Here’s the latest, a graphic accompanying an AP story:
Here’s how someone starves to death, children. Remember as you imagine this that it’s being done in the name of the law.
You can’t do it to criminals (violates the 8th Amendment), you can’t do it to rats (violates animal cruelty laws), but you can do it to people ? provided you say that once upon a time, this person once expressed a wish that they not be kept alive on artificial life support. Then you define a feeding tube as “artificial life support.” Let’s say later on you slip up and tell Larry King “We didn’t know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want.” It won’t matter; the judges will discover for the first time “original intent” ? and forget about hearsay. And of course it won’t matter whether Terri’s opinion (if that’s what it was) has changed. Even though the courts allow for a woman’s change of opinion during foreplay to be a forerunner to the charge of rape. Here a change of opinion would mean manslaughter or murder. But no one will worry about that.
The Media Research Center has a special report on the various ways the media intentionally misreport this terrible situation. One thing I want to know: Why?
I’m not sure I really want to hear the answer.
