Follow the money: anti-abortion groups and Schiavo...there's a plot. [View All]

[Lerkfish]

Question: who funded the schindlers?

follow the money.

Answer: right-wing (some of them linked to terrorist threats against doctors) anti-abortion groups.

why? Do they really care about this basically heretofore unknown woman?

because they ALREADY WANTED TO MAKE A CONNECTION TO ABORTION. Otherwise, why the interest?

obviously, this was intended, and still may end up, an end run around Roe v Wade, by semantically linking the prohibition to ending a life merely because it is no longer (or NOT YET) conscious or functioning.

Next question: Who attempted to overturn the courts?

follow the power.

right wing politicians

why? did they make a law about a single person (which is unconstitutional, btw) because they were concerned about the rights of one woman, to the point of cutting short vacations and rushing through legislation?

because THEY WANTED TO RESHAPE THE JUDICIARY BRANCH, by using this event to highlight their mantra of "activist judges" and find a way to pull down and discredit a judiciary system that might actually hold to the constitution instead of the whim of the republican majority. Did they care about Schiavo, really? Or are they looking ahead, trying featherbed the judicial system with their own sycophants to protect THEMSELVES from being called on their excesses of power in the future. They didn't want to have constantly watch their back as they plundered and raped the country and the world. They didn't want to have to face judicial inquiries into election fraud, and other crimes they have already committed and intend to commit. If you don't want to stop being a criminal, preemptively remove those that would catch you.

QUESTION: Why make an intensely private matter a vainglorious fellini spectacle?

Follow the beneficiaries of fanaticism.

Did the bizarre "supporters of Terri", the jesus on a trailer hitch, the juggling for jesus freaks, the bizarro whackjobs really care about the dignity of the woman, or her family (either side), or the unconnected families at the same hospice who had to suffer a guantlet of clowns and police and security measures in order to see their own loved ones?

No. So what was their intent? To GET ON THE NEWS and spread their own warped view of righteousness to a wider audience than they normally have access to. The proof is their moving the debacle to the ME's office. how were they supporting her THEN? the answer is they weren't, they never were, and the reality of her condition was never going to get in the way of their own view of religious ecstacy.



QUESTION; Who framed the event in such a way to influence public opinion (even though they failed)?

Follow the complicit.

Was the media so outraged and concerned over this woman's plight that they forgot to fact check and verify information? Was it their zeal and concern that made them run roughshod over actual experts and attempt to demonize Schiavo, to add a hyphenated version of schiavo to schindler-schiavo? Was it in their best interests, did it help the story, did it enhance their integrity and improve their ability to inform the public? Was that question even asked?

No. But it DID prove their complicity to the money, to the power, to the influence of the politicians, the idealogues, the fascist theocracy, to the COVERUP AND DISSOLUTION OF truth, of credibl information, essentially, their complicity to undermine THEMSELVES, to throw themselve prostrate on the alter of neocon fascism, to fawn in the trappings of propaganda and spin in the hopes of a seat next to the unclothed emperor.
To become Quislings in hope of a future boon.