Replies

I don't think anyone really wins.

I'm torn on this issue. I don't want to see an innocent woman suffer and die needlessly. I also understand the spouses rights as well. Why is this all happening now after this has been in the courts for FIFTEEN YEARS???

Instead of legislating from the bench, it seems to me that if people had been on the ball earlier, the laws could have been changed years ago and we wouldn't be having this fight now. Laws need to be changed so that if a spouse like Michael Shiavo is a problem, parents can seek guardianship and take control of medical decisions. Laws are being changed now, FIFTEEN YEARS into this struggle while Terri lie dying.

I have a theory. If we'd had Fox News and Michael Savage 15 years ago like we do now... we wouldn't be here today.

Unfortunately, way to late for Terri.

You state 'while Teri lay dying'. She is (was) not dying.
Teri is being starved to death, now she is dying.
Husband rights .... huh!
What is happening here is a young woman who is inconvenient to her husband(?) is being starved to death.
I sure hope Steven Hawking's wife wife doesn't get ideas.

"I have a theory. If we'd had Fox News and Michael Savage 15 years ago like we do now... we wouldn't be here today."

My take is that the problem is that we have politicians that have abdicated their responsibilities. They allow judges to create legislation and both sides use that to play to their audience: "We must be elected to stop activist judges" or "We must be elected to stop conservative judges". All the while they fiddle Rome burns.

They can wash their hands, but they can't remove the stain. The legislative and executive branches have options; they put on a show for the faithful but they're now "leaving it to the courts". Pontius Pilate washed his hands, too. At least he asked "What is truth". As Andrew Jackson is thought to have said about a SCOTUS decision "They've ruled, let them enforce it".

Suppose the court had said "Okay dude, go bust a cap in her head". Would anybody be torn on the issue (or admit to it anyway)? Hell no but it's the same end, only more humane.

We let this happen. We let politicians get away with blaming stuff on "activist judges" when they should have been doing their job and whipping the judicial branch back into it's Constitution role but no, that way they'd have to take an actual position.

The frog has been in the pot for so long it's far too late. Maybe it could have been stopped 30 years ago, but the water is boiling and until we elect politicians that will rein in the judicial, even if it means cutting their funding, the people have lost.

Shed tears for the Schindler's (and I include Terri, she shouldn't be stained by her "husbands" name) and shed tears for the country that we've given away.