"Those persons who argued about the preeminence of the Right to Life must try to understand and at least accept the honorable motives of those well-reasoned arguments against further weakening the right of States to decide those cases where 'issues and powers not specifically allotted to the Federal Government are thereby reserved to the States, and to the people'."
Whether it observes the niceties of "federalism" or whatever, government isn't worth a damn if it doesn't protect the life of the innocent.
Government is actually evil if it is used as the tool to murder the innocent.
That's exactly how I felt about all the anger about states rights. Has "of the people, by the people and for the people" been changed to "of the state, by the state and for the state" while I wasn't looking? It's like everyone forgot about the part of the clause that said "and to the people". What redress does an individual have, even a severely brain damaged one, if the federal government can't protect them from the tyranny of the state?
The hue and cry was each state should decide this issue for themselves. That means the value of a human life, a citizen of this country, can be worth more in Wisconsin than Florida or in South Dakota than Maine. That's just absurd. The notion that Floridians, whatever their condition, can be legally be starved and dehydrated to death is appalling. Ted Bundy was given a more humane death. Anyone that buys into the nonsense that Terri couldn't feel any pain, needs to watch the video where she's being poked on her back and visibly flinches away and cries out in pain. Other videos might be open to interpretation, but this one is clear.
At the very least there needs to be standards in place that protect the rights of the individual from the arbitrary whims of state judges and legislators. In the case of the Florida they literally allowed a panel of "experts" not elected by the people of the state, most of whom were proponets of "the right to die", MAKE the law that was put on the books. Imagine the 9/11 commission given carte blanche to make their recommendations into the law of the land. But, because this was done by a state, that's supposed to make it okay.
Forget guardianship issues, Terri wasn't even given the battery of tests that are considered standard in the field of neurology to determine whether she was PVS and assess the severity of her brain damage. We have standards of proof and protections from the state to the federal government that insure the rights of murderers given the death penalty because we want to insure they've been treated fairly and that all legal remedies have been exhausted. In Terri's case only half the tests (and the most superficial ones at that) were performed. Expert medical testimony was clearly agenda-driven and the "tie-breaker" had no experience with this kind of case. We can't even say with any certainty what her wishes were since there was conflicting testimony (even from her husband). Nevertheless, the judge was compelled to rule on what she *most likely* would want. In the hands of a corrupt judge this could kill you.
She was given no separate legal representation, instead her husband was allowed to use money specifically and LEGALLY stipulated for her care to argue on behalf of killing her. Were she a criminal, her sentence (because she WAS sentenced to death) would have been commuted to life in prison because she didn't have the mental capacity to aid in her own defense. The Guardians ad Litum who were to look after her best interests, however well-intentioned, had no experience working with the handicapped and could only issue a report with recommendations and walk away. For Terri, due process didn't even exist. In the entire legal system, not once was her rights as a citizen given even cursory consideration.
Sugar coat it all you want with words like "quality of life" and "right to die", it's state sanctioned killing no different than the death penalty (except that we allow our criminals to die a more humane death). This woman with no legal representation of her own, who surely would have divorced an adulterous husband were she able, instead was given over to him to do with as he wished. Yep, we've come a long way, baby! The only 2 people assigned to look after her interests, her guardians ad litem, were both concerned about her husband being given guardianship (in essence the power of life or death) over her because of this conflict of interest. However, without legal representation, without standard diagnostic tests, without continued therapy (if for no other reason than because she's a human being who deserves whatever treatment we are able to provide) our legal system regarded her with no more consideration than if she were a china hutch in an estate dispute. I wouldn't want that for any citizen. If part of a state's rights are going to include the power to kill innocent citizens then I damn well want the feds involved protecting those INDIVIDUAL rights guaranteed everyone. Either the constitution applies to every US citizen or it applies to none
Cindie