Right to Lifers are Pushing a new Zogby poll

The Zogby organization released a poll stating that "A poll completed after the controversial death of Terri Schiavo finds that eight-in-ten (80%) likely voters say that a disabled person who is not terminally ill or in a coma, and not being kept alive by life support should not, in the absence of a written directive to the contrary, be denied food and water." Here's the link: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=982

This, of course, has the right wing all foaming at the mouth that the media is(sic) biased, that if the "truth" had been told things would have been different, and Michael Schiavo and all those :Liberal judges" are murderers. What they don't say is that the poll is sponsored by the Christian Defense Fund, and the questions do not deal with the issue of a person in a persistent vegetative state.

There was a letter in my morning paper about it, so I'm off to write a rebuttal.

Should a person who is disabled but not in a coma or terminally ill or being kept alive by life support be denied food and water? I'm frankly amazed that 20% of people thought they should.

- Not in a coma
- Not terminally ill
- Not on life support

To compare that situation to Terri Schiavo is idiotic. Anybody who tries to connect that inane question to Terri Schiavo should have their picture put in the dictionary next to "non sequitur".

I'd love to see who bought that Zogby poll.

"Should a healthy person who is NOT disabled, NOT brain dead, NOT brain damaged, NOT terminally ill, NOT in a coma, and NOT on life support... be killed by the state?"








And then when 90% of people say "no", then hit the media hard with this poll showing how an overwhelming majority of people in the United States oppose capital punishment.

right way to state the question, as well as not terminally ill. No comments re brain dead allowed..

Luntz is doing his job getting Bush the answers he wants from the polls.

They said they were "the right to life blah blah something" and is my hubby home. I said "no" Then they asked if I were the wife and would I answer a question. Do I support the right to life or the right to choose? I said choose and they promptly hung up. I should have messed with them, but had much more important things to do right then.

almost sounds like they're referring to a specific case by eliminating the rest of the universe.

"Futile care" - it's an important term in this discussion.

We need to define it anyway before they do; because they might also see futile care as cancer or AIDS treatments for people who aren't proven heterosexual or beyond child bearing age.

it is inaccurate and deliberately misleading.

This kind of thing puts me in a really bad mood.

She couldn't live without the aid of a (feeding) machine. And, according to Florida law, a feeding tube is considered life support...

Christ, these people are d-u-m-b!

My, how times have changed!

....conjuring up Mom's meatloaf, and apple pie......
What would have been the results if they'd used the term
"pre-masticated goop"...which is what actually goes through the tube.

I'm guessing parents and wives/husbands have no rights any more.

What's the point in getting married?

How could a reasonable person NOT agree with the following:
"It is proper for the federal government to intervene when basic civil rights are being denied?" 74% agreed
"The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to minorities?" only 57% agreed.

But it's not all good news for the wingers. Only 39% agreed with this question: Elected officials should intervene to protect a disabled person’s right to live if there is conflicting testimony concerning removing a feeding tube?

anti-abortionists. They have no real respect for life at all or they would not vote Republican...