I don’t seek to open old wounds, but since it’s the weekend and blogging is usually light, I want to provide a forum in which the Terri Schiavo case can be discussed.
In an earlier post I said that my hope is that we’d err on the side of individual liberty rather than on that of government intervention. But there were conflicting interpretations of fact in this case. So here is the way I see it:
* For whatever reason Terri Schiavo suffered cardiac arrest which caused brain damage due to a lack of oxygen.
* Michael Schiavo claimed that Terri said that she would not want to live in such a condition, and he sought legal permission to not artificially feed her.
* The court agreed.
* There are numerous appeals, all of which decide that the original decision should stand.
* Congress and the President believe that it is their duty to intervene in a single case, so they instruct the court to hear the case again. Congress and the President are denied.
* Every other appeal is denied, based upon the reasoning that the husband is the proper person to defer to in this particular case.
If my facts are correct, then what we have is not an activist court (an idea that Steven Taylor has already properly fisked), but a court that actually respected individual autonomy and federalism (my conclusion, not his). I know that Terri Schiavo was starved to death, and I’m really uncomfortable with that. But I’m not convinced that she was murdered in some Nazi manner.
Commenters: please take me seriously when I say that I know that I don’t have all the anwsers, and I’m not even sure if I have the facts straight. But yelling at me with ALL CAPS or something similar will only detract from your argument. I’m searching for understanding here, not dogma.