Not trying to throw napalm here or anything, RWP, but why is it necessarily an indication of 150 proof religiousity to question why a woman who is not being kept alive by "heroic measures" (her feeding tube is on the same level of intervention required by Christopher Reeve)(*) should be allowed to starve or dehydrate to death on the word of her husband, who had shacked up with another woman and had children with that other woman. Of all people, he's the one most likely to have nefarious ulterior motives...
(*) Yes, I KNOW Reeves could talk, and interact; and that he had the residual star persona of having played Superman. But being paralyzed from the neck down makes it harder to eat, drink, or avoid sever diaper rash without external help. As far as being kept alive goes, without other considerations, he needed nearly as much help as Terri.
Cheers!
It was interesting; though. Congress leapt in to intervene, passed a flawed bill (and knowingly so; Carl Levin wouldn't agree to it unless it was left to the courts' discretion whether to issue a stay) , and then, after a couple of rather deceitfully worded opinion polls found Americans didn't want Congress involved, suddenly turned tail and refused to do anything further. What a corrupt little spectacle. H.L Mencken would be smirking.
But in any case, while I'm sure the most widely quoted polls were biased, it was clear from the actions of the Congressional GOP, unprincipled weather-vanes that they are, that they thought the pro-life side overreached.