MORE RE TERRI SCHIAVO

Why is it that the same cons who spew

1. sanctity of marriage

2. state's rights

3. anti 'judicial activism'

crap have completely abandoned those positions and are now advocating

1. Parental rights trumping marital rights.

2. Federal government involvement in issues that have been decided by state appellate courts and rejected by the SCOTUS.

3. Judicial overruling of established statutes and precedent

for ONE SINGLE CASE?

Flippety floppety.

Those advocating continued treatment here are advocating an end run around the statutory scheme of a state AND the judicial decisions of nearly 20 judges over 15 years for political points.

And let's be clear -if 'feeding' must be accomplished by surgical means it falls under the category of medical treatment not merely food. As someone else said - feeding her would be giving her a sandwich and a glass of water, this is medicine.

This woman was a bulimic who vomited so much that her low potassium levels caused heart failure. She was given heroic measures that failed and her brain was severely damaged. She has since deteriorated to the point where she has no cerebral cortex, only spinal fluid in its place. She is incapable of higher brain function, and not even the most promising stem cell treatments can change that. Let her soul be free.

What do you think they'd say if she was an 80-year-old black woman? What if Theresa were Terrence and his family was arguing for discontinued treatment while his partner was fighting to keep him alive, and they'd been married in Massachusetts?

Gee, what do you think would happen to the "Culture of Life" then?

MORE DAMAGE DONE TO MARRIAGE BY CONGRESS

...yesterday, than any court could ever manage.

At the core all marriages as far as the govt. is concerned are
nothing more than a proffer of a bundle of legal rights, given for
agreeing to enter into a committed relationship.

That's the only reason the govt. is EVER involved in marriage (or
anything else for that matter) -to grant and protect legal rights.

Among the rights granted by marital status are medical power of
attorney.

Now the Republican majority Congress has met *on a Sunday* to state
categorically that parental rights trump one heterosexual married
couple's medical power of attorney rights.

Where's the "sanctity of marriage" here? Is this a clever attempt by
the republican Congress to to destroy all marriage so that gays and
lesbians can't have it either?

The fanatics attack Michael
Sciavo for having another relationship 5 years after his wife's
injury -but understand, that's completely irrelevant to the fact that
legally he has medical power of attorney. Even if he were the biggest
A-hole on the planet to her having 7 mistresses while she was still
ablebodied it wouldn't matter -he'd still have medical power of
attorney as long as they were legally married.

Congress' taking that away from him weakens marriage and the rights
it grants more than any expansion of the "definition" of it ever could.

Here's a relatively unbiased blog recounting the story so far...