Chicago Tribune today: "Terri Schiavo's lifeline removed"

The Chicago Tribune's headline this morning:

"Schiavo's lifeline removed".

Wrong connotation; it's not a lifeline, in the sense that she's on life support.

It's just a method of feeding her.

At least the article, by Rudolph Bush and Patrick Kampert, referred to Terri as "brain damaged" and not comatose or PVS. However, in a later paragraph they said "a court has ruled" that she's in a Persistent Vegetative State.

Well, the court is wrong. The court used a doctor who is a "Doctor Death", pushing for euthanasia, and no one has ever done the testing necessary to actually diagnose her.

The court is a kangaroo court, and the judge is ordering the willful murder of an innocent woman, at the hands of her unfaithful husband.

Another quote from the article:

The Schindlers have argued that Michael Schiavo--who has fathered two children with his fiance in recent years--has a conflict of interest in the case and is an unfit guardian. Yet the courts have ruled consistently that he is fulfilling his wife's wishes that her life not be artificially sustained. Because of that, Northwestern University law professor Andrew Koppelman, a constitutional law expert, says GOP leaders may have overstepped their bounds.

"The Supreme Court has said you've got a right to refuse medical treatment," he said. "I don't think a congressional subpoena can override that."

But this isn't about a person choosing to refuse medical treatment. Read that first sentence again: Michael Schiavo is a husband in name only who has demonstrated repeatedly that he is an unfit guardian. There is a paper trail a mile long of his refusing to provide even the most basic care for her, and yet the court accepts his word that this is what Terri wanted? That she would want to be starved to death?

The article says "courts" have ruled, but it's really been one man, Judge Greer, who has repeatedly, beyond all reason, ruled against Terri and her parents. It defies logic, as well as countless Florida statues.

Look at the connections between the people involved. It couldn't be clearer that this is a case of forced euthanasia to further the agenda of the "Duty to Die" crowd.

Only people who are blind to the facts of the case, or who also are part of the Culture of Death in favor of euthanasia, could see this in any other way.