Straight Up with Sherri

Friday, April 01, 2005

MORE Proof that the MSM is Just ONE BIG LIE!

Zogby Poll: Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.

The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.

Another Zogby question his directly on Terri's circumstances.

"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.

A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.

"From the very start of this debate, Americans have sat on one of two sides," Concerned Women for America's Lanier Swann said in response to the poll. One side "believes Terri's life has worth and purpose, and the side who saw Michael Schiavo's actions as merciful, and appropriate."

More than three-fourths of Americans agreed, Swann said, "because a person is disabled, that patient should never be denied food and water."

The poll also lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts.

"When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place," respondents were asked.

Some 18 percent said the feeding tube should be removed and 42 percent said it should remain in place.

Swann said her group would encourage Congress to adopt legislation that would federal courts to review cases when the medical treatment desire of individuals is not known and the patient's family has a dispute over the care.

"According to these poll results, many Americans do in fact agree with what we're trying to accomplish," she said.

The poll found that 49 percent of Americans believe there should be exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as a guardian for an incapacitated spouse. Only 39 percent disagreed.

When asked directly about Terri's case and told the her estranged husband Michael "has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her" 56 percent of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri's parents while 37 percent disagreed.

10 Comments:

  • Funny how when people get the truth they change their minds. I've been hearing alot about lazy journalism the past week or so, it's sad that people won't look into the facts themselves.
    Marine Momma

    By Anonymous Marine Momma, at 9:56 PM  

  • AMEN TO THAT, Marine Momma!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 10:03 PM  

  • The prior polls that showed Americans were in favor of starving/dehydrating Terri were so biased and misleading. Consider the ABC Poll (most often quoted):
    "As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be kept on life support. In cases like this who do you think should have final say, (the parents) or (the spouse)?"

    A follow-up question asked:

    "If you were in this condition, would you want to be kept alive, or not?"


    Every poll, without exception, will tell you more about those who wrote the poll than about those who answer the poll!

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 10:04 PM  

  • Terri-
    You're not tolerant of other views. And when you write you wanted one day of respect, it had nothing to do with respect for the people directly involved in this situation. It, like the rest of your illogical ramblings, is really all about you.
    To recap:
    You post a commentary written by someone else.
    I post a commentary written by someone else.
    "Your" commentary had been written in the form of a living will.
    "My" commentary had been written in the form of a living will.
    "Your" writer writes for the Pittsburgh Tribune. "My" writer writes for the St. Pete Times. Pretty similar so far. Ah, but the one key distinction:
    "Your" commentary presented the situation from a point of view sympathetic to your perspective.
    "My" commentary presented the situation from a point of view sympathetic to my perspective.
    But in your eyes, your commentary was appropriate, while mine was so unacceptable it had to be deleted.
    You got emotional, writing in all caps (aka in blogtopia --ysctp!--as yelling), and claimed your indignation was all about showing respect to Terri's family. But "your" commentary was hugely disrespectful of Mr. Schiavo--a man considered by many, including the courts--as Terri's family. So what really burned your blanket was not that someone was disrespectful to the family. What burned your blanket was that someone had the audacity to disagree with you on a day you felt a little testy. You consider me a troll because I disagree with you. I consider you a hypocrite, because you have a blog but have shown yourself to be utterly incapable of considering differing opinions. Until you either grow up and tolerate dissenting views or show some honesty and clearly label your blog "Sherri's Echo Chamber--No Other Opinions Allowed" I'll continue to show up on occasion.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:06 PM  

  • Anonymous,
    Why bring Mr. Schiavo into this? Your post, to which I responded and would not have deleted, had little to do with Michael. Rather, it was just a single minded hate fest directed toward the Republican Party. Why not direct your hate toward the Democrat Party in the United States Senate who voted its unanimous support of the compromise bill? This was not President Bush's doing. He merely signed the will of Congress - both Houses of Congress!
    Why are you so angry at the wimp, Jeb Bush who refused to perform his Constitutional duty to protect the life of an innocent victim and instead cowtowed to a petty county probate judge?
    If you wish to support Michael Schiavo, please feel free to do so. If you want to play hate politics directed at one of two political parties that supported Terri Schiavo, do it elsewhere. That is the point I understood Sherri to be making.

    As far as this being Sherri's echo chamber, you are absolutely wrong. You may consider yourself elite to be one of the very few commenters that Sherri has ever deleted.

    I would hope you do show up on occasion. I would like to hear what you have to say, even when I do not agree. I can use all the ideas I may garner. What I cannot use are manifest expressions of hate.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 3:54 AM  

  • Push-polling is a problem. While the Zogby poll is more fair than the ABC poll, the questions were still not even-handed. The one that ran 79 to 9 asked: If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water,"--It should have begun -If a disabled person who does not appear conscious and has little chance of recovery... This would have given us a more even measure of sentiment, although I still think it would have been 2:1 in favor of feeding.

    I would like to understand a little better who exactly is so eager to have people killed. They can't all be Scientologists. Are they the quarter of people who are secularists? Is it some particular religious group? Is it just a fraction spread through the population as a whole? Are Catholics and/or Evangelical Christians near-unanimous for life?

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 5:40 AM  

  • anonymous is so amusing.

    I ask for a day of repsect, it is so obsessed, just can't do it.


    BUT- IT knows why I do everything, what it really means, what I am really saying, and it claims I have an ego problem. LOL!!

    I hope it does come backi- but more than just from time to time. It might learn something, although I doubt it. It is more interested in spouting and spreading hate than learning or helping anything...

    Must be a JOY to be around...

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 8:44 AM  

  • levi from queens,
    I'm glad you brought up the Zogby poll bias. I consider it to be biased as well. Your approach would give a more clear indication of less bias, but does not provide insight regarding the answer, since each respondent is free to "write his/her own question". Statistical anaysis of the responses tell us nothing. Isn't this fun?

    I think that, in a very short while, it will become more clear exactly who is pushing the culture of death.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 11:29 AM  

  • Why are the exact poll results only available through a lifenews.com article? Even on the zogby site they just have the lifenews.com article. Was it sponsored by lifenews.com? Where are the details about # of people polled, margin of error...all the stuff you normally see with polls?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:41 AM  

  • How many respondents participated in the Zogby poll? I can't find the information anywhere.

    By Blogger nobody, at 8:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home