The Legal Angle

Amy already beat me to the punch on this whole Terri Schiavo issue with a couple good postings. Rather than dillute what she's said by adding my own poorly written two cents on the euthenasia issue, I'd rather talk about the whole legal/political quagmire that's been created by this politically driven fiesta.

First of all, I'd like to give a big '%$&@ you!' to the media for helping to make sure this became a polarizing issue. If this story had not been so overly stuffed down our throats, the politics of the situation would have never materialized. I'm sure this is probably not the first time a disagreement over euthenasia has ended up in the courts, but the publicity on this specific case has helped to even further polarize are already fractured nation.

Now here's my biggest issue with the whole damn affair: why did the legislatures (both state and federal) get involved in the first place? The case had properly wound itself through the existing legal system and come to a final conclusion that there was significant enough evidence that Terri would not want to be kept alive in her current state AND that her husband had the final right in determing what to do. Unfortunately, the conservatives in the legislature were unhappy with this, and decided to try to circumvent the whole judicial branch by making a new law, which was eventually struck down as unconstitutional. Then the federal legislature tried to force the issue again by moving the case to federal courts, where it has once again been affirmed that the original decision is sound.

First of all, since when did Republicans start to think that shifting power from the states to the federal government was a good thing? I thought that was supposed to be a key value, if not THE key value of the party. Then again, so was fiscal conservativism, reduced government roles in public life, and decentralized power. I don't think any of those have fared well in the modern era.

The whole situation makes the religious right come off as the little kid who would keep asking everyone he could for permission to do something until he finally got it. Of course, what happens when the courts continue to uphold the law as it is written? Start calling the judges and members of the system "activists" and attempt as much as possible to villify them in the court of public opinion. This, of course, is the peak of hypocrisy. If a similar judge were to overturn Roe vs. Wade for example, he/she would be made out to be a hero by the same people who are currently indicating that a judge doing his/her job is an "activist".

I see a very concering trend growing where the conservative elements in the legislative and executive branch are trying to erode the judicial branch. In other words, there seems to be a concerted effort to erode the balance of power, and the potential reasoning seems downright frightening to me. I think the conservatives are trying to take a two pronged approach: (A) Weaken the judicial system and it's credibility as much as possible, and (B) Probe for ways to bypass the system. It all seems part of a bigger plan to start passing social agenda based bills/laws, and having them slip their way through the system unscathed. I think our current governing majority has a significant interest in "legislating morals" and they're trying to get the ball rolling.

I also think that conservatives were hoping to use Terri as a way to shoe horn their way out of Roe vs. Wade. Any judgement that attempted to place the right to life (Terri's life) over the right to liberty (her choice of how to live/die, and her husband's choice for the same) would start a snow ball which would ultimately consume Roe vs. Wade. I honestly think the vast majority of these politicians don't give one iota of a care about poor Terri, but they're drooling over themselves at the potential impacts they can withdraw from the case.

Articles like this one only further validate the vast majority of my opinions (and get my blood boiling). I could spend the next several hours writing all the contrary thoughts that come up from reading things like this, but I think the vast majority of you have the same kind of responses.

Everyone always talks about life being the most important right, but without liberty, what's the point (New Hampshire's got that right). The conservatives are currently trying to steal Terri's right to liberty, but all they can talk about is protecting her "right to life". Maybe they should try to remember that the government is supposed to provide for all rights, not just the ones most politically convenient.

Honestly, I find myself stuck somewhere between fury and worry. I really hope this ends soon, for both Terri's sake, and for the nation's.