more discussion of the Terri Schiavo case...

Here are the basic facts: Terri is in a "persistent vegetative state," which means they are alive but basically unresponsive. I say basically because her parents and some nurses claim that Terri has had definite moments of cognitive action, such as saying "pain," signaling that she's hungry, and smiling at her parents. Also, medically there is a chance that Terri's condition will improve. (CNN)

Michael Schiavo wants Terri's feeding tube remove, thus killing her by starvation/dehydration. Her parents want to save her life, and are totally willing to take care of Terri themselves. Here's where I get hung up on the family fight: Michael and Terri's marriage is virtually non-existent except on paper--he has been living with another woman for years (a news story even referred to her as his fiance) and he has fathered two children with her. All why being married to Terri. Terri's parents want to take her in, and are totally willing for Terri and Michael to divorce, thus taking any responsibility for Terri off of Michael. Yet he is fighting for his right to have her feeding tube removed on the basis that it's what Terri would have wanted. Unfortunately for him, Michael's own words condemn him: "We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want..." (CNN)

This not a matter of trampling over Michael's "private judicial matter." This is about the government protecting all human life, and giving an important decision due process. What could possibly be wrong with allowing Terri to live?

Tom Delay says it well:

In my opinion, the sanctity of life overshadows the sanctity of marriage. I don't know what transpired between Terri and her husband, all I know is Terri is alive and this judge in Florida wants to pull her feeding tube and let her starve for two weeks. That is barbaric. And unless she had specifically written instructions in her hand and with her signature, I don't care what her husband says.

The Constitution obligates the government to protect life and liberty. Now, if Terri had made clear what she wanted--either in a will or directly to her husband--this would be a different matter. But since Terri can't tell us now, and since the only one with the legal authority to make that decision has admitted himself he doesn't know what she wanted, and coupled with the questionable activity he's been engaged in and the loving care that is being offered by Terri's parents with no obligation whatsoever to Michael, the government has a duty to protect her life and liberty. That is what the Florida state government tried to do with "Terri's Law", etc. All that Congress did was try to get Terri a fresh review by the Supreme Court, not force a ruling. The use of Congressional subpoenas was an unorthodox method to give more time to the chance that Terri's life might be saved. But you gotta do what you gotta do. And Congress is well within its authority to reign in the courts when necessary. (FindLaw)

What strikes me as ironic is that the very people who are now fighting against so-called "government intrusion" into people's personal lives would, on any other day of the week and on any other issue, advocate just that. One of liberalism's defining characteristics is that it believes people are too stupid to govern themselves; thus it's always vying for more government control and intrusion into peoples' lives.

I hope and pray the Michael Schiavo does not get his way, that Terri's life is saved.

P.S. The ACLU sided with Michael Schiavo. Big surprise.