|
| Tuesday, March 22, 2005 |
| More on Terry Schiavo |
While I agree with Bakley's sentiment that the politicization of Terry Schiavo is unfortunate, I also think it's entirely one party that has created this frenzy. Democrats were not the activists here - conservatives were, and I think they're going to get hurt because of it. They've way overstepped their bounds here, not to mention their claimed advocacy for an American public that is 63% in favor of her husband having the ultimate decision.
We also need to remember that she's not a unique case. Anything we do here will have dramatic ramifications. |
posted by CB @ 5:54 PM   |
|
| 1 Comments: |
-
The fact that conservatives are making the whole "special case" argument is definitely abhorrant, but I think the House's bill is actually in violation of the First Amendment. Terry's parents argue that she is being refused the right to practice her religion because it is immoral for a Catholic to refuse food and water, but because this ethic is so specific to Catholocism, by mandating that she be given food and water Congress is effectively saying that Terry must practice the religion. Thoughts?
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recent Posts |
|
| Archives |
|
| Contact Me |
| Email me |
| Template by |
 |
|
|
The fact that conservatives are making the whole "special case" argument is definitely abhorrant, but I think the House's bill is actually in violation of the First Amendment. Terry's parents argue that she is being refused the right to practice her religion because it is immoral for a Catholic to refuse food and water, but because this ethic is so specific to Catholocism, by mandating that she be given food and water Congress is effectively saying that Terry must practice the religion. Thoughts?