts of
violence against pro-lifers. She continues:

It was the unbridled hate speech of fundamentalist fanatics in Israel
who spurred on the "devout" murder of then-Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin....We've seen how homophobic rantings from right-wing American
leaders, notably the Senate republican leader, led to escalating gay
bashings, culminating in the heart- wrenching death of Matthew
Shepherd in Wyoming....Denominational schools [should] begin to teach
respect for the laws of our pluralistic society, rather than
preaching single-minded moral supremacism.[10]

Again, like her own?

Notice what is going on here. She decries "moral supremacism," but
says that anyone who disagrees with her view on abortion is an
indoctrinator of youth, a fanatic, an anti-Semite, a neo-Nazi, a
white supremacist, a manipulator of facts, a purveyor of hate speech,
homophobic, a gay-basher, a religious bully, responsible for the
death of Matthew Shepherd, and finally, a fundamentalist fanatic like
those who murdered Yitzhak Rabin.

One can hardly imagine a finer piece of self-refuting rhetoric�all,
of course, in the name of tolerance.

Sometimes the demand for tolerance is laughable. While driving my
sons to a baseball game at Dodger Stadium, a young woman in a white
pickup truck began tailgating me. Visibly angered by a pro-life
sticker on my rear window, she stayed on my bumper for a mile or so.
Finally, she pulled beside me and extended a certain part of her
anatomy skyward as she passed. She then cut in front of me. At that
moment, I noticed a bumper sticker on her truck. It said, "Celebrate
Diversity." The message was clear: In a pluralistic society, we
should tolerate other views. Ironically, the driver saw no
contradiction between her unwillingness to tolerate (or celebrate) my
point of view and her bumper sticker that said we should tolerate all
points of view. That is what I mean when I say that relativism is
self-refuting.

Are pro-choice claims for moral neutrality self-refuting?

On a more sophisticated level, we often hear that society should
confer a large degree of liberty by not legislating on controversial
moral issues for which there is no consensus, especially if those
issues incite deep division. Abortion, the argument goes, is a
divisive and controversial issue. Therefore, it should be left to
personal choice. But this view is itself controversial. Do we have
a consensus that we should not legislate on controversial matters?
Moreover, slavery and racism were controversial and divisive issues.
Are we to conclude that it was wrong to legislate against them? The
fact that people disagree is no reason to suppose that nobody is
correct.

Paul D. Simmons, meanwhile, writes that pro-lifers are guilty
of "speculative metaphysics" whenever they claim that the unborn are
persons from conception. (Metaphysics has to do with the ultimate
grounding or reality of things such as, What makes humans valuable in
the first place? And where do rights come from?) For Simmons,
metaphysical claims for the pro-life view are ultimately "religious"
in nature and for that reason, they have no place in public policy.
If you think the early fetus is a subject of rights, you are entitled
to your own religious view, but you can't force that speculative
opinion on others who disagree. When it comes to religion and
metaphysics, the state should remain neutral and allow abortion until
the fetus acquires viability (i.e., the ability to live independent
of the mother).

Simmons's view, however, is self-refuting. As Beckwith points out,
the nature of the abortion debate is such that all positions on
abortion presuppose a metaphysical view of human value, and for this
reason, the pro-choice position Simmons defends is not entitled to a
privileged philosophical standing in our legal framework.[11] At
issue is not which view of abortion has metaphysical underpinnings
and which does not, but which metaphysical view of human value is
correct, pro-life or abortion-choice?

The pro-life view is that humans are intrinsically valuable in
virtue of the kind of thing they are. True, they differ immensely
with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development,
but they are nonetheless equal because they all have the same human
nature. Their right to life comes to be when they come to be
(conception). Simmons's own abortion-choice view is that humans have
value (and hence, rights) not in virtue of the kind of thing they
are, but only because of an acquired property such as self-awareness
or viability.[12] Because the early fetus lacks the immediate
capacity for these things, it is not a person with rights. Notice
that Simmons is doing the abstract work of metaphysics. That is, he
is using philosophical reflection to defend a disputed view of human
persons.[13] Hence, Simmons's attempt to disqualify the pro-life
view from public policy based on its alleged metaphysical
underpinnings works equally well to disqualify his own view.

2) It is impossible for a moral relativist to say that anything is
wrong, including intolerance. If morals are relative, then who are
you to say that I should be tolerant? Perhaps my individual morality
says intolerance is just fine. Why, then, should I allow anyone to
force tolerance on me as a virtue if my preference is intolerance?

The truth is, a moral relativist cannot legitimately say that
anything is wrong or truly evil. My colleague Greg Koukl once
challenged a relativist with this question. "Do you think it is
wrong to torture babies for fun?" She paused, then replied, "Well, I
wouldn't want to do that to my baby." Greg responded, "That's not
what I asked you. I didn't ask if you liked torturing babies for
fun, I asked if it was wrong to torture babies for fun." The
relativist was caught and she knew it. She chuckled and went on to
another subject.

If it is up to us to decide right and wrong, then there is no
difference between Mother Theresa and Adolph Hitler. They just had
different preferences. Mother Theresa liked to help people and
Hitler liked to kill them. Who are we to judge?

3) It is impossible to live as a moral relativist. As C.S. Lewis
points out, a person who claims there is no objective morality will
complain if you break a promise or cut in line.[14] And if you steal
his stereo, he will protest loudly. If I were a crook, I would reply
to the relativist, "Do you think stealing stereos is wrong? Well,
that's just your view. My morality says it's perfectly acceptable.
Who are you to force your views on me?" Simply put, moral
relativists inevitably make moral judgements. They espouse a view
they cannot live with.

I think you are starting to get the picture. Relativism is not
tolerant of other views. In fact, it tries to suppress them. To
cite one more example, during the 2001 winter semester, pro-life
students at the University of North Carolina displayed 20 large
panels (each 6 feet by 13 feet) depicting the grisly reality of
abortion. Known as the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP�see
www.abortionno.org), these pictures have been displayed at over 100
universities nationwide. Though invited to do so, pro-abortion
students at UNC refused to participate in a structured public debate,
but demanded instead that campus police forcibly remove the display.
One pro-abortion student, Marcus Harvey, insisted the display was
intolerant, ignorant, and must be removed.

I wrote a reply to Mr. Harvey that was posted (in part) on The Daily
Tar Heel website:[15]

Marcus Harvey's comments about the Genocide Awareness Project are
typical of today's so-called pro-choicers. Instead of refuting the
pro-life argument that it's wrong to kill members of the human family
simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves, he
chastises the campus police for not suppressing ideas that he
personally disagrees with. This is very intolerant of him. His
message couldn't be clearer: Agree with me or else. Unfortunately,
Mr. Harvey has no clue about the true meaning of tolerance.
Classical tolerance means that I defend your right to speak even if I
disagree with your argument. In fact, the very concept of tolerance
presupposes that I think you are wrong. Otherwise, I am not
tolerating you; I am agreeing with you! For Mr. Harvey, tolerance
means something very different. It means this: Agree with me or I
will call upon the police power of the state to suppress your ideas.
There is a name this and it's not tolerance: It's called fascism.
Thankfully, the university knew better and the pro-life display went
forward despite attempts to censor it. Hey, Mr. Harvey: Please don't
force your morality on the rest of us.

Moral relativism is expressed one other way: "I'm personally opposed
to abortion, but I still think it should be legal." When people say
this, I ask a simple question to clarify things. I ask why they
personally oppose abortion.[16] Invariably they reply: "We oppose it
because it kills a human baby." At that point, I merely repeat back
their words. "Let me see if I got this straight. You oppose abortion
because it kills babies, but you think it should be legal to kill
babies?" Would these same people argue that while they personally
opposed slavery, they would not protest if a neighbor wanted to own
one? This was precisely what Stephen Douglas did during his debates
with Abraham Lincoln.[17] That argument did not work with slavery
and it will not work with abortion.

Greg Koukl suggests this tactic: The next time somebody says
that "you shouldn't force your morality on me," respond with only two
words: "Why not?" Any answer given will be an example of that person
forcing his morality on you![18]

Mistake #2: Attack the person rather than refute the argument

Instead of defending the abortion act itself, some "pro-choice"
advocates personally attack those who do not share their views. At
a "Rock for Choice" concert in Pensacola Florida, vocalist Eddie
Vedder of Pearl Jam shrieked from the stage:

I'm usually good about my temper, but all these men trying to control
women's bodies really piss me off. They're talking from a bubble.
They're not talking from the street, and they're not in touch with
what's real. Well, I'm f---ing mean, and I'm ugly, and my name is
reality.[19]

He later said that unlike pro-life advocates, he would never force
his beliefs on anyone. Meanwhile, during an HBO special, comedian
Rosanne Barr told the audience:

You know who else I can't stand is them people that are
antiabortion....I hate them. They're ugly, old, geeky, hideous men.
They just don't want nobody to have an abortion, cause they want you
to keep spitting out kids so they can molest them.[20]

Do you see what is happening here? Instead of defending their views
with facts and arguments, Rosanne Barr and Eddie Vedder are attacking
the character of pro-lifers. We call this the ad hominem fallacy.
It is fallacious reasoning because even if the personal attack is
true, it does nothing to refute the pro-lifer's argument that the
unborn are members of the human community. Suppose we grant that pro-
life advocates are hideous old men who molest children, as Roseanne
Barr contends is true. How does this in any way refute the pro-life
claim that abortion takes the life of a defenseless child? Clearly,
it does not. The attack is therefore irrelevant to the argument the
pro-life advocate is making.

Unfair chastisement

Sometimes the personal attack comes from within the pro-life
movement. Speaking at a pro-life convention in Alberta, a local
cleric chastised right-to-lifers for being "the rudest people I have
to deal with, and I don't like it."

Why are pro-lifers rude? Apparently they focus too narrowly on
abortion when they ought to consider the broader "life issues" such
as occupational safety, AIDS, poverty, and capital punishment. The
result, the cleric said, is a "fractured Christian witness that hurts
the cause."

The cleric is typical of many on the political left who insist that
because pro-life advocates oppose the willful destruction of an
innocent human being, they must therefore assume responsibility for
all of society's ills. In other words, you are not truly pro-life
unless you treat the deforestation of the Amazon with the same moral
intensity that you do the unjust killing of a human fetus. This is
careless thinking and highly unfair to those who take abortion
seriously.

Imagine the gall of saying to the Canadian Cancer Society, "You have
no right to focus on curing cancer unless you also work to cure AIDS,
heart disease, and diabetes." Or, try telling the Canadian Heart and
Lung Association, "You cannot reasonably oppose cardiac arrest unless
you fund research aimed at stopping all loss of life." Ridiculous
indeed, but how is this any different from what the cleric told pro-
life advocates? Consider what he is demanding. Local pro-life
groups must take their already scarce resources and spread them even
thinner fighting every social injustice imaginable. This would be
suicide for those opposed to abortion. As Frederick the Great once
said, "He who attacks everywhere attacks nowhere."

Contrary to what some think, the abortion debate is not about
poverty, capital punishment, the redistribution of wealth, or
protection of the environment. It's about one issue: What is the
unborn? The answer to that question trumps all other
considerations. This is why secular objections to the pro-life view
based on choice or privacy also miss the point entirely. Do we allow
parents the choice to abuse children as long as they do so in the
privacy of the home? Clearly, we don't. If the fetus is human, we
should not harm it in the name of privacy anymore than we would a
toddler.

In the final analysis, the cleric's remarks are not an outrage but a
distraction. He sounds too much like secular critics who argue that
right-to-lifers are hypocritical to oppose abortion unless they also
adopt unwanted babies. Well, maybe we are and maybe we aren't, but
how does my alleged unwillingness to adopt a child justify an
abortionist killing one? Imagine how bizarre it would sound if I
were to say, "Unless you agree to marry my wife, you have no right to
oppose me mistreating her." Or, "Unless you agree to adopt my
toddler by noon tomorrow, I shall execute him." Either way, if you
reject my ultimatum, it does nothing to justify my evil treatment of
innocent humans.[21]

Attacking pro-lifers for their speech

On July 11, 2000, a knife-wielding man attacked Vancouver (BC)
abortionist Garson Romalis in a downtown clinic. Abortion advocacy
groups seized on his brush with death to score cheap political points
against their opponents, notably Canadian Alliance Party leader
Stockwell Day, who opposes abortion.[22]

Day was quick to condemn the attack against Romalis as "outrageous
and untenable," but that did not satisfy local abortion advocates.
Marilyn Wilson, president of the Canadian Abortion Rights Action
League, said Day had "indirectly sanctioned" the violence against
Romalis with his extremist rhetoric.

Why was Mr. Day responsible for the attack? It's really quite
simple: He disagrees with Ms. Wilson on abortion and has said
publicly that elective abortion is the unjust killing of an innocent
human being. "Day is going to try and deny that he would support any
violence," she said in a press release, "but his rhetoric does incite
other people who share his beliefs against abortion to violence."
She then called Day a "fanatic" for "the amount of anti-choice,
extremist rhetoric that's out there."

Bear in mind that to Ms. Wilson, "fanatic" and "extremist" mean
anyone who deviates in the slightest from her own position, which is
that abortion should be legal for any reason whatsoever during all
nine months of pregnancy. If you say that elective abortion takes
the life of a defenseless child, as Day believes it does, your
irresponsible rhetoric will cost an abortionist his life.

Ms. Wilson is using scaremongering tactics to poison the public
debate over abortion. Her statements are intellectually dishonest
for at least four reasons. First, let's assume that pro-life
rhetoric does in fact lead to acts of violence against abortionists
(though there is no good reason to suppose that this is so). Would
this in anyway refute the pro-life argument that elective abortion
unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being? Keep in mind
that pro-life advocates do not merely state their case; they buttress
it with scientific and philosophic reasoning. If Ms. Ms. Wilson is
using scaremongering tactics to poison the public debate over
abortion. Her statements are intellectually dishonest for at least
four reasons. First, let's assume that pro-life rhetoric does in
fact lead to acts of violence against abortionists (though there is
no good reason to suppose that this is so). Would this in anyway
refute the pro-life argument that elective abortion unjustly takes
the life of an innocent human being? Keep in mind that pro-life
advocates do not merely state their case; they buttress it with
scientific and philosophic reasoning. If Ms. Wilson thinks we are
wrong about the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of
abortion, she should patiently explain why our arguments are mistaken
and why fetuses should be disqualified from membership in the human
community. But instead of refuting the pro-life view, she attempts
to silence it with personal attacks.

Second, it is blatantly unfair of Ms. Wilson to demonize pro-life
advocates for espousing their sincerely held beliefs. Let's assume
that I'm an animal rights activist opposed to the sale of fur. If a
deranged environmentalist firebombs a local clothing store, am I
responsible? More to the point, is Ms. Wilson responsible if, upon
reading her press release, a pro-abortion activist shoots Stockwell
Day for the purpose of saving the community from such an awful
extremist? (In a press release one day prior to the stabbing, Wilson
accused Mr. Day of favoring "state-sanctioned violence against women
by forcing them to bear children they may not want."[23]) If she is
serious that merely disagreeing with her on abortion is itself an
incitement to violence, then let's not fool around: Ms. Wilson should
lead the charge to ban all pro-life speech. (Actually, she would
like that, but lacks the courage to say so publicly.)

Third, it does not follow that because a lone extremist stabs an
abortionist, the pro-life cause itself is unjust. Dr. Martin Luther
King, for example, used strong language to condemn the evil of racism
during the 1960s. In response to his peaceful but confrontational
tactics, racists unjustly blamed him for the violent unrest that
sometimes followed his public demonstrations. Mayor Richard Daley of
Chicago argued that if Dr. King would stop exposing racial injustice,
black people would be less likely to riot.[24] The Mayor's remarks,
like those of Ms. Wilson, were an outrage. Are we to believe that a
handful of rioters made Dr. King's crusade for civil rights entirely
unjust?

In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, King rebuts this dishonest
attempt to change the subject:

In your statement you asserted that our actions, though peaceful,
must be condemned because they precipitate violence�.[I]t is immoral
to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain�basic
constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence�.Non-
violent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish
such a creative tension that a community�is forced to confront the
issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue so it can be no longer
ignored.

Fourth, if it is extreme to call elective abortion killing, then
abortion advocates bear partial responsibility for the stabbing of
Dr. Romalis. The fact is that pro-lifers aren't the only ones who
call abortion killing. Abortion-choice advocates do too:

� Warren Hern, late-term abortionist: We have reached a point
in this particular technology [D&E abortion] where there is no
possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It
is before one's eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through
the forceps like an electric current.[25]

� Anthony Kennedy, pro-abortion Supreme Court Associate
Justice, describing common abortion techniques: The fetus, in many
cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: it bleeds to death
as it is torn from limb to limb. . . . The fetus can be alive at the
beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time
while its limbs are being torn off. . . . Dr. [Leroy] Carhart [the
abortionist who challenged Nebraska's partial�birth ban] has observed
fetal heartbeat . . . with "extensive parts of the fetus
removed," . . . and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does
not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed
the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born "as a
living child with one arm." . . . At the conclusion of a D&E
abortion . . . the abortionist is left with "a tray full of
pieces."[26]

� Planned Parenthood, 1963 brochure: Abortion kills the life
of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and
health.[27]

� New Mexico abortionist, 1993: Paradoxically, I have angry
feelings at myself for feeling good about doing a technically good
procedure which destroys a fetus, kills a baby.[28]

� Abortionist Dr. Crist, 2000: In testimony Wednesday in St.
Louis Circuit Court, [abortionist] Crist said that it is not uncommon
for second-trimester fetuses to leave the womb feet-first, intact and
with their hearts still beating. He sometimes crushes their skulls to
get the fetuses out. Other times, he dismembers them.[29]

My question for Ms. Wilson and abortion-advocates who think like her
is this: If calling abortion "killing" makes one responsible for acts
of violence against doctors, are pro-abortionists like Warren Hern
and Anthony Kennedy guilty of inciting violence against their own
people? Like pro-life advocates, they candidly admit that abortion
is brutal killing. Therefore, when Dr. Hern complains about threats
to abortion doctors, is he partially to blame for his own
insecurity? Put simply pro-abortion advocates like Ms. Wilson lack
the courage to defend their views publicly. Instead of refuting the
scientific and philosophic case for the pro-life view, they call
names from a distance in hopes of silencing their critics. There is
a name for this�fascism. Pro-lifers take heart: Our critics have
truly run out of ideas.

A crass form of reverse sexism

Finally, some pro-life advocates are attacked for their gender. Men
are told, "You can't get pregnant, so leave the abortion issue to
women." Besides its obvious sexism, the statement is seriously
flawed for several reasons. First, arguments do not have genders,
people do.[30] Since many pro-life women use the same arguments
offered by pro-life men, it behooves the abortion advocate to answer
these arguments without fallaciously attacking a person's gender.

Second, to be consistent with their own reasoning, abortion advocates
would have to concede that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case
legalizing abortion, was bad law. After all, nine men decided it.
They must also call for the dismissal of all male lawyers working for
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU on abortion related issues. Since
abortion advocates are unwilling to do this, we can restate their
argument as follows: "No man can speak on abortion�unless he agrees
with us." Once again, this is a classic case of intolerance.

Third, lesbians and post-menopausal women cannot naturally get
pregnant; must they be silent on the issue? Think of the bizarre
rules we could derive from this argument: "Since only generals
understand battle, only they should discuss the morality of war."
Or, "Because female sportscasters have never experienced a groin
injury, they have no right to broadcast football games on national
television."

Again, abortion advocates must offer arguments to support their
position. Attacking people personally, even if those attacks are
true, will not make their case or refute ours.

Mistake #3: Assume what you are trying to prove

Advocates of elective abortion must show that the unborn are not
fully human for their case to succeed.[31] But instead of proving
this conclusion with facts and arguments, many people simply assume
it within the course of their rhetoric. We call this "begging the
question" and it's a logical fallacy that lurks behind many arguments
for abortion.

A person begs the question when he assumes what he is trying to
prove. Suppose federal prosecutors confronted you with this
question: "Have you stopped cheating on your taxes?" Obviously, the
question is unfair. It assumes that you have broken the law, which
is in fact the very point prosecutors are trying to prove. Your
defense attorney would be outraged, insisting that they prove guilt
with facts and evidence, rather than assume it with rhetoric.

Arguing that abortion is justified because a woman has a right to
control her own body assumes there is only one body involved�that of
the woman. But this is precisely the point abortion advocates try to
prove. Hence, they beg the question. Or, take the claim that no one
knows when life begins, therefore abortion should remain legal. But
to argue that no one knows when life begins, and that abortion must
remain legal through all nine months of pregnancy, assumes that life
does not begin until birth�the exact point abortion advocates try to
prove. This is hardly a neutral position. It is a clear case of
begging the question.

So is the coat-hanger/back-alley argument, which states that women
will once again be forced to procure dangerous illegal abortions if
laws are passed protecting the unborn. Besides, we are told, the law
can't stop all abortions, so why not keep the practice legal? But
unless you begin with the assumption that the unborn are not human,
you are making the highly questionable claim that because some people
will die attempting to kill others, the state should make it safe and
legal for them to do so. Why should the law be faulted for making it
tougher for one human being to take the life of another, completely
innocent one? Should we legalize bank robbery so it is safer for
felons? As abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren points out, "The fact
that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not,
in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder
is wrong regardless of the consequences of forbidding it."[32]
Again, the issue isn't safety. The issue is the status of the unborn.

(To digress for a moment, the objection that the law cannot stop all
abortions is silly. Laws cannot stop all rape�should we legalize
rape? The fact is that laws against abortion, like laws against rape,
drastically reduce its occurrence. Prior to Roe v. Wade (1973),
there were at most 210,000 illegal abortions per year while more
conservative estimates suggest an average of 89,000 per year. Within
seven years of legalization, abortion totals jumped to over 1.5
million annually![33] True, no law can stop ALL illegal behavior,
but that's not the point. At issue is the status of the unborn: Are
they human beings? If so, we should legally protect them the way we
would any other group that is unjustly harmed. Also silly is the
claim that women are "forced" into having illegal abortions. Women
aren't forced to have illegal abortions; they choose to have them.
As Greg Koukl points out, "A woman is no more forced into the back
alley when abortion is outlawed than a young man is forced to rob
banks because the state won't put him on welfare. Both have other
options."[34] Finally, the claim thousands died annually from back-
alley abortions prior to 1973�when Roe. v. Wade legalized abortion in
the U.S.�is just plain false. Dr. Mary Calderone, former medical
director for Planned Parenthood, wrote in 1960 that illegal abortions
were performed safely by physicians in good standing in their
communities. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control report 39
women died from illegal abortion in 1972, the year prior to
legalization, not 5,000 to 10,000 as claimed by abortion advocates
for each year prior to Roe.)

In short, if you think a particular argument begs the question
regarding the status of the unborn, simply ask if this justification
for abortion also works as a justification for killing toddlers or
other humans. If not, the argument assumes the unborn are not fully
human. Again, it may be the case that the unborn are not fully human
and abortion is therefore justified. But this must be argued with
evidence, not merely assumed by one's rhetoric.

Mistake #4: Confuse human value with human function

Abortion advocates like Mary Anne Warren claim that a "person" is a
living entity with feelings, self-awareness, consciousness, and the
ability to interact with his or her environment. Because a human
fetus has none of these capabilities, it's not a person.[35] Warren
makes two assumptions here, neither of which she defends. First, she
doesn't say why should anyone accept the idea that there can be such
a thing as a human being that is not a human person. What's the
difference? I've never met a human that wasn't a person, have you?
Second, even if Warren is correct about the distinction between human
being and human person, she fails to tell us why a person must
possess self-awareness and consciousness in order to qualify as fully
human. In other words, she merely asserts that these traits are
necessary for personhood but never says why these alleged value-
giving properties are value-giving in the first place.

In his article "Why Libertarians Should be Pro-Choice Regarding
Abortion," Libertarian philosopher Jan Narveson makes points similar
to Warren.[36] His larger purpose is to tell us who is and is not a
subject of libertarian rights. He argues that humans have value (and
hence, rights) not in virtue of the kind of thing they are (members
of a natural kind or species), but only because of an acquired
property, in this case, the immediate capacity to make conscious,
deliberate choices. Because fetuses lack this acquired property,
they have no rights. A woman's choice to abort, then, does not
negatively effect the fetus or deny it any fundamental liberties.

But this can't be right. Newborns, like fetuses, lack the immediate
capacity to make conscious, deliberate choices, so what's wrong with
infanticide?[37] What principled reason can Narveson give for
saying, "No, you can't do that?"

Peter Singer in Practical Ethics bites the bullet and says there is
none, that arguments used to justify abortion work equally well to
justify infanticide.[38] Abortion-advocates Michael Tooley and Mary
Anne Warren agree. For example, if the immediate capacity for self-
consciousness makes one valuable as a subject of rights, and newborns
like fetuses lack that immediate capacity, it follows that fetuses
and newborns are both disqualified. You can't draw an arbitrary line
at birth and spare newborns. Hence, infanticide, like abortion, is
morally permissible.

Lincoln raised a similar point with slavery, noting that any argument
used to disqualify blacks as subjects of rights works equally well to
disqualify many whites.

You say `A' is white and `B' is black. It is color, then: the
lighter having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this
rule, you are a slave to the first man you meet with a fairer skin
than your own.

You do not mean color exactly�You mean the whites are intellectually
the superiors of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave
them? Take care again: By this rule you are to be a slave to the
first man you meet with an intellect superior to your own.

But you say it is a question of interest, and, if you can make it
your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well.
And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.
[39]

In short, if humans have value only because of some acquired property
like skin color or self-consciousness and not in virtue of the kind
of thing they are, then it follows that since these acquired
properties come in varying degrees, basic human rights come in
varying degrees. Do we really want to say that those with more self-
consciousness are more human (and valuable) than those with less? As
Lee and George point out, this relegates the proposition that all men
are created equal to the ash heap of history.[40]

Philosophically, it's far more reasonable to argue that although
humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and
degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share
a common human nature. Humans have value simply because they are
human, not because of some acquired property that they may gain or
lose during their lifetimes. If you deny this, it's difficult to say
why objective human rights apply to anyone.

Natural rights versus legal (positive) rights

Put differently, pro-life advocates, echoing Lincoln, argue that we
must distinguish between natural rights and legal ones. Natural
rights are those rights that you have simply because you are human.
The are grounded in your human nature and you have them from the
moment you begin to exist.[41] For example, you have a natural right
not to be harmed without justification as well as a natural right not
to be convicted of a crime without a fair trial. Government does not
grant these basic rights. Rather, government's role is to protect
them. In contrast, legal (or positive) rights are those rights you
can only acquire through accomplishment or maturity. These rights
originate from the government and include the right to vote at your
eighteenth birthday and a right to drive on your sixteenth. But your
natural right to live was there all along. It comes to be when you
come to be.

To cash this out further, I do not have a legal (positive) right to
vote in the next Canadian election for the simple reason that I am
not a Canadian citizen. But just because I lack the right to vote in
Canada does not mean I lack the right to basic protections whenever I
visit that country. Likewise, just because a fetus may not have the
positive right to drive a car or vote in the next election does not
mean he lacks the natural right not to be harmed without
justification. Elective abortion unjustly robs the unborn of his or
her natural right to life, as Hadley Arkes explains:

No one would suggest that a fetus could have a claim to fill the
Chair of Logic at one of our universities; and we would not wish
quite yet to seeks its advice on anything important; and we should
probably not regard him as eligible to vote in any state other than
Massachusetts. All of these rights and privileges would be
inappropriate to the condition or attributes of the fetus. But
nothing that renders him unqualified for these special rights would
diminish in any way the most elementary right that could be claimed
for any human being, or even for an animal: the right not to be
killed without the rendering of reasons that satisfy the strict
standards of "justification."[42]

Do women have a natural (fundamental) right to abort?

Secular liberals insist that abortion is a fundamental human right
the State should not infringe upon. In reply, I borrow a question
from Hadley Arkes and ask, "Where did that right to an abortion come
from?" In other words, is it a natural right that springs from our
nature as human beings or is it a positive (legal) right granted by
government? If the latter, the abortion advocate cannot really
complain that she is wronged if the State does not permit her to
abort. After all, the same government that grants rights can take
them away.

On the other hand, if the right to an abortion is a natural right�a
right one has in virtue of being human�then the abortion-advocate had
that right from the moment she came to be, that is, from conception!
[43] Thus, we are left with this amusing paradox: According to the
logic of many abortion-advocates, unborn women do not have a right to
life while in the womb but they do have a right to an abortion!
Absurd! In short, liberals cannot tell us where rights come from or
why anyone should have them. As Arkes points out, they have talked
themselves out of the very natural rights upon which their freedoms
are built.

Mistake #5: Disguise your true position by appealing to the hard cases

Some people argue that legal abortion protects rape victims from
compulsory motherhood. They castigate pro-lifers as cruel and
insensitive toward women suffering from sexual assault. This seems
like a powerful objection, as nearly everyone understands that rape
is profoundly evil. Victims of this heinous crime deserve our best
care.

But there's a moral consideration as well. How should a civil
society treat innocent human beings that remind us of a painful
event? May we kill them so that we can feel better? Put
differently, can you think of any other case where, having been
victimized yourself, you can justly turn around and victimize another
completely innocent person?

If the unborn is a human being, she should not be killed to benefit
her mother. Hardship does not justify homicide. Hence, we are back
to the one question that trumps all others in the abortion debate:
What is the unborn?

Hidden agendas

But the appeal to hard cases is flawed in another way that has
nothing to do with one's attitude toward women or the morality of
abortion. It is flawed because it's misleading.

Here's why. The "pro-choice" position is not that abortion should be
legal only when a woman is raped, but that abortion is a fundamental
right she can exercise for any reason she wants during all nine
months of pregnancy. Instead of defending this position with facts
and arguments, many disguise it with an emotional appeal to rape.
But this will not make their case. The argument from rape, if
successful at all, would only justify abortion in cases of sexual
assault, not for any reason the woman deems fit. In fact, arguing
for abortion-on-demand from the hard case of rape is like trying to
argue for the elimination of all traffic laws because you might have
to break one rushing a child to the hospital.[44]

To expose their smokescreen, I ask abortion advocates the
following: "Okay, I'm going to grant for the sake of discussion that
we keep abortion legal in cases of rape. Will you join me in
supporting legal restrictions on those abortions done for the
convenience of the mother?"[45] The answer is almost always no, to
which I reply, "Then why did you bring up rape in the first place?
Were you trying to disguise your own extreme view that abortion
should be legal for any reason whatsoever?

Again, if abortion-advocates think that abortion should be a legal
choice for all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever,
including sex-selection and convenience, they should defend that view
with facts and arguments. Exploiting the tragedy of rape victims is
intellectually dishonest.

Summary and Conclusion

Again, this is not a debate about privacy or trusting women to make
their own responsible choices. Does the right to make one's own
responsible choices include the rights of parents to abuse children
in the privacy of the home? Therefore, if the unborn are human like
other children, killing them in the name of privacy is a clear moral
wrong. As I have shown, this debate is about one question: What is
the unborn? Everything comes back to that one question.

Let me be clear. I am vigorously "pro-choice" when it comes to women
choosing a number of moral goods. I support a woman's right to
choose her own health care provider, to choose her own school, to
choose her own husband, to choose her own job, to choose her own
religion, and to choose her own career, to name a few. These are
among the many choices that I fully support for the women of our
country. But some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human
beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend
themselves. No, we shouldn't be allowed to choose that.

Sadly, opponents of the pro-life view believe that human beings that
are in the wrong location or have the wrong level of development do
not deserve the protection of law. They assert, without
justification, the belief that strong and independent people deserve
the protection of law while small and dependent people do not. This
view is elitist and exclusive. It violates the principle that once
made political liberalism great: a basic commitment to protect the
most vulnerable members of the human community.

We can do better than that. In the past, we used to discriminate on
the basis of skin color and gender, but now, with elective abortion,
we discriminate on the basis of size, level of development, location,
and degree of dependency. We've simply exchanged one form of bigotry
for another.

In sharp contrast, the position I have defended is that no human
being, regardless of size, level of development, race, gender, or
place of residence, should be excluded from the moral community of
human persons. In other words, the pro-life view of humanity is
inclusive, indeed wide open, to all, especially those that are small,
vulnerable and defenseless.[46]

Remember: The absence of consensus does not mean the absence of
truth. People once disagreed about slavery, racism and genocide, but
that did not make them complex issues.[47] Nor did it mean that
there were no right answers.

Today, the moral question of abortion can be answered by asking one
question: What is the unborn? Once that question is answered, moral
clarity is possible. Whether we shall have the courage to pursue
moral clarity remains to be seen.

Review Questions:
� Pro-life advocates content that elective abortion
unjustly takes the life a defenseless human being. They defend this
claim two ways. What are they?

� What does the SLED acronym stand for? How is it used
to affirm the pro-life view?

� What's the difference between a preference claim and a
moral one? When someone says, "That's just your view," what mistake
are they making?

� When someone says, "You shouldn't force your views on
me," what are they doing to you? What two-word reply should you
politely offer in return?

� What are relativism's three fatal flaws?

� Why are the claims "men can't speak on abortion"
and "you have no right to oppose abortion unless you adopt babies"
flawed?

� What's wrong with the claim that self-awareness
determines human value? How does this damage the idea of human
equality and dignity?

� How do natural human rights differ from legal rights?
When do they come to be?

� Why is the appeal to rape both flawed and misleading?


Projects to Enhance Learning:

� Conduct a brief campus survey with the following
questions. Do not debate those who participate; simply ask the
questions and record the answers.

1. Do you believe that morals (what's right and what's
wrong) are real things or do we just make them up for ourselves?

2. Consider the following two statements: A) It is wrong
to torture toddlers for fun. B) It is wrong to rape women for fun.
How do they differ from the claim, "chocolate ice-cream is better
than vanilla?"

3. Do you think that the terrorists who flew airplanes
into the World Trade Center were evil or did they just have
preferences different from our own?

4. People once disagreed on slavery: Some thought it was
wrong while others thought it was perfectly fine. Was slavery wrong
even though people disagreed?

5. People today disagree on the issue of abortion. What
is the best way to get at the truth and resolve the matter?

6. Pro-life advocates claim the elective abortion is
wrong because it unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human
being. How does this claim differ from saying that you like
chocolate ice-cream rather than vanilla?

Once you have the data, use the questions below to write a two-page
summary of your findings. Then, distribute the summary to at least
five youth pastors near you.



(1) Do those surveyed see the difference between moral claims
and preference ones?

(2) In what ways, if any, did people give conflicting answers
to the questions?

(3) What's the best way to reach people who think moral truth
is just a preference, like choosing your favorite ice cream?

� Study the following tolerance statement from the
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice then write a two-page
reply, which you will email to the organization. Be prepared to
explain why the organization's statement is 1) not tolerant of other
views, 2) self-refuting, 3) not morally neutral (i.e., why it
actually takes a position while claiming not to). Explain further
why the "pro-choice" view in general cannot account for basic human
dignity/equality and why the mere fact that people disagree tells us
nothing about whether abortion is right or wrong.

Pro-choice clergy honor the value and dignity of all human life and
recognize that different religious traditions have different views
regarding the beginning of life. Because of these honest differences,
they believe no one religious philosophy should govern the law for
all Americans. (www.rerc.org)

http://prolifetraining.com/Articles/Five-Bad-Ways.htm
                  Christopher Merritt Owner
Group:Support_life@yahoogroups.com  Web-Site SupportLife.5u.com

#377

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:33 am
Subject: OT: New Age Markings on Ellen G. White's Writings

vesselofmerc...

Offline

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/new_age_ellen_g_white.html

#376

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Sun Jul 8, 2007 5:58 am
Subject: Fw: "Terri Schiavo Case Opened Pandora's Box for Mistreating Disabled Patients" by Carrie Hutchens

vesselofmerc...

Offline

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Panzer"
To: "Hospice Patients Alliance"
Subject: "Terri Schiavo Case Opened Pandora's Box for Mistreating Disabled Patients" by Carrie Hutchens
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:39:18 -0400

We've Got Your Name at Mail.com
Get a FREE E-mail Account Today - Choose From 100+ Domains

forwarded to us by Nancy Valko, RN

Here's an excellent article by Carrie Hutchens:




Terri Schiavo Case Opened Pandora's Box for Mistreating Disabled Patients


by Carrie Hutchens  July 5, 2007
http://www.lifenews.com/bio2176.html

LifeNews.com Note: Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer
and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death
culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law
enforcement systems.



I was reading ABC News', "Pulling the Plug: Ethicists Debate Ramirez
Case," by Dan Childs, ABC News Medical Unit (June 28, 2007) and found it
interesting how the defense is still up. No case is ever like Terri
Schiavo's. There is always an alleged difference, with similarities
downplayed or outright denied. Might that be because people are starting
to realize that an innocent woman was wrongly starved and dehydrated to
death, like Jesse Ramirez almost was?

We do have it right in our face that the law does not have true
safeguards in place. Had the Ramirez family not stepped in, Jesse
Ramirez would most likely not be with us today, let alone sitting up in
his bed and interacting with people. It doesn't even matter if Rebecca
Ramirez was basing her decision upon incomplete information the doctors
provided. It shouldn't be that easy to make a mistake. After all, this
type of mistake is beyond serious -- not an Oops! It is forever and
someone is dead!

There are several issues at hand.

Childs writes, "The injuries Ramirez sustained in his accident were
traumatic in nature, meaning that the shock of impact likely ripped
apart some of the fragile connections in his brain, leading to his coma.
"These injuries, on occasion, can heal to a certain extent, allowing the
patient to recover functionality. This is far different from the damage
caused by anoxia, in which a lack of oxygen to the brain causes
irreparable brain damage. Those who suffer this type of damage,
including Schiavo, have a much slimmer chance of ever regaining
consciousness. "

Even if it is true that Terri Schiavo had a slimmer chance in comparison
to that of Ramirez, do we truly know the degree? How can we know to what
degree she could have recovered if she had been afforded the therapy
that so many "think" she had? How do we know to what degree Terri was
affected by the isolation and lack of stimulation? (The latter alone
proven to be detrimental on the well-being of humans.) We simply can't
know. Nor do we know just how conscious and alert Terri actually was in
spite of all this, since tests were denied and anyone who might suggest
she was not PVS was then closed out with attempts being made to
discredit their opinion.

Similar is that Terri and Jesse are human beings. Each had a spouse that
made the decision to place them in a hospice. Each were ordered to be
starved and dehydrated to death by the spouse. Each had family and
friends that said they were responsive.

The difference is that Jesse had Judge Katz and Terri had Judge Greer.

In Terri Schiavo's case, the majority of people were not aware of all
the facts nor the possibility that a conscious human being could be
starved and dehydrated to death by a spouse, guardian, court, hospital
or simply anyone. Even if one does not want to believe that Terri was
conscious, Andrea Clark from Texas cannot be forgotten. She was indeed
conscious, but the doctor and hospital felt it was within their rights
to deem her futile and pull the plug. Perhaps if her case had been
first, Terri would have had a chance.

The media frequently reported that Terri was brain dead, so that is what
the majority of people believed, though it was absolutely not true.

The media frequently reported that Terri was on life support as though
machines were keeping a dead body alive. She was merely on a feeding tube.

In Terri's case, the truth often didn't matter. Whatever the media
reported must be the gospel. As a result, the Schindlers were often made
to look like religious fanatics that wanted to keep their daughter's
body alive at all costs. They couldn't possibly be seeing any response
because brain death makes that impossible. So, they were either lying or
misreading so-called "reflexes". But... what might the majority of
people thought, had they known the truth?

Childs' article says, "This guy was not hopeless and in a persistent
vegetative state by any means," says Dr. Steven Miles, professor of
internal medicine and bioethics at the University of Minnesota Center
for Bioethics."

Would we have known that if the family hadn't intervened and Judge Katz
hadn't agreed with them?

If Terri Schiavo's care decisions had been taken out of Michael
Schiavo's hands, might we have likewise discovered she was not in a
persistent vegetative state?

Also in the article was, "This is by no means a miracle of any kind,"
Miles says. "Traumatic comas are notorious for late wake-ups."

I agree! With the medical and legal trends as they are, the miracle was
that Jesse was allowed a chance to live and recover.

Jesse Ramirez's family didn't agree with his wife's decision and sought
to have his feeding tube replaced. Judge Katz granted the request,
appointed a guardian and set up a hearing. This saved Jesse's life! Too
bad Katz wasn't also the Schiavo judge. Perhaps the outcome would have
been much different. Nevertheless, when did it become acceptable to
starve and dehydrate people to death? How can anyone suggest that is a
humane thing to do only to non-criminal humans? There is no logic.

The Schiavo and Ramirez cases are very similar in that they show us just
how careless we have become with the lives of those who have been
injured or fall ill.

The Terri Schiavo case was a wake up call!

Though the snooze button appears to have been hit, with people still
under false beliefs that molded their opinions, the Ramirez case is a
loud and clear alarm going off! A man with a chance to recover was
nearly murdered by a society and its trend to be too ready to give up
and pull the plug on others. What does that say about us as a society?

Maybe it is time to do some serious soul searching, while we still have
souls to search!

#375

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Tue Jun 26, 2007 3:59 am
Subject: Re: Re: Butch Chancellor, host of These Orwellian Times Podcast and publisher of vetzine.blogspot.com shares the history of Martha's doctor-induced traumatic injury

vesselofmerc...

Offline

If you can listen from about 6 minutes, 30 seconds into the podcast until about 10 minutes 29 seconds, you will hear about how the station manager from Butch's old radio broadcast, These Orwellian Times (Crusade Radio broadcast it), you will learn that the station manager said he received a phone call from an attorney for the Gibbs lawfirm that did not like what Melissa Stanley (saveterrislife.com) said regarding Dr. Hammesfarh's assessment of Terri Schiavo. The station manager offerred to allow the attorney to come on the show and correct anything that Melissa said that was wrong but she did not take him up on his offer.

This was not mentioned in the podcast but Butch also told me that when he interviewed Bob Schindler, he asked Bob questions regarding a conspiracy and Bob said he was not allowed to talk about it--but did proceed to talk about it to some extent. (Good for him!) Who forbade Bob to talk about a conspiracy? I think the logical answer was/is his attorneys considering that one of them was upset enough to call the station and ask for what amounts to censorship.

I phoned Bob Schindler's home years ago and spoke to a relative and told her about my Scientology articles. I wanted them to know what they were up against because this is no small thing. She promised to give him the message. Another person who met Mrs. Schindler also told her about the Scientology articles. (Thank you, Ant!)

Anyway, I do hope the Schindlers will be able to help others who are being targeted and that they won't allow their efforts to be "managed" by others in any way. Going against euthanasia is going against Satan himself and this is a tough course to take but with God (of the Holy Bible, not of man's ideas of God) all things are possible.

----- Original Message -----
From: "bjs17792001"
To: forthelifeofterrischiavo@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [forthelifeofterrischiavo] Re: Butch Chancellor, host of These Orwellian Times Podcast and publisher of vetzine.blogspot.com shares the history of Martha's doctor-induced traumatic injury
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:06:24 -0000

--- In forthelifeofterrischiavo@yahoogroups.com, "Lisa Ruby"
<Commissioned@...> wrote:
>
> This podcast contains remarks about the Terri Schiavo case that I
have
> not heard mentioned before.

Could you give us a summary of those remarks? I don't have time right
now to listen to all of that.

Thank you,

Dick

>
> http://www.libertytothecaptivespodcast.net/chancellor2.mp3

We've Got Your Name at Mail.com
Get a FREE E-mail Account Today - Choose From 100+ Domains

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (3)

#374

From: "bjs17792001" <bjs17792001@...>
Date: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: Butch Chancellor, host of These Orwellian Times Podcast and publisher of vetzine.blogspot.com shares the history of Martha's doctor-induced traumatic injury

bjs17792001

Offline

--- In forthelifeofterrischiavo@yahoogroups.com, "Lisa Ruby"
<Commissioned@...> wrote:
>
>  This podcast contains remarks about the Terri Schiavo case that I
have
> not heard mentioned before.

Could you give us a summary of those remarks? I don't have time right
now to listen to all of that.

Thank you,

Dick



>
> http://www.libertytothecaptivespodcast.net/chancellor2.mp3

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (3)

#373

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:52 am
Subject: Butch Chancellor, host of These Orwellian Times Podcast and publisher of vetzine.blogspot.com shares the history of Martha's doctor-induced traumatic injury

vesselofmerc...

Offline

This podcast contains remarks about the Terri Schiavo case that I have not heard mentioned before.

http://www.libertytothecaptivespodcast.net/chancellor2.mp3

Episode #15: Butch Chancellor, host of These Orwellian Times Podcast and publisher of vetzine.blogspot.com shares the history of Martha's doctor-induced traumatic injury, the typical force-the-elderly-patient-into-a-nursing home-or-hospice protocol, and much more.

If you have similar events to report please contact Butch at his email address: theseorwelliantimes@...

Announcement: Martha Chancellor went home on June 15, 2007.

Get a free mail.com account e-mail address today!
Choose from over 100 personalized domains.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (3)

#372

From: "jy77_2000" <jy22077@...>
Date: Tue May 29, 2007 2:39 am
Subject: More Descriptive 30 Media Files of the Schiavo Saga

jy77_2000

Offline

1.  http://www.centerforajustsociety.org/uploads/terri012905.mp3

An execellent interview of Ken Connor with John Sipos. He explains
some of Terri's Law and the judicial problems with the Schiavo case.
Rating is a 10.  About 20 Mintes long.

2.  http://theempirejournal.com/extras/siposanderson052905.mp3

Pat Anderson speaks after Terri Schiavo's death. About 30 minutes
long. Pat Anderson relays her thoughts about the Schiavo case to John
Sipos. Rating is an 8.

3.  http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?
rafile=wo_02182005.rm

David Gibbs and Bob Schindler are interviewed in February 2005. About
1 hour long. Bob and David answer questions from callers. Relays some
interesting facts. Rating is a 9.

4.  http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?
rafile=wo_06172005.rm

Bobby Schindler and Lawyer Michael Gaynor discuss Terri after she
dies and the legalities and problems with the Schiavo case. Gaynor
present an excellent Due process argument (fundemental fairness).
Callers phone in. 1 hour long. Rating is a 10.

5.  http://www.kfuo.org/mp3/Issues5/Issues_Etc_Mar_21b.mp3

Rita Marker talks about what Terri's Law II was really about. Does a
good rebuttle of Rep. Debbie Wasserman's comments. Rating is a 10.

6.  http://www.kfuo.org/mp3/Issues5/Issues_Etc_Apr_14b.mp3

Wesley Smith talks about the Legacy of Terri Schiavo after her death.
Relays some very interesting facts. Rating is a 10.

7.  http://commarts.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=3039

Very Good interview by Chuck Neff in the media who studied the
Schiavo case. Has a very distrubing story about his mother in
hospice. Rating is a 9.

8.  http://www.kfuo.org/mp3/Issues5/Issues_Etc_Mar_31b.mp3

A nurse named Cindy Provience who is writing a book on PVS talks
about Terri Schiavo. Discusses some interesting facts about the PVS
diagnosis. Rating is an 8.

9.  http://www.priestsforlife.org/audiose/gol025-05.mp3

Bobby Schindler talks to Frank Pavone about Terri shortly after
Terri's autopsy results. Bobby relays some interesting facts. Rating
is a 9.

10.  http://theempirejournal.com/extras/siposhammesfahr.mp3

John Sipos talks to Dr. William Hammesfahr on Father's Day after
Terri's death. Rating is an 8.

11.  http://www.indybay.org/uploads/part1terriinterview.mp3

Jana Carpenter is interviewed and talks about Terri as she lay dying
in 2003. Jana Carpenter is a nurse who worked closely with the
Schindlers and actually got to read some of her medical charts.
Rating is an 8.

12.  http://libsyn.com/media/commarts/NGOVTerriLegal.mp3

A university professor tells how JEB or Bush could have saved Terri
from death. Rating is a 7.

13.  http://www.ncfpc.org/Podcast/NCFPC-070127-Gibbs.mp3

David Gibbs is interviewed on January 27, 2007 about the Schiavo
case. Gibbs presents his case. Rating is a 7.

14.  http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?
rafile=wo_04072006.rm

Bobby Schindler is interviewed on ETWN a year after Terri's death.
Bobby relays some interesting facts. Rating is a 9.

15.  http://kgovarchives.com/bel/2005/24k/20050301-BEL042-24k.mp3

Cheryl Ford RN is interviewed in March 2005 and talks about Terri
Schiavo. Rating is a 7.

16.  http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/files/capone.mov

Trudy Capone is interviewed and talks about Terri Schiavo in March of
2005. Trudy says Michael didn't know what to do with Terri. If
Michael didn't know what to do with Terri, he probably didn't know
her wishes. Rating is an 8.

17.  http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/files/nurse.mov

Heidi Law is interviewed and talks about Terri Schiavo in March of
2005. Rating is a 7.


18.  http://www.somervillebaptist.org/audio/4-8-07_evening_service.mp3

David Gibb's Sermon on Terri Schiavo given on April 8, 2007 in
Alabama. Gibbs spreads his word. Rating is a 9.


19.  http://www.priestsforlife.org/audiosf/05-04-08schiavo.m3u

Frank Pavone Talks about Terri Schiavo's Final Hours. The Eye Witness
account by Frank Pavone. Rating is a 9.


20.
http://www.theamericanview.com/dictator/media/595/TheAmericanViewProg5
1.mp3

Bobby Schindler is interviewed on the American View Radio program
about Michael Schiavo's 2006 interview with Matt Ladeur. Rating is an
8.

21.  http://www.kfuo.org/mp3/Issues5/Mar_17c.mp3

Wesley Smith talks about Michael Schiavo's 2005 Nightline Interview
the day before Terri's feeding tube was removed. Rating is an 8.

22.  http://www.coralridge.org/BroadcastArchives.asp#1953
      http://www.coralridge.org/BroadcastArchives.asp#1954
      http://www.coralridge.org/BroadcastArchives.asp#1955
      http://www.coralridge.org/BroadcastArchives.asp#1956

David Gibbs, Dr. Stevens and Joni Eareckson Tada are interviewed on
Dr. Kennedy's Truth That Tranforms radio program. Rating is a 10.

23.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWJ3hLKO2XI

This a short interview on Scarbough Country between a bioethist and a
Right to Life Attorney. Rating is a 6.

24.  http://67.36.84.226/crosstalk/ ct050111.asf

A good interview with Matt Davis (Gibb's Attorney) on VCY America.
Rating is an 8.

25.  http://video.aol.com/video-search/id/2939381526
      http://video.aol.com/video-search/id/3369036850

Mark Fuhrman and Suzanne Vitadamo are interviewed about Terri's
collapse after Terri's death. Rating is an 8.

26.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IqoanJnk9Y

Lieberman on Terri Schiavo. Rating is a 6.

27.  http://www.familynetradio.com/mornings/mp3/050306Schindler.mp3

Bob and Mary Schindler are interviewed on Lori and Friends in May
2006 about the Schiavo case. Bob relays the facts. Rating is an 8.

28.  http://www.christianradiomagazine.com/audio/crm20061202.m3u

David Gibbs talks about The Schiavo case on Christian Radio. He
presents a good due process (fundamental fairness) argument. Rating
is a 10.

29.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050403013905/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
3036789/

Lawyer Bois - Believes the Federal Courts studied the Schiavo case
well. However, Bois was very suspect of Terri's so-called wishes and
was disturbed that the Federal Courts did not take a look at that
issue.

Lawyer Starr - Adds that the Schindlers did present their side on the
Clear and Convincing Standard but believes Judge Greer found
Michael's evidence to be realiable. However, Starr believes that
Legal mistakes were most likely made and was disturbed by the fact
the Terri did not have GAL consistently throughout the legal process.
Starr ends that Congress should given more clear direction to the
Federal Courts. Rating is a 9.

30.  http://www.kfuo.org/mp3/Issues6/Issues_Etc_Jun_04a.mp3
      http://www.kfuo.org/mp3/Issues6/Issues_Etc_Jun_04b.mp3

Excellent 2 hour interview of Bobby Schindler on Issues, Etc. Rating
is a 10.

#371

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Fri May 25, 2007 4:32 am
Subject: Police State Call For An Ambulance Get Swatted

vesselofmerc...

Offline

Please forward to the other Terri Schiavo lists. --Lisa Ruby

Police State Call For An Ambulance Get Swatted

Reposted From http://cuttingthroughthematrix.com/

May 24, 2007 Alan Watt Blurb (i.e. Educational Talk)
"Phoning an Ambulance can be Dangerous to Your Health - The Chancellor
Family's Present Predicament"
Listen to a special blurb: Alan speaks with Butch Chancellor, of
Missouri (USA). Butch's bedridden wife Martha was taken to a hospital
this week, after a neighbor was asked, by Butch, to call an ambulance.
He wished Martha to be checked for a behavior change in the last few
days. The neighbor phoned 911. This call brought an unexpected SWAT Team
into their home, where Butch was detained and questioned (by armed
black-clad men), before the "real" ambulance came. Calls to the hospital
give continuously changing information about Martha's condition, and
false allegations have been inferred upon Butch. Social Services and
hospital "policies" may prevent Martha from ever returning home again.
Hear how an emergency visit to the hospital, eleven years prior, left
Martha paralyzed and unable to speak. Butch speaks of the events leading
to and after the ordeal; it's a story that must be heard. (Song: "You
and Me" by Charles Aznavour)
***Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - May 24, 2007 (Exempting Music and
Literary Quotes)
***LISTEN / DOWNLOAD At http://cuttingthroughthematrix.com/

#370

From: "Lisa Ruby" <Commissioned@...>
Date: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:22 am
Subject: EXCERPTS FROM CYNTHIA SHOOK MAY 8, 2001 DEPOSITION

vesselofmerc...

Offline

EXCERPTS FROM CYNTHIA SHOOK MAY 8, 2001 DEPOSITION

Backround:
In late 1991, 1� years after Terri�s collapse, Michael Schiavo became involved in an intimate relationship with Cindy Shook. The romance continued for approximately one year. It can be documented that the two spent a weekend at the Don Caesar hotel in St. Petersburg Beach and they also contacted a Century 21 Realtor on the premise of purchasing a home.

In May of 1992, at the apex of the romance, Schiavo had Terri�s 2 pet cats euthanized to clear the way for his moving in with Cindy and her pet dog.

In the summer of 1992, Schiavo moved into his parent�s home. We can speculate with reasonable accuracy, it was at the instructions of his attorney, since the living arrangement would be contrary to Schiavo�s "loving husband" image they were projecting for the upcoming November 1992 malpractice trial.

In April 2001, Cindy Shook (married name Brasher) was interviewed by an investigator working in Terri�s behalf. Unwilling to come forward because of her immense fear of Schiavo, Cindy had to be subpoenaed and was then subsequently deposed on May 8, 2001 to try and learn more regarding her intimate knowledge of Michael Schiavo�s character traits.

Excerpts; May 8, 2001 Deposition:

Cindy Shook describing Schiavo�s possessiveness.

"he�s very jealous. He stalked me at my�at where I worked after I stopped dating�when he would get mad at me he would tell me, I would rather be laying in bed in the nursing home with her than with you. I mean he can be the most incredibly mean person"

When asked if she were afraid that Michael would physically harm her or if he would harm children.

"I am concerned about retaliation because I have a child -I have children and a husband. I know him, I know what he told me I said he could be a very mean person."

She spoke of how Schiavo stalked her for close to a year after the breakup and that she received repeated phone calls.

"He came on the floor looking for me several times. I felt it was out of character for him to get a job as an orderly at the hospital That was concerning to me. When he would come up to the floor looking for her she was not scared the first time but later was scared.

In town I would look up when I was driving�not at my work- she would look up in the rear view mirror and there would be Michael Schiavo. I would look up and he would be behind me in traffic. It continued for several months after he didn�t work at the hospital. She would change lanes, try to make a turn and he would do the same. He did this about ten times.

One time he was behind me in traffic he got next to me in a two-lane going the same way, and he changed lanes basically right on top of where I was at, and I had to swerve not to be hit. I had to swerve off the road. Michael ran me off the road. I considered it as stalking, dangerous and guessed potentially life threatening."

Cindy thought about getting a restraining order. She talked to an off duty police officer in her building

They discussed marriage. She said Schiavo asked what would you do if I asked you to marry me. He never discussed getting a divorce.

Cindy said Schiavo got angry when asked questions about Terri saying:

"this had destroyed his life and he was being robed of a normal life."

Regarding Terri�s care, according to Cindy Shook, Michael Schiavo said

"How the hell should I know we never spoke about this, my God I was only 25 years old. How the hell should I know? We were young. We never spoke of this."

http://www.hospicepatients.org/cynthia-shook-deposition-excerpts-05-08-2001.html