Dear PYW:
Trying to get the whole law overturned invokes unnecessary opposition. The law can be corrected by strengthening it to prevent abuses by advocates or opponents on either side.
The common goal of right-to-life activists and opponents is the right of consent. I have never met people on either side who wanted their consent violated, and that is why both sides push for religious freedom and choice not to be under the policies of the opposing school of thought.
A better criteria would be to require consensus of all parties affected. And/or allow people to designate another percentage like 2/3 or 3/4 majority of designated parties.
Such a standard would prevent abuses by advocates on both sides without denying freedom to choose either one.
In the case of Schindler-Schiavo, the parents voiced their dissent, yet their religious freedom was denied in violation of Constitutional laws protecting all persons equally. Thus, the ruling violated other laws and was not proper. No law can be applied to violate the Constitution.
Denying the right of the family peaceably to assemble and to exercise freedom of the press in videotaping their daughter was equally unlawful by Constitutional laws, and nothing in state or federal statutes gave Michael Schiavo as guardian, or his lawyers or the judge, any right to impose such a directive. All such action is illegal under the First Amendment, which wasn't properly enforced here.
Regardless of how the legislation was written, none of the interpretations were lawful anyway. They all seem to have broken other laws already on the books.
Even if you believe that secular law makes it legal to let someone starve to death, the fact that this case permitted a person to be put to death on the testimony of one witness clearly violated Biblical scripture. It is unlawful for the family as believers in Christian obedience to civil and Biblical law to be ordered by a court judge, to "believe" in a court order that violated their Biblical standards.
By religious freedom, Michael Schiavo could argue that he did not "believe" his actions were "killing" or "murder" against the Schindler's beliefs (by interpreting what he was doing as legal, and not killing or hateful murder). But no one, not even he, can deny the *fact* that he was the sole witness testifying against her to cause her death, which is an undeniable violation of the Schindler's beliefs in Biblical law and obedience. So this argument would have been a better "rebuke" to overrule the court's ability to make such a decision against the Schindler's religious beliefs in obedience to Scriptural and civil laws.
Again, if equal consent of the parties, and their religious beliefs, becomes the standard for upholding and interpreting laws, nothing can be abused to deny or disparage the equal rights and freedoms of all parties.
Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Houston Texas
emilynghiem@hotmail.com