Obviously, the biggest story over the last week-and-a-half has been the court-ordered death of Terri Schiavo. This whole saga forced an entire country to step back and think, and prompted a bunch of questions and musings for yours truly. Includling:
During the bitter floor fight in the House of Representatives last Sunday, ???? ¼ber-liberal Rep. Barney Frank said this about Congress' efforts to help Terri Schiavo: "This is a terribly difficult decision, which we are institutionally totally incompetent to make." Interesting. Since when did Congress' incompetence on an issue prevent it from acting? If they would follow a rule limiting their actions to subjects on which they were competent, the U.S. would have the small government Republicans purport to want.
There's an old question that asks: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it actually make a sound?" Along those lines, I would posit this question: "If you're starving to death and unable to scream or cry, are you actually in pain?"
Shouldn't Judge Greer be brought up on Contempt of Congress charges? He refused to keep alive a witness subpoenaed by Congress. If he's not in contempt, what good is a Congressional subpoena?
If Terri cannot swallow liquids, how is it she did not choke on her own saliva?
If Terri can swallow, why was she denied water after her feeding tube was removed?
What is the difference between abandoning Terri in her bed without food and water being put into her system and abandoning a newborn baby in a coat closet without food and water being put into his system?
Republicans are being accused of hypocrisy to the nth degree for "trampling all over" the principle of "federalism" - as the Democrats like to define it - with the passage of the Terri Schiavo Bill last weekend. Apparently, the Left considers forced starvation/dehydration to be a states' rights issue. (Democrats haven't claimed to be this supportive of states' rights since the Federal Marriage Amendment.) What the Democrats refuse to acknowledge is that the GOP is acting completely within the bounds of the Constitution: Article III, Section 2 allows Congress to determine the jurisdiction of the courts; the Fifth Amendment says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; and the Fourteenth Amendment says no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
If we're going to discuss who follows the Constitution, how many of the Left's pet issues are actually backed up by the Constitution? Gun control? Separation of church and state? Abortion? Homosexual sodomy? Campaign finance reform? Right to privacy?
Why should we believe that Terri did in fact express a desire to be killed in a situation like the one in which she found herself? Has Michael Schiavo shown himself to be a man of unimpeachable character? Has anyone asked his live-in girlfriend and two illegitimate children what they think of him as a role-model?
If Terri did want to die, where, exactly, is that "right to die" enumerated in the Constitution? I don't believe that a right to life presupposes a right to death.
There is obviously some doubt about who's telling the truth in this case. Either Terri said she wants to die or she didn't. Either Michael is a liar or he isn't. Since when, in a "He-Said-She-Said" case, has the Left been on the side of the man?
Where do we go from here?
