Not necessarily. As it is now, that would be a definite possibility. But as with every other power the national government has taken upon itself, this power would also logically be expanded. If this power were given to the national government, I could easily see a politician sponsoring a bill one day defining the point between life and death. And because Republicans condoned the first positive action preventing a family from carrying out questionable instructions, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in the argument
No, no matter how despicable the husband may be, I feel safer for myself and my family if the national government does not get involved again
I noticed you kept singling out the federal government in your post, without mentioning the state government. I understand the dangers inherent in the federal government getting involved in anything, and I can even sympathize with the view the state government needs to think twice before doing anything rash. In the current FR poll, I voted "no change in respect, but he should have defied Greer", but now I'm not so sure if that's the right solution. It seems to me that if the law needs to be broken, it should be broken by the people themselves, not by those charged with enforcing it. It certainly makes things considerably more difficult, but I think it's a necessary difficulty for the safety of the rest of us.
But that doesn't mean that I think it's remotely a good idea that this woman's adulterous husband is calling the shots for her. The law definitely needs to be changed, but more seriously, the law, as is the case from time to time, doesn't deserve to be respected. Everything about this is so utterly barbaric that it scarcely deserves to be dignified with the name "law".