Thursday, March 24, 2005

Starved for justice

A restrained (by her usual standards) Ann Coulter discusses the issue and brings up a point that came up over dinner last night, but I didn't include in posts.

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: 1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard), 2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), and 3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

As important as it was to enforce the constitutional right to desegregated schools, isn't it also important to enforce Terri Schiavo's right to due process before she is killed by starvation?

Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word "federalism."

I note that whenever liberals talk about "federalism" or "states' rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature – or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as determined by a court."

Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.

Florida state court Judge George Greer – last heard from when he denied an order of protection to a woman weeks before her husband stabbed her to death – determined that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death based on the testimony of her husband, who was then living with another woman. (The judge also took judicial notice of the positions of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.) The husband also happened to be the only person present when the oxygen was cut off to Terri's brain in the first place. He now has two children with another woman.

Greer has refused to order the most basic medical tests for brain damage before condemning a woman to death. Despite all those years of important, searching litigation we keep hearing about, Terri has yet to receive either an MRI or a PET scan – although she may be allowed to join a support group for women whose husbands are trying to kill them.

Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as precedent the landmark "Fox v. Henhouse" ruling of 1893. Throughout the process that would result in her death sentence, Terri was never permitted her own legal counsel. Evidently, they were all tied up defending the right to life of child-molesting murderers.

In the middle of her sneering, she mentions something that really puts the spotlight on my problems with how this is happening: a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.

Down the page, I've been going back in forth in the comments with a reader who - when he's not screaming "Jesus freaks", he moderates his tone with fairly proper spelling - claims his only interest is that the government butt out of private matters (which I guess includes incest) and blah-blah-woof-woof.

But here's the point that came up at dinner: Should a cheating spouse have final say on the life and death of the spouse they're cheating on?

This is my #1 problem with this case - this asstackler has refused to divorce his wife and has moved on and started a whole new family with another woman and now wants to claim the right to have her snuffed by claiming this is something they discussed.

Yeah, right. I wonder if Terri also said "If anything happens to me, I want you to move on and set up housekeeping with someone else, but make sure you kill me first. Hugs."

Doesn't really pass the reality check, does it?

No comments: