Munz's Onion

Hugh Hewitt has been blogging extensively today on the Terri Schiavo case. A little research into Ninth Circuit case law on his part shows that endangered vegetables and insects in California garner more legal protection than does the young Florida woman liberal judges and a philandering husband so ardently want to kill:

One such category of special cases is the case where harm is alleged to be imminent to an endangered plant or animal, like the Riverside Fairy Shrimp, the Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly, the Stephens Kangaroo rat, or, yes, Munz's Onion--a genuine vegetable as opposed to the horrific term that has been thrown around in this case.

I admit I didn't follow this case closely at first. But then I began listening to those advocating Mr Schiavo's case and was quickly convinced of its profound perversity. The husband is bad enough, but his motive in this judicially-sanctioned "euthanization" (nee "murder") is as old as time: the old squeeze is crimping his style and he needs her out of the way. How many movies with this basic plot have been shown on Lifetime? (However, the fact that he seems to be a "liberal," excoriating the "religious right" and so on, is disturbing.)

The motives of his allies in the courts and the media are far more mendacious and far more frightening. As Ed Morrisey pointed out, only one Florida Judge, George Greer, has ever ruled on findings of fact in her case. All other (appellate) rulings have been on procedure only. This was what motivated Congress to pass a law yesterday requiring a de novo look at the evidence in the case. A federal judge, Clinton-appointee James Whittemore, today flouted the collective will of our elected representative assembly and our elected president and chose not to re-examine her case on its merits. Instead, he spent an hour hearing arguments and a couple more reviewing the paperwork. His Olympian pronouncement: She must die.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media has been on the case, spreading its usual propaganda thinly disguised as news. One of the most egregious lies told was the NYT's contention that "ending feeding can lead to a gentle death." This one's worthy of the Soviet propaganda mills: "Why no, Comrade Ivan Denisovich, we no longer shoot political reprobates--we will send you instead to a mental institution where your thought crimes can be corrected humanely."

From the data that is available, it is not a horrific thing at all," said Dr. Linda Emanuel, the founder of the Education for Physicians in End-of-Life Care Project at Northwestern University. In fact, declining food and water is a common way that terminally ill patients end their lives, because it is less painful than violent suicide and requires no help from doctors.

Those who believe this kreyp need to read this remarkable post. It should rend the propaganda veil. Interestingly enough, it also points out Dr Linda Emanuel's connection to uber-lefty George Soros' pro-euthanasia Project on Death in America. She's not precisely a bystander in this debate. Woulda bin nice for the NYT to have told us that.

The agitprop also included a deceitful poll that asked the central question concerning Ms Schiavo thusly:

2. Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday. What’s your opinion on this case - do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube? Do you support/oppose it strongly or somewhat?

Only one very slight problem--Schiavo is not on "life support" and never has been. True, she cannot feed herself, but then neither can Stephen Hawking. She is severely brain damaged, true, but her family and other observers have attested that she is "still interactive"--she can laugh, say a word or two, and swallow if fed carefully. Perhaps the left intends an expansive new definition of "life support" that can give them legal precedent for "euthanizing" folks whose eating habits they don't approve of (like, say, most RedStaters). After all, that's really what this case is about: Terri is the left's poster child for euthanasia--for a "right" to death that will eventually lead to something like the Dutch program.

And this also opens the door for our life-tenured High Priests of the Secular Humanist State Church to pass judgement on which lives are worth living and which are not. This is the real crux of the matter and this is something that every American--liberal, conservative, or whatever--should be concerned about.