[sweetliberty]

Did the statute deal specifically with infants? I am appalled that murder is considered a "privacy" matter between family members. What's next? We take a dislike to a the crazy aunt or the drunken cousin and make a "private" family decision to put them out of our their misery? Of course, I guess it should come as no big surprise. We knew this was the direction we were heading once abortion was made legal. We've been rapidly deteriorating as a society ever since. God will not be mocked. We are reaping what we have sown.

Aristeides, see post #81. Does this have merit you think?

[msmagoo]

Yes, that statute was enacted to protect infants, specifically those born with disabilities - but I see a parallel between what Jeb Bush and the Florida lawmakers did to protect Terri and others like her and what was done to protect those disabled babies. Also, that law was passed to remedy the [lawful but unfair] taking of life by doctors & courts, which may set a precedent that can be used to uphold the constitutionality of Terri's Law.

As the excellent Drake article states:

"Guardianship -- which in this case was granted to Schiavo's husband by the courts -- has to have limits, especially when the stakes are the very lives of the people under guardians' power. It's important to remember that guardians have power over people, not property, and those people still have rights."

[aristeides]

The culture-of-death people will argue that Terri's Law, unlike this law, is really directed at one case. But I think there are strong analogies.