April 02, 2005

His Holiness John Paul II 1920-2005

With one of his oldest friends and fellow priest holding his hand, Pope John Paul II left this earthly life today.
His last word was "Amen."
Would God that I could live such a life as his and die such a death.
"Well done, thou good and faithful servant."
As for those of us still left here in this "vale of tears," this Pope's first words as the Supreme Pontiff still apply:"Be not afraid."

The Pope Blog is a treasure trove of posts in the wake of the Holy Father's passing:
The Pope Blog: Vatican Announces Pope's Death

Vere Papa mortuus est
In Latin, "The Pope has truly died," are the words that the Cardinal Camerlengo Eduardo Martinez Somalo pronounces to verify the death of Pope John Paul II.

Psalm 130 is also recited by the Camerlengo: "Out of the depths I cry to you, O LORD. ..."

Any prelates present with the Pope when he dies join together in saying, "Subvénite, Sancti Dei; occúrrite, Angeli Domini: Suscipientes animam eius. Offerentes eam in conspectu Altissimi." ("Come to his aid, Saints of God; race to meet him, Angels of the Lord: Receive his soul and present it in the presence of the Most High.")

Here's what President Bush had to say about the Pope's death:

Laura and I join people across the Earth in mourning the passing of Pope John Paul II. The Catholic Church has lost its shepherd, the world has lost a champion of human freedom, and a good and faithful servant of God has been called home.

Pope John Paul II left the throne of St. Peter in the same way he ascended to it -- as a witness to the dignity of human life. In his native Poland, that witness launched a democratic revolution that swept Eastern Europe and changed the course of history. Throughout the West, John Paul's witness reminded us of our obligation to build a culture of life in which the strong protect the weak. And during the Pope's final years, his witness was made even more powerful by his daily courage in the face of illness and great suffering.

All Popes belong to the world, but Americans had special reason to love the man from Krakow. In his visits to our country, the Pope spoke of our "providential" Constitution, the self-evident truths about human dignity in our Declaration, and the "blessings of liberty" that follow from them. It is these truths, he said, that have led people all over the world to look to America with hope and respect.

Pope John Paul II was, himself, an inspiration to millions of Americans, and to so many more throughout the world. We will always remember the humble, wise and fearless priest who became one of history's great moral leaders. We're grateful to God for sending such a man, a son of Poland, who became the Bishop of Rome, and a hero for the ages.

Amen, President Bush.

Kathy Carroll, authoress of One Clear Day, has some beautiful reflections on the Holy Father's passing which echo my own:A Man for All Ages

Blogger Don Singleton has lots of wonderful pictures of the Pope and a comprehensive and thoughtful biography of the Pope's life.

In his last message written shortly before his death, the Pope told us to have joy and not to weep:

As the end approached, history's best travelled and third longest serving pontiff had urged his followers not to cry for him by dictating a message to his secretary.

"I am happy and you should be happy too," he said. "Do not weep. Let us pray together with joy."

What can we Christians do but give thanks to God joyfully for sharing with us and blessing us with the life of this extraordinary, pious, godly and loving man, even though his earthly presence will be sorely missed?
Amen and Addio.

March 31, 2005

Here's what President Bush had to say about the end of Terri's fight:
WhiteHouse.gov

Today millions of Americans are saddened by the death of Terri Schiavo. Laura and I extend our condolences to Terri Schiavo's families. I appreciate the example of grace and dignity they have displayed at a difficult time. I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life.

More meaningful thoughts can be found at NRO's The Corner was this email from Princeton professor Robert P. George on Terri's killing:

Let us mourn, but not be discouraged. Let us forgive those who have acted wrongly in our name, even as we beg forgiveness from the Author of Life for whatever failures and delinquencies on our own parts have contributed to the culture of death. We are all sinners, and have fallen short; and the wages of sin truly are death. Let us resolve that Terri's death shall not have been in vain. In her name, let reform and renewal be our undoubted mission. Let us now, even in the depths of sorrow, rededicate ourselves to our ancient creed, affirming that every human being, as a creature fashioned in the divine image, possesses a profound, inherent, and equal worth and dignity--a worth and dignity that it is the high duty of the officers and institutions of constitutional republican government to respect and defend.

FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Terri Schiavo Dies
Rest in peace, and may God comfort your father, mother, sister, brother and friends at this sad time.
I am so sorry that we weren't able to save you.
With Terri's passing, we can also bury the traditional idea that our government is one of checks and balances between the three branches of legislative, executive and judicial.
Terri will be the martyr and the symbol of Judicial Reform for me and a lot of other patriotic, life-loving Americans as we work to rein in a judiciary out of control that embraces a culture of death.
Pray for the repose of Terri's sweet soul.
Pray for those who loved and lost her earthly presence.
Pray for this country that we will find the political will to right this terrible wrong so that it never happens to another innocent American citizen who is disabled, sick, elderly, handicapped or otherwise incapacitated that can't defend their own right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

More thoughts on Terri's death at the hands of her husband with court permission:
PajamaHadin
Captain's Quarters
Wizbang
GOP Bloggers
LaShawn Barber's Corner
Confederate Yankee
Blogs for Terri (of course)
Hennesy's View
The Political Teen--there's video of Terri's priest speaking, also

March 29, 2005

First, read Nat Hentoff's superb column in the "Right Wing Christian" Village Voice:
Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder
Then, check out Joe Ford 's autobiographically-influenced editorial in the Harvard Crimson (Harvard's the bastion of Conservatism, don't ya know!):
FOCUS: Bigotry and the Murder of Terri Schiavo
Not only is Terri's case not dividing the GOP, but it's uniting Americans of all political persuasions to pump up the volume on Terri's murder by judicial decree.
Good for them!
We need everyone to join together to fight this Evil of embracing death for the Left's love of "Million Dollar Baby"-type ethically bankrupt policy!
And even the Rev. Jesse Jackson has stood up for Terri, going down to Florida to pray with Terri's parents, the first really good and true thing he's done for a long time.
Good for him, too.
But for the real deal, scoot over to Judith Kesher's blog where her friend Becki Snow is live blogging from the protest in front of Terri's hospice:
Kesher Talk
Becki has apparently been going without food and water as long as Terri has in sympathy with her;
you've got to read it for your own self, but needless to say, Becki's still waiting for the "euphoria" the pro-deathers talked about that supposedly comes when you thirst and starve to death.
As a matter of fact, it seems poor Becki (poor Terri!) is in quite a bit of pain.
Whatta surprise.
As shoshanna comments on Judith's post regarding Terri's ordeal, for someone who supposedly said she "didn't want to live like this," Terri is certainly putting up quite a fight to live.
God be with her and the Schindlers.

Frank Cannon and Jeffrey Bell explain in
The Weekly Standard how the "culture of Life" momentum of the Schiavo case will change the dynamics of the Senate filibuster dramatically.
Here's the red meat:

[...]
For President Bush and the social conservatives who comprise the central rampart of his base, the courts' naked assertion of judicial supremacy in deciding the fate of Terri Schiavo represents an important moment. This is because the premise of the Democratic filibuster of the president's conservative judicial nominees is that the Roe v. Wade decision must never again be called into question.

The judicial confirmation debate will now unavoidably be about whether democratic decision-making on abortion should continue to be prohibited by our courts and (effectively) by the American legal profession. From the beginning, those who believed Roe would corrupt the rule of law feared that state sanction of private killing would put all public order and all private restraint in doubt. The fate of Terri Schiavo makes clear that those fears were utterly on target.

Sure enough, we heard yesterday that Congress is ready "take up rights for the incapacitated."
What can we hope for?
Will they rein in the judiciary now or pass more laws that violate the boundaries of family, home and personal privacy?

Ben Stein, my favorite comedic actor and Conservative commentator, wrote a terrific piece on the Terri Schiavo controversy for the American Spectator, appropriately titled:
Simply Terrifying

Here is what makes me furious about the Terry Schiavo case, short and sweet.

The courts of the United States can find a right for the abortion industry to take a fully formed, totally healthy baby at nine months' term, out of his mother's womb and murder it by putting scissors through his brain and grinding them about.

They do this without one single word of support from any Congressional act of any kind ever.

They can find a right of savage murderers of innocent women who drown them for a lark to avoid the death penalty because they are old enough to drive and to kill but supposedly too young to be executed. Again, there is not one syllable in any Congressional act that sanctions this protection of the guilty.

But with the Congress and the President of the United States pleading for the life of a woman who is not brain dead, who responds to words and to touch, who is not on life support, whose parents beg for her to be kept alive, whose nurses give affidavits that she can be rehabilitated, with a specific law commanding the courts to review the case to keep this poor soul alive, the courts instead find no rights for her.

This is a court system totally out of control, obviously committed to death, obviously bound by nothing beyond its morbid obsession with its own omnipotence and its fascination with the letting the innocent die. This is simply terrifying. The Falange followers of Francisco Franco had an evil cry: Long live death. Obviously, Justice Kennedy was listening.

Ben couldn't have expressed my own feelings more perfectly.
What also interested me greatly was an email from one of Ben's citizen readers named Richard Donley as to what Terri's death sentence means for the rest of us and what needs to be done with this Thanatos-loving, out of control judiciary:

I'm amazed by the number of your correspondents who fail to understand the most basic principles of our form of government, as shown in their opinions on the Schiavo matter.

We have three independent branches of government. It is the duty of the legislative branch to pass laws, of the executive to approve and enforce them, and of the judicial branch to determine the applicability of the laws in individual cases. It was never the intent of the Founders to allow judges to make laws, nor for them to override the intent of the legislators.

Judges must follow the law just as must everyone else. They have no constitutional right to choose which laws to apply, nor to invalidate laws, nor to decide that standard judicial procedure (so-called due process) is superior to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives; yet in this case we have seen judges cast aside or avoid the clear intent of laws passed by both the Florida and national legislature. This is simply unconstitutional.
[What are gonna do about that?--Jen]

Judicial usurpation proceeds apace. There is nothing new about it, of course. In Ohio and, I believe, other states the courts have threatened legislators with jail for, among other things, the "failure" to "properly" fund courts. Again in Ohio a local judge has used some vague language in the preamble to the Ohio Constitution to decide that the legislature was improperly funding schools, and ordered the passage of new laws that would meet his requirements. In Kansas City, Missouri a judge took over the school system, ordered taxes imposed on the people, and designed new school buildings and new educational policies, all without effective opposition from the legislative and executive bodies of the city and state. (And, I might add, without any noticeable improvement in the educational attainments of the students.) Other examples are too numerous to mention.

Judicial usurpation seems to have reached a crescendo with cases concerning the right to life. Roe versus Wade was decided extra-constitutionally, and the Federal courts have time and again denied the states any power to control abortion, acting not to apply the law but to re-write or contravene it. The courts have even gone so far as to use foreign law to justify usurpation of legislative rights and the effective abrogation of the Constitution.

One of your correspondents says, "The courts then stand separately and interpret what the laws say." INCORRECT. It is the duty of the courts to apply the law, and to obey it themselves unless some clear constitutional conflict exists.

Another writer states, "...religious extremists that are more interested in one woman's "life" than in the rule of law." CONFLICTED REASONING. The founding document of our nation calls for the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The law, by any rational interpretation, does not allow the execution of a person who has not been tried and convicted of an appropriate crime. Terri Schiavo is guilty of no crime yet she has been condemned to death by not just removing a form of "treatment", the feeding tube, but by being denied all sustenance no matter how delivered or by whom.
[This became clear when "protestors," even children, were arrested at the hospice for trying to give Terri a drink of water after the tube had been removed.--Jen]

Another, "...in this country, when families can't agree courts must decide. How else would you like this issue to be settled? By Congress?" MISSING THE POINT. Legislatures decide issues, courts apply the law. In this case the courts are ignoring laws specifically passed to deal with this issue.

Still another, "If we are to have ordered liberty in this country, we need to respect the court system and the process of the law, not trash them." WRONG. The interests of liberty and constitutionality require that we rein in the courts and stop their ongoing takeover of legislative powers.

Ben Stein gets on my nerves quite a bit with his whining about his career, fortune, and family. But on issues of liberty and patriotism he could not be more correct. The main danger to our liberties is presently the courts. It is very unfortunate that Congress did not take advantage of this opportunity to insist upon legislative primacy with regard to writing the law, and that the President did not find it in himself to use his Constitutional powers to enforce the rather tentative law that Congress did pass. God help us if this continues.
-- Richard Donley

Well, God Bless you, Richard Donley for putting the issue so plainly and so correctly!
Betcha you're a lawyer and a d*mn good one.
(BTW, the Reader Mail at the American Spectator is a must read for me; it's that good.)
To address his last point, I don't why Congress, President Bush and Gov. Bush didn't do more to see that Terri's right to life was protected, but "Washington (not Houston,) we have a problem."
A very big problem--Look for the black robes.
What we do about it, with God's help, will make all the difference for millions of lives.
If 40 million babies have been aborted since the passage of Roe v. Wade and with the passing of poor voiceless Terri Schiavo, millions of lives have already been lost.
Pay attention: the life you save may be your own.
After Terri's case, how hard will it be for your "guardian" to ask your local court to take out your "life support" should you become incapacitated because that's "what you would have wanted?"

Thanks to Johnny Dollar's Place, which is THE Media Blog, we are able to read what Dimocrat pollster Pat Caddell said about that ubiquitous CBS poll in which almost 70% of the American people supposedly indicated that they wanted Terri's feeding tube to be removed and for her life not be saved.
Caddell, who's a pollster himself, (Ding!ding!Ding!) states with certainty that it is an agenda-driven "push poll" that got the desired results:
'This Poll Is Designed to Produce Certain Results'

PAT CADDELL: Well I'm very concerned, because I've always said in the years I was polling, that if you tell me the results you want and I'll write the questions for you. Now sometimes we ask people when they don't have a lot of information, this is a very complex case, what they think. But what's being presented in these polls, particularly with CBS when it's so disturbing to me because it's being cited everywhere, and it's not being cited accurately. But when you start your survey interviewing people, and describe a situation which is not the actual condition of Terri Schiavo, you have a problem. But even more importantly, the question that has been drawing the most attention is the argument that 82% of the people said they didn't want the President or Congress involved in this matter. Well that's not what the question was actually asked. The question that was asked on the poll was whether they should be involved in determining, in deciding what should happen to her. I happen to disagree with what the Congress did, but that is not what they did. They simply allowed her the right to go to Federal Court to seek a review of the facts. This is being presented, and then everyone is saying well look, we have a huge majority of evangelicals concerned, everyone's saying they're against it. That means George Bush is in trouble, everyone's opposed to this. That's not what was asked. And you have to be very careful, both that people understand the actual situation, and form the questions the way that people can make a proper judgment. As well as report them as such. What's being reported today by CBS, and what is being said on the other networks which are using CBS's poll rather than their own surveys, is saying that people say they should not be involved.That is not what was asked of people.

Pat virtually declares that this poll's results are worthless as "truth," yet it's been cited over and over and over in the last few days, as he states--even by Conservative commenters!--as a valid indicator of "the people's" desired income for Terri.
I feel set up!
Instead of being down to the overreaching, god-like, power-crazy judiciary which is the reality, Terri's death by dehydration and starvation can now be portrayed as the "will of the American people!"
(Oh and CBS wants us to know that "most Americans" don't like "evangelical Christians" or the Bush brothers either, while they're allegedly taking the country's temperature.)
Outrageous.
Where are all the folks who said they'd never believe anything coming out of CBS News again after Rathergate?
Dan's gone, but the Bias and the Agenda remain.
I encourage you to go to the link and read the whole thing--Caddell is one Democrat I like!
He's brilliant and funny and no-one nails his fellow Liberals like he can.
(He's been wished to the cornfield by his party along with Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.)

High Court Lets Stand Parental Consent Ruling

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday to reinstate a state law requiring girls under age 18 to get parental consent for abortions except under the most dire of medical emergencies.

Lemme see if I got this straight:
The USSC has decided that teenagers are "mature" enough to get an abortion on their own, but are not to be held accountable-- because they're misguided children--if they commit capital crimes like murder?
I give up (NO, I don't!)
Clearly, the "highest court in the land" wants our teens to be able to get away with murder, be it their own babies or anyone else if they're in a murderous frame of mind while in the meantime, parental authority and the strength of the family is totally undermined.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
(Is it mere coincidence that the mentally disturbed Indian boy went on a shooting rampage at his Minnesota school only a few weeks after the USSC gave teen killers a pass on the death penalty?)
People, we have *got* to rein in the out-of-control judiciary in this country from the local level up to SCOTUS and we need to do it soon before they make even more lunatic decisions like this one and the rulings on poor Terri Schiavo!

March 28, 2005

Arthur Chrenkoff has a slew of good news from Iraq and just from the past 2 weeks!
Read it and marvel at what our troops and our ideology of freedom and free market capitalism have wrought:
Shopkeepers Say 'Enough'
Among the stories Chrenkoff cites is this important one:
Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy'

Many of Iraq's predominantly Sunni Arab insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process in exchange for guarantees of their safety and that of their co-religionists, according to a prominent Sunni politicians.
[...]
Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.

I wonder if they got the idea of an "exit strategy" from John Kerry during the 2004 campaign or it this is just mediaspeak?
(Probably the latter.)

Fallujah is now reputed to be the
Wow.

Ordinary Iraqis are starting to take care of their own security, too:
Shopkeepers turn guns on insurgents

Shopkeepers and residents on one of Baghdad's main streets pulled out their own guns and killed three insurgents when hooded men began shooting at passers-by, giving a rare victory to civilians increasingly frustrated by the violence bleeding Iraq.

Hope the Iraqis have put something like the Second Amendment in their new constitution!
In addition to Arthur's roundup, there are these reports today:
Pentagon begins to see Iraq momentum shift
Leader: Army May Secure Iraq in 18 Months
Iraqi troop training: signs of progress

Let's keep our fingers crossed and our prayers for the troops in harm's way going up, only to be joined by prayers of thanksgiving that OIF has been such a success and that millions in Iraq are now well and truly free and on their way to democratic, non-Islamist and non-theocratic government!

March 27, 2005

I couldn't leave out a word of this fine column.
Thank God for Mark Steyn!
Be it war strategy or human ethics, no one can articulate the problems like he can.
Please read it all and pray for Terri and the Schindler family and for our country:
No compelling reason to kill Terri Schiavo

A couple of decades back, north of the border, it was discovered that some overzealous types in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had been surreptitiously burning down the barns of Quebec separatists. The prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, shrugged off the controversy and blithely remarked that, if people were so upset by the Mounties illegally burning down barns, perhaps he'd make the burning of barns by Mounties legal. As the columnist George Jonas commented:

''It seemed not to occur to him that it isn't wrong to burn down barns because it's illegal, but it's illegal to burn down barns because it's wrong. Like other statist politicians, Mr. Trudeau . . . either didn't see, or resented, that right and wrong are only reflected by the laws, not determined by them.''

That's how I feel about the Terri Schiavo case. I'm neither a Floridian nor a lawyer, and, for all I know, it may be legal under Florida law for the state to order her to be starved to death. But it is still wrong.

This is not a criminal, not a murderer, not a person whose life should be in the gift of the state. So I find it repulsive, and indeed decadent, to have her continued existence framed in terms of ''plaintiffs'' and ''petitions'' and ''en banc review'' and ''de novo'' and all the other legalese. Mrs. Schiavo has been in her present condition for 15 years. Whoever she once was, this is who she is now -- and, after a decade and a half, there is no compelling reason to kill her. Any legal system with a decent respect for the status quo -- something too many American judges are increasingly disdainful of -- would recognize that her present life, in all its limitations, is now a well-established fact, and it is the most grotesque judicial overreaching for any court at this late stage to decide enough is enough. It would be one thing had a doctor decided to reach for the morphine and ''put her out of her misery'' after a week in her diminished state; after 15 years, for the courts to treat her like a Death Row killer who's exhausted her appeals is simply vile.
[I couldn't agree more...--Jen]

There seems to be a genuine dispute about her condition -- between those on her husband's side, who say she has ''no consciousness,'' and those on her parents' side, who say she is capable of basic, childlike reactions. If the latter are correct, ending her life is an act of murder. If the former are correct, what difference does it make? If she feels nothing -- if there's no there there -- she has no misery to be put out of. That being so, why not err in favor of the non-irreversible option?

The here's-your-shroud-and-what's-your-hurry crowd say, ah, yes, but you uptight conservatives are always boring on about the sanctity of marriage, and this is what her husband wants, and he's legally the next of kin.

Michael Schiavo is living in a common-law relationship with another woman, by whom he has fathered children. I make no judgment on that. Who of us can say how we would react in his circumstances? Maybe I'd pull my hat down over my face and slink off to the cathouse on the other side of town once a week. Maybe I'd embark on a discreet companionship with a lonely widow. But if I take on a new wife (in all but name) and make a new family, I would think it not unreasonable to forfeit any right of life or death over my previous wife.

Michael Schiavo took a vow to be faithful in sickness and in health, forsaking all others till death do them part. He's forsaken his wife and been unfaithful to her: She is, de facto, his ex-wife, yet, de jure, he appears to have the right to order her execution. This is preposterous. Suppose his current common-law partner were to fall victim to a disabling accident. Would he also be able to have her terminated? Can he exercise his spousal rights polygamously? The legal deference to Mr. Schiavo's position, to his rights overriding her parents', is at odds with reality.

As for the worthlessness of Terri Schiavo's existence, some years back I was discussing the death of a distinguished songwriter with one of his old colleagues. My then girlfriend, in her mid-20s, was getting twitchy to head for dinner and said airily, ''Oh, well, he had a good life. He was 87.'' ''That's easy for you to say,'' said his old pal. ''I'm 86.'' To say nobody would want to live in an iron lung or a wheelchair or a neck brace or with third-degree burns over 80 percent of your body is likewise easy for you to say.

We all have friends who are passionate about some activity -- They say, ''I live to ski,'' or dance, or play the cello. Then something happens and they can't. The ones I've known fall into two broad camps: There are those who give up and consider what's left of their lives a waste of time; and there are those who say they've learned to appreciate simple pleasures, like the morning sun through the spring blossom dappling their room each morning. Most of us roll our eyes and think, ''What a loser, mooning on about the blossom. He used to be a Hollywood vice president, for Pete's sake.''

But that's easy for us to say. We can't know which camp we'd fall into until it happens to us. And it behooves us to maintain a certain modesty about presuming to speak for others -- even those we know well. Example: ''Driving down there, I remember distinctly thinking that Chris would rather not live than be in this condition.'' That's Barbara Johnson recalling the 1995 accident of her son Christopher Reeve. Her instinct was to pull the plug; his was to live.

As to arguments about ''Congressional overreaching'' and ''states' rights,'' which is more likely? That Congress will use this precedent to pass bills keeping you -- yes, you, Joe Schmoe of 37 Elm Street -- alive till your 118th birthday. Or that the various third parties who intrude between patient and doctor in the American system -- next of kin, HMOs, insurers -- will see the Schiavo case as an important benchmark in what's already a drift toward a culture of convenience euthanasia. Here's a thought: Where do you go to get a living-will kit saying that in the event of a hideous accident I don't want to be put to death by a Florida judge or the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals? And, if you had such a living will, would any U.S. court recognize it?

Ladies and gentlemen, we live in dark days indeed.
I won't lie--this has had me pretty upset all week.
Today, we're supposed to celebrate the Resurrection of Christ and I am, particularly for Terri, who's a Christian, because it means that earthly death isn't the end for her because of what Jesus did.
But I'm almost certain that she is suffering.
Dying by starvation and dehydration can't be pleasant no matter how little of your brain is left.
I pray that God will take her quickly, now that we know the Schindlers have no more options to save her, and that He will ease her pain until her final breath.
Terry is a martyr.
Terry is being murdered by overreaching judicial decree and without even the humane lethal injection we give condemned criminals and sick animals.
You or I might be next, too.
We need to pray and get to work after we mourn Terri's passing.
We must find some way to set aside the rulings in Terri's case so that they're not used as "legal" precedents to kill other helpless, disabled and sick Americans in a similar state.
(I think we are owed an explanation as a country as to why the USSC wouldn't rule on this case, also.
I never heard any judge consider why Terri's human and civil rights under either the Florida or the U.S. Constitution weren't being violated--and they were.)
Over and above that, we must deal with the hubris, arrogance and intrusion of our judiciary at the local, state and federal levels.
Getting the GOP Senate majority to use the "nuclear"/Constitutional option to end the DemocRAT filibuster of judges is one thing to do.
Another is to fight like crazy for a "strict constructionist" to fill any vacancies on SCOTUS when they occur, which they will soon.
There's an online petition to Impeach Judge Greer, the judge who ruled against Terri in Florida over and over.
And Florida was supposed to do something about SCOFLA back in 2000, when they gave the Election 2000 recounts to Gore...just because they were all Dems and felt like it.
As the Greatest Generation and their children, the Baby Boomers, age, this issue of "pulling the plug" is going to come up quite often and some adult children may be inclined to tell a judge that their parent "didn't want to be a burden" when what they really want is to inherit their parent's estate.
(Steve Sailer has an excellent analysis of the legal ramifications of Terri's case and I heartily recommend you read the whole thing.)
Americans are going to have to decide if they want "death on demand" not just at the beginning of life, as with abortion, but at it's final phase with eusthanasia.
With Terri's court-sanctioned death, we have arrived at a horrible crossroads between Life and Death and I fear for our republic.
As the Book of Deuteronomy 30:19 says, "...I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live..."
I'm afraid it's too late to save Terri--these legal machinations went on when we are all looking somewhere else, but her life and forced death will really count for something if those of us who want a Culture of Life use it as the occasion to say, "ENOUGH."