I fear that even broaching the Terri Schiavo case would merely perpetuate the media hysteria, rather than elucidate the situation. However, I’ll try my best to be concise (not one of my strengths). The case, as far as I see it, is one where no clear answer has emerged and, regardless of the truth (if such a thing even exists), the Schindler family truly believes that by removing Terri’s feeding tube, her husband is killing her. The case, as I see it, is about legal precedent and individual freedom—not parental guilt.
Republicans, on the other hand, have everything to gain by seeing this case in within the skewed lenses of partisanship, they have everything to gain by exploiting this tragic event—so that’s just what they’ve done. George Bush, Bill Frist, and fellow sleazebag, Randall Terry, have used this event to extend federal power and galvanize the rapture-right in support of the so-called “pro-life” initiative. Still, despite their efforts, amazingly, not only do most Americans not support the president on this one, but a remarkable two thirds of those who admit to being evangelical disagree with the actions of the president to “preserve life”. Ouch, strike one. In fact, Mr. Bush’s approval ratings have dropped an unprecedented seven points, to the lowest level in his tenure, 45%. Double ouch, strike two. Nonetheless, George Bush keeps trucking, trying to sell his federal intervention case, saying that the government should “err on the side of life”. But, what exactly does that mean?
Have you ever heard of Sun Hudson? Probably not. Sun Hudson was a five and a half year old boy whose breathing tube was removed within the Texas Children's Hospital, despite his mother’s pleading, and left to die of suffocation in his mother’s arms. Why was this horribleness allowed to happen? Well, his mother was unable to allow Sun to continue attachment to life-preservation equipment because of provisions of a 1999 Texas Advance Directives Act, signed by you guessed it, then governor George W. Bush himself. Not only did Mr. “err on the side of life”, when he was government, sign a bill that, by his own standards, “killed” Sun Hudson, but he also authorized over a one hundred and fifty death penalties, making him the most-killing governor in the history of the
As far as I’m aware, the congressional republicans that “err on the side of life” are the biggest supporters of the death penalty, the biggest supporters of the deconstruction of our environment, the biggest supporters of the death of our soldiers in Iraq, and the biggest supporters of deep cuts in Medicaid—cuts to the program that, ironically, has been keeping Terri alive for the past fifteen years. Double standard anyone?
7 comments:
Laconic? Perhaps. Dead on? Absolutely.
Nice post. If I was a Republican congressman from Colorado, I wonder what I would have done: vote with the neocons to get more political capital for future bills that WON'T get struck down by federal courts, or vote with my gut and take a stand that will help divide the party into conservative and neoconservative factions. It's a tricky question!
No one supports the death of our soldiers (except liberals who exploit the deaths to put down bush) you radical bastard!
Ah, my adoring fans!
"No one supports the death of our soldiers (except liberals who exploit the deaths to put down bush) you radical bastard!"
a brilliant ad hominem attack, you idiot.
What you say is true, no one supports the death of soldiers. But then you contradict yourself, with this "except liberals who exploit the deaths to put down bush". And then add this lovely "you radical bastard" bit to the end. Well, my congratulations on a completely and utterly useless comment. You're saying nothing new, simply reasserting your obviously conservative opinion. Next time, try and actually make a point.
Next time, try to grow some balls and step off Repbulicans, ya biotch.
Sincerely,
Dr. Henderson
its so heartwarming to see members of the same political party attempt to stand up for each other...
max, out of curiosity, was driving force behind the (absurdly widespread) publication of the terry shiavo case originally fueled by various political figures seeking benefit, as you seem to imply, the family/husband hoping to strengthen their case, or simply some journalist who thought it would make a good story? Although I follow the case, I missed that bit.
It’s so heartwarming to see that even the lowest intellectual percentiles are trying to post comments….
Anonymous, out of curiosity, was the driving force behind your (absurdly unintelligible) question curiosity, or some sort of pejorative instinct? I’ll be happy to answer your question, just restate so that it’s coherent.
Post a Comment