Here you have a Congress and President that has the nerve to proclaim that it is "Pro-Life" by interveining heroically into a private issue between a husband, his wife and her family - yet this is the same Congress that just a short time ago voted to cut funding for the Veterans Administration and to the double the cost of prescription drugs for our wounded soldiers. It seems that they wish to preserve life at all costs, even if there is no discernable minimum level of quality to that life.
Terry Schaivo has already survived in a near-vegatative state for 15 years. She could continue to survive for another 15 , or thirty, or even 50 more years. She's still a young woman, who was just 25 when the accident that left her severely brain-damaged occured. All of that time, trapped within a shell of her own body and mind. A living hell. And our Congress is hell-bent that she endure as much of it as possible, regardless of her wishes as they have been expressed by her husband.
There is little evidence that as this case winds it's way through the appellate and federal courts that federal judges will discover a genuine and legal way to wrest Terry from the custodianship of her husband Michael. And if they did, wouldn't that set a terrifying precident? Imagine, if the case were argued that Michael has forfieted his rights as a husband by committing adultery, bigomy and abandonment by taking a second common-law wife and having two children with her - and the courts then decided that his expression of her will is to become secondary to her families will purely on that basis?
The problem with this scenario is that marriage is a state issue, not a federal or constitutional issue - at least not yet. If the case is argued as it has been so far, it's obvious that Michael will prevail and Terry's feeding tube will again be removed some months or years in the future. But if the case is argued as I have described, which is unlikely, you could very soon see a new federal definition of marrage appear through the courts. One that is exceeding different from what I suspect the Reich-Wing of the Republican party would endorse.
And this would be done in order to continue and prolong Terry Shaivo's sufferring. To continue her ongoing torture. Somehow I don't find that surprising coming from this Congress and this President. Much has been discussed concerning the Geneva Conventions in the last year, but surprising little has been said about the fact that torture is against U.S. Law.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340
§ 2340. Definitions
|Release date: 2004-08-06|
I doubt quite seriously that this provision of Federal Law will come into play in this case (although many stranges things are still possible), just as I doubt that it will be enforced on anyone by a Justice Department as headed by Alberto Gonzales - but I do find it highly ironic that the U.S. Congress would expend this much energy on one person - on poor Terry Schaivo - and not one second on the many cases of real suffering that have been caused and exerbated by various U.S. Government policies in the last two years.
Here's a thought: if Congress and this President really want to do something to help the Terry Schaivo's of the world, they could authorize use of non-mouse-turd-tainted stem cells for research into regeneration of damaged brain tissue. How's that for "Pro-Life"!