The issue was who had the right to make medical decisions for the still no longer mentally competent women involved; and secondarily, what decision would she want made, if she had been competent to make that decision.
No one was trying to put her to death. The medical procedures involved had to do with keeping her artificially alive. For many, it seemed that what was going on was actually an unnatural abuse of a human body; but, again, that was not the issue either. The issues were who should have the say as to any medical procedure & what the afflicted woman would have wished.
The tangent Congress went off on did profound damage to the cause of stopping the legalized slaughter of innocent babies, because some of the media treated the one issue with the other. (Again, Schiavo Case.)
For any Republican candidate, today, to seek to resurrect the position that Congress took in 2005, is to alienate a significant number of voters for no possible advantage. The "science" of politics is to pick the most advantageous issues--so long as one does not surrender principle. And there is no principle involved in trying to defend a 7 year past mistake.
William Flax
Nonsense, the issue was whether the state can order the death of a person who was not charged with a capital crime.
No one was trying to put her to death.
So, if you were denied food and water at gunpoint it would not be putting you to death?
The medical procedures involved had to do with keeping her artificially alive.
Wrong again, Terri required food and water, just like the rest of us.
For many, it seemed that what was going on was actually an unnatural abuse of a human body;
Really? Giving someone food and water is "abuse"?
The tangent Congress went off on did profound damage to the cause of stopping the legalized slaughter of innocent babies, because some of the media treated the one issue with the other.
No, the only problem with Congress is that they failed to follow the law they had passed and ignored the oath they took.