March 22, 2005

I have decided not to

I have decided not to argue the merits of whether the law passed for Terri is constitutional. I am not an expert at constitutional law and neither will I pretend to be one. I feel that this article by Joshua Claybourn is very good if you are interested.
I wish, however, to bring to your attention the vile nature that the political battle for Terri has taken and to remind you that ultimately this is not a political battle at all but a battle for life. This supersedes any partisan nonsense that can be thrown into the mix, from alleged memos to skewed polls.

The irony of this so called "political battle" of Terri Schiavo is the fact so many Democrats have now become staunch federalists. They had no problem taking the matter of Elian Gonzales from the state arena to the federal one. But when it comes to Terri Schiavo, they have chosen her life to begin to embrace federalism.

Thomas Sowell writes:
"The fervor of those who want to save Terri Schiavo's life is understandable and should be respected, even by those who disagree. What is harder to understand is the fervor and even venom of those liberals who have gone ballistic -- ostensibly over state's rights, over the Constitutional separation of powers, and even over the sanctity of family decisions. These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue? Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?" (emphasis added)

Beth over at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has done a fabulous job highlighting the bipartisan efforts of people fighting for Terri's life. She highlights many liberal bloggers who seem to understand that this is more about an election and more than a game. She says in another great post that, "Terri Schiavo has given us an unexpected gift ?that of being able to find common ground with people we might never have otherwise found a reason to find each other."

In contrast, Daily Kos is rejoicing in what they refer to as "a silver lining in it all. Watch Republicans as they go on the defensive on this case. Their memo bragged about how great an issue this would be to wield against Democrats. The reality is shaping up looking much different."

The reality is that so many people are consumed with their own party line that they can't see over the wall they have built and can't understand this more than a Christian thing. This is so much more than a Pro-Life thing. It is about protecting the rights of those who can not speak for themselves. Just because someone is disabled does not mean they should die.


That's why there are more than two dozen national disability groups, according the San Francisco Chronicle, that have been following Terri Schiavo's case and supporting her right to live.

Disability groups don't think guardians should have carte blanche to starve and dehydrate people with conditions like brain injury, developmental disabilities -- which the public calls "birth defects" -- and Alzheimer's. People have the right not to be deprived of life by guardians who feel that their ward is as good as dead, better off dead or that the guardian should make such judgments in the first place.

Yes. Too bad some people are incapable of seeing the big picture. Incapable of getting past themselves and their pettiness to see beyond their "silver lining" and understand that this is not just about who might win a debate or an election, but this truly about protecting someone who needs protection.

Afterall, shouldn't compassion come before politics?

Posted by Jody at March 22, 2005 08:27 PM | TrackBack
Post a comment

Remember personal info?