Well, the neo-conservative reactionaries have struck again, and this time they are after the right to ease the suffering of people in vegetative states. Needless to say, I'm talking about Terri Schiavo and the effort to take away what her husband says she would have wanted.

President Bush said on the subject, "I believe that in a case such as this, the legislative branch, the executive branch, ought to err on the side of life, which we have. And now we'll watch the courts make their decisions."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told reporters ("speaking more as a physician than as a U.S. senator"), "There seems to be insufficient information to conclude that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegatative state."

But on what information did Frist use to come to this conclusion? Answer: a court-ordered videotape of Schiavo and a conversation with one of the neurologists who examined her. And to him, this gives him justification to purport to be a medical expert on this case? Please. If we want an opinion, we will ask an unbiased neurologist, not hearsay from a heart and lung transplant specialist turned pro-life senator.

And how lucky we are, because some real experts actually have given their opinion on the subject. Ronald Cranford, the leading neurologist at the University of Minnesota Medical School, responded to claims by Schiavo's parents that she (Terri) could respond to them.

"To the families and loved ones and to inexperienced health-care professionals, such patients can look fairly normal," Cranford said. "But open eyes, moving around, spontaneous movement of arms and legs, groans and other sounds, are all automatic reflexes."

In fact, the American Academy of Neurologists said in a statement that no one had ever recovered from such a vegetative state.

But I guess they just "overlooked" that statement. After all, Frist is a professional physician, and certainly wouldn't let his political philosophy interfere with his medical expertise. How ridiculous...

"Somebody is being condemned to death, somebody who is alive," Frist said.

Quite impartial and unbiased, I must say.

The only one in this whole situation with the right to decide anything about Schiavo's life is her husband, Michael Schiavo. As her husband, he knows her more than anyone else in her life (including her parents) and is the only one who should have any say in this matter. Every one of those protesters, every senator, the President and his brother down in Florida need to shut up for two seconds and think about someone besides themselves. Just because they have a religious belief doesn't mean that the world should stop in its tracked when they are upset because that belief has been crossed.

Number one: As her husband, Michael Schiavo is legally considered the same person as Terri. That's the reason why he could not be forced to testify against her in court. Therefore, he should have legal jurisdiction over her life, and not the federal government.

Number two: Parents are only entitled to a role in their childrens' lives when they are children. After they turn 18, the ability for parents to remain a part of their childrens' lives is a right, not a privilege. After that child becomes emotionally committed to a person (romantically), the parents lose their position as number one in their childrens' lives. The child chooses its mate, but not its parents. Therefore, what right to the Schindlers (Schiavo's parents) have over their daughter's life when the husband has sworn repeatedly that it would not have been Terri's wish to be kept alive.

Number three: In addition to Michael Schiavo being Terri's husband, he has also been appointed her legal guardian. This only adds to his rights to decide for her.

Of course it is a tragedy that Terri must die, but who are these pro-lifers to say whether or not a person that they don't even know can live or die? And ironically, it is often these pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty. I smell hypocrisy.

And there were three natural rights granted to mankind according to John Locke: life, liberty, and property. The conservatives tend to focus on life and property, but they conveniently forget the liberty part on a regular basis. Oh well, who cares about liberty when you're in the ruling class anyway, right?

And aside from the liberty side of this issue, I also feel that the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube is an exercise of her right to life...her right to decide when she can live and when she can die. After all, who would want someone else to live a life of constant suffering?

Answer: the Republicans in Congress.