Personally, I don't think the anti-evolution crowd makes much difference at all wrt politics since the educators are already mostly Democrat. The general voting public is pretty much divided on the ID controversy and unless it is made a political platform or something raised in political debates prior to an election, my sense is that it will be a non-issue despite all of the liberal MSM's attempts to make it so.
WRT to the Schiavo case - indeed, the pro-life crowd is overwrought and thinking with their collective heart instead of their head. As a result, they let the MSM frame the debate and didn't play it out beneficially. IMHO, a pro-life movement with judicial (rather than emotional) temperament would have pressed these three points:
(2) that once a judgment is made (with whatever standard of proof) that a life will be taken, then the same rules of compassion which are applied to companion animals, laboratory mice and convicted death row criminals needs to apply - a lethal injection (or gas) preceded by an anesthetic.
(3) that the rights of an estranged spouse to speak for the other spouse needs to be more clearly defined in state law.
These issues are all basically ideological and, as cornelis has pointed out, are far afield of the epistemological subject matter of this thread so I won’t go any further in my reply. But I do thank you for sharing your views on all of them.
Thank you for your analysis of what needs to be done in light of the Schiavo case, A-G. All three of your points need to be carefully examined, and clarified. I expect that Congress will have to act in these matters.