Right to Die or Right to Kill

The brilliant Thomas Sowell weighs in on Terri's plight in his most recent column:

If the tragic case of Terri Schiavo shows nothing else, it shows how easily "the right to die" can become the right to kill. It is hard to believe that anyone, regardless of their position on euthanasia, would have chosen the agony of starvation and dehydration as the way to end someone's life.

A New York Times headline on March 20th tried to assure us: "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death" but you can find experts to say anything. In a December 2, 2002 story in the same New York Times, people starving in India were reported as dying, "often clutching pained stomachs."

No murderer would be allowed to be killed this way, which would almost certainly be declared "cruel and unusual punishment," in violation of the Constitution, by virtually any court.

Terri Schiavo's only crime is that she has become an inconvenience -- and is caught in the merciless machinery of the law. Those who think law is the answer to our problems need to face the reality that law is a crude and blunt instrument.

Make no mistake about it, Terri Schiavo is being killed. She is not being "allowed to die."

She is not like someone whose breathing, blood circulation, kidney function, or other vital work of the body is being performed by machines. What she is getting by machine is what all of us get otherwise every day -- food and water. Depriving any of us of food and water would kill us just as surely, and just as agonizingly, as it is killing Terri Schiavo.

Many on the left are deploring Congressional "interference" in turning this into a federal case, but Constitutional scholar and esteemed judge, Robert Bork, says it's not all that unusual, according to CNSNews:

Bork, a Reagan administration nominee whom the U.S. Senate refused to confirm, called the federal legislation signed by President Bush early Monday morning something that "happens with some regularity."

"[The new law has] given jurisdiction to a federal court to hear, in effect an attack upon a state court outcome, but we do that all the time," said Bork, who authored the 2003 book "Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges" and is currently a distinguished fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute.

"They (the Congress and the president) are not overstepping their legal bounds, they have a right to confer jurisdiction on a court," Bork said, just hours before a federal district court was due to hear the Schiavo case.

Bork went on to answer the charge of republican hypocrisy by "expanding" the role of the federal judiciary:

Bork also dismissed the argument that congressional conservatives and President Bush were being hypocritical by expanding the role of the federal judiciary. "The hypocrisy is the other way. I think what the Democrats see is once you talk about life in this way, you are tangentially or obliquely raising the abortion issue. I think that scares the hell out of them," Bork said.

"They don't want to view life as anything -- unless it's the death penalty of course. If somebody murdered somebody, they would be against giving them death but if it's an innocent unborn child or a Terri Schiavo, they are all for it," Bork added.

He also emphasized that in his view, congressional action in the Schindler Schiavo case does not mean "trashing the constitution."

"That's ridiculous ... This is an effort to use their undoubted power over jurisdiction," Bork said.