Actually, I'm implying that the state executive be the one to first have the opportunity to intervene; and, please do not twist the argument around by cleverly comparing it to liberal efforts to invoke the fed. govt. to enforce their often unconstitutional and subversive demands. Protecting life is guaranteed in the constitution, and it is the executive's job to enforce that when everyone else forgets.
Not trying to cleverly twist anything, but the analogy holds. The fact that you feel the liberal attempts to bring in the federal government are for unconstitutional and subversive demands is probably no different than their reaction to those wanting the President to intervene in state and county probate matters.
As for constitutional guarantees protecting life, they are quite limited and only to ensure due process. Your concerns over due process nothwithstanding, when over 40 judges participated in the Schiavo affair, and when many of them were both religious and conservative, many of us would say that due process was served. The fact that we may not have liked the outcome is irrelevant and certainly does not beg for congressional and executive intervention, at least for those of us who believe in the Tenth Amendment.
As for the current issue in Georgia, many here do not want any further "due process", just federal intervention. I would prefer to see this go through the judicial process first and see if the story still remains as initially reported.