Readers of Truth and Action will be interested in my new post at Enchiridion Militis. In it I analyze and criticize an excerpt from a new book by acclaimed conservative philosopher Roger Scruton. In brief, Scruton opposes the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide but favors their being treated with kid gloves, legally, if the person who committed them offers a plausible defense that he acted out of compassion, etc. He also favors doctors’ active promotion to their patients of refusal of treatment and of “palliative care,” with the acknowledgement that this combination will hasten death. In practice, we all know what that means, as we have been watching such measures in practice for quite some years. I wonder if Professor Scruton actually does know what it means. He seems almost amazingly innocent of the actual medico-legal facts of the contemporary world.

Perhaps the most interesting bit in the post for T & A readers is the link to a case from 1998 of which I only learned while researching this piece. It is the story of David Glass, a 12-year-old disabled British boy nearly killed actively by doctors by a diamorphine drip intended to let him “slip away,” after he had been brought into the hospital for an infection. His relatives (aunts and uncle) forcibly rescued him when he was turning blue, disconnected the drip, got into a scuffle with the doctors, and did jail time for the scuffle. The judge was entirely unsympathetic to their case, even though they had successfully resuscitated David and rescued him from certain and intentional medical murder. Indeed, the judge lectured them severely on their lack of “consideration” for the doctors. David has since turned nineteen (last year).

I want to say up front that I think the so-called “ethics committee” in the Andrea Clark case is trying to do something outrageously wrong. They are obviously motivated by a pro-death ideology. It’s worth remembering that Andrea has insurance. There is no question here of demanding unending care from taxpayers as an entitlement. The ethics committee wants to remove her ventilator and dialysis because they are committed to an agenda and–to put it plainly–don’t like ventilators, especially if they think the person unlikely to have a full recovery. This is evidently, and creepily, true even when the person in question is fully mentally competent, or would be if not deliberately overdosed on drugs to make her unable to communicate. Indeed, the overkill on the drugs–presumably to prevent our receiving heart-rending reports of her signaling “I want to live”–is one of the scariest parts of this case.

However–and it’s a big however–I must protest the repeated statements that this is “worse” than Terri Schiavo’s case. (I have linked only one article above on Andrea’s case, but you can follow the entire set to see this statement. The implication is found here and the statement that this is “in some ways worse” is here.) No, it is not worse. Pro-lifers made a strong point during Terri’s case that she was not dying and did not require extraordinary care, and that it was because food and water are ordinary care, mere care-giving, not medical treatment, that removing them from Terri amounted to murder. Have we forgotten that? Unless Andrea survives the removal of the ventilator and is then left to die of dehydration, her ordeal will not be as horrific even for her and for her family as Terri’s was. We must not forget what Terri and her family went through in our concern for others.

The reasons given for saying that Andrea’s case are worse are as follows: 1) Andrea was not brain-damaged as Terri was and was mentally competent until over-drugged. Andrea’s family members even made the dangerously erroneous statement (not, as far as I know, corrected by any pro-lifer advocating on this case) that Terri was “brain dead,” equating Terri’s state of being unable to communicate, etc., with “brain death.” 2) Andrea said expressly that she wanted “everything done,” so the proposed removal is against her wishes. 3) Andrea’s family, unlike Terri’s, are all in agreement both as to what they want done and as to what Andrea would want done.

But is any of these really the core of the horror in Terri’s case? For example, was Terri’s life really less worth saving because she was mentally less competent than Andrea? Was leaving a woman to die by dehydration for thirteen days less wrong since her family disagreed among themselves as to whether this should be done? Would Terri’s murder have been okay, then, or less bad, if her family had all agreed to it? Speaking for myself, I strongly question whether even a person who requests to be killed as Terri was killed should be dehydrated to death. I consider dehydration death murder, whereas if ventilator and dialysis are really extraordinary care, then it is not clear that removing them is murder or that refusing them for oneself is suicide. We pro-lifers should not accept the ethic according to which it’s all about “what you want.”

From a legal and medical perspective, this is, I can see, a worse precedent for those of us who want to live than was Terri’s case. Since we know that doctors do not make a distinction between ordinary and extraordinary care, we do face the worry that some ethics board may some day refuse to allow a feeding tube port to be inserted or an NG tube to be dropped for a patient if they regard it as “futile,” even if the patient has said he wants it, leaving the patient to die very much as Terri died (though hopefully the family would be allowed to take him home and try mouth feeding), unwillingly. That’s a horrible prospect, and Andrea’s case opens the possibility of it still more because the unplugging in her case is against her will and that of the family.

But the problem of precedent would be less acute if doctors drew the line at food and water, if they did distinguish ordinary and extraordinary care. The evil in this case would remain, as it is obviously an attempt to force people to make so-called ethicians into little gods with the power of life and death, it is obviously a result of an exaggeration of Andrea’s pain (from a bed sore, which anyone could have and could endure with milder medication), and it is obviously an attempt to force a pro-death agenda upon unwilling people and lock it in more firmly in the public mind.

All this is true. The Andrea Clark case is bad. But it isn’t worse than Terri’s.

97-year-old Hazel Wagner is at risk for possible removal of a feeding tube, but it appears that her story may end better than Terri’s. See here, here, and here.

Van Buren Probate Judge Frank Willis holds her fate now, because her own doctor, Brian Drozdowski of Allegan General Hospital, has brought a petition to remove not only her ventilator but also her feeding tube. The doctor makes much of his own prediction that she has “almost no chance of meaningful recovery.” Judge Willis, however, has indicated that the most his decision would do is to permit her guardian to withdraw such care, and her court-appointed guardian, Tammy Dykstra, probably does not have any such plans. In fact, Dykstra is moving now to remove Hazel from Drozdowski’s care down to our very own Borgess Hospital in Kalamazoo County. Borgess is a Catholic hospital, and Dykstra may hope to encounter less pessimistic–not to mention arrogantly pushy–doctors. Drozdowski has apparently said that he is hoping his move here will encourage people to make living wills. Ah, so it’s a symbolic lawsuit.

The news stories, with an amazing air of originality, tell us solemnly that this case raises questions about “new technologies” and “keeping people alive.” We all know the shtick. Yes, indeed, feeding tubes are such new technologies. One story treats us to the complaints by the wife of a man who lived for fifteen years after a court refused to have his feeding tube removed. She rants that Hazel should be “allowed” to die. Evidently we are to think it obviously dreadful that Mr. Martin had the gall to live for fifteen years on a feeding tube. Horrors!

Rather remarkably, our liberal Democrat governor Jennifer Granholm, while she was Attorney General, apparently was careful in a previous legal interpretation to note that our legislature has not even given guardians the authority to withdraw life-sustaining care. According to Granholm’s previous reading of the law, only the person himself can make such a request. So three (surprised) cheers for former Attorney General Granholm!

Update: And even more cheers for Judge Willis, who today ruled that he could not even authorize Hazel’s guardian to withdraw her feeding tube, much less doctors against the guardian’s wishes. It appears that the guardian didn’t even want to withdraw the ventilator and tube; the idea arose entirely from Hazel’s now former doctor. The judge gave him a little rap over the knuckles, too, saying, “The doctor’s job is to treat…not to advocate.” I couldn’t have said it better myself, especially when we consider “advocate” to mean “advocate for a political cause,” which I believe is what is going on here. The news article linked manages to downplay the fact that what was proposed was the cessation of feeding. Though it mentions this fact once, a later summary mentions only the cessation of efforts at “resuscitation,” which is misleading, at best. The doctor claims Hazel “screams out in agony.” Apparently Ms. Dykstra, the guardian, doesn’t think this is because of her ventilator, much less her feeding tube. If she is in pain, one wonders why and whether the pain could be better controlled. But starving people to death is hardly a solution for pain. The judge mentioned that he is constrained by earlier court precedents in Michigan. So perhaps elderly people should consider moving to Michigan! I can’t recommend our winters, but you might be safer in some other ways, especially if you get a good guardian on your side.

It has been a year since Terri was murdered. In her honor, those of us who have blogging privileges at Blogs for Terri have been asked to write a post. Mine is here.

The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear a case on the constitutionality of a U.S. law banning partial-birth abortion. The new case has the potential to reverse the infamous Carhart v. Stenberg decision. That decision declared that a “health of the mother” exception must be included in a law banning a particular method of abortion if any doctors thought that this method was best for the woman’s health.

Justice Thomas noted that this was illogical. The original health exception requirement was supposed to be invoked when the pregnancy itself was judged to constitute a threat to the woman’s health. But this requirement means that the decision to abort could be made for entirely non-health reasons and then that partial-birth abortion must be allowed if it is regarded as, for the woman, the safest method of abortion. Besides differing from the meaning of the Casey decision as regards what a “health exception” is supposed to be for, this requirement differs significantly from what most people think is meant by a “health exception.”

Of course, we all know–and so does Justice Thomas–what any health exception amounts to: abortion on demand. (This, because of Doe v. Bolton.)

There is reason to think that the newly constituted court thinks it plausible that the new decision will come to a different result from Carhart v. Stenberg. My guess is that this is because Justice Kennedy dissented from Carhart.

We shall see how this develops.

See CNS news for the whole story.

Amid the controversy surrounding the abortifacient RU-486, a pilot study in the UK is leading to the transfer of chemically induced abortions from hospitals to patients’ homes. The Guardian has the story:

Women who are less than nine weeks pregnant can safely have medical abortions at home, according to the head of a government-backed pilot project.

[…]

Shirley Butler, the project manager of one pilot which has tested the abortions with 172 women patients since 2004, told the Guardian: “We haven’t had any significant problems apart from one woman who had a slightly heavy bleed. In my opinion medical abortions outside of acute hospitals seem to be safe.” She added that women who took part in the trial were positive about it.

[…]

A Department of Health spokeswoman said the scheme, which was revealed yesterday by the journal Nursing Standard, had not yet been evaluated. “No changes to the way abortions are carried out will be approved unless we are content that there is no risk to the women’s safety.”

Anne Weyman, chief executive of the Family Planning Association, said: “Medical abortion is a highly safe and effective procedure. Completing the second stage at home can provide greater comfort and privacy.”

Ms. Butler says: “In my opinion medical abortions outside of acute hospitals seem to be safe.” Is that so? Is 172 a large enough sample from which to draw such a conclusion for an entire population?

An Illinois newspaper has rejected ultrasound images of unborn babies as part of a pro-life ad campaign on the grounds that they are “too graphic.” Understand, these apparently were not pictures of abortions or of anything unpleasant–just of the unborn baby in the womb, a picture such as doting parents might show to their friends. Captions suggested by Jill Stanek’s local Right to Life group (which was running the campaign) included “I am an American” and “She’s a child, not a choice.” Asked what sort of picture they would allow for the ad, the newspaper said only a picture of a born baby would be acceptable! But that, of course, was not the point.

The newspaper is taking its stand on its right to reject any ad for any reason. A representative even tried to distance himself from the “too graphic” excuse and simply to say that they can reject any ad they want.

Actually, that’s true. And I support the newspaper’s legal right to reject the ads. But their use of that right tells us something, doesn’t it? No, you can’t tell people that an unborn baby is a child, not a choice, that she is an American. That would be to make your message too powerful. That is clearly what was meant by “too graphic.” It had nothing to do with anything nasty about the pictures.

Predictably (yet interestingly, too), the pro-aborts have lauded the paper’s decision, saying that the ads were “intended to inflame public opinion and create shame and fear about abortion.” Well, we couldn’t have that, now, could we?

Update: The paper has reversed its position and now says that it will accept the ads if they are resubmitted. Hmmm. Could a little publicity have anything to do with this? If so, good for the fine people at CNS News, Fox, etc., who publicized it.

Readers of Truth and Action will be interested in my latest post at Right Reason, the blog for conservative philosophers, and in the discussion that follows.

The post is about the many odd and seemingly surprising ways in which people who begin by making “choice” of enormous importance end up excusing, ignoring, pretending ignorance of, normalizing, or even promoting coercion–the end of choice–for the acts in question. The examples I give are abortion, death, and prostitution.

T & A readers will be especially well-informed about the issue of death here. In the post I cite only one article arguing that there is a duty to die and that people can have this duty even if they want to live. One of my commentators asks why people should get steamed up over one philosopher’s weird article! But of course, we know well that the “duty to die” mentality is far more widespread than just one philosopher’s article. We also know, what I point out in the post, how powerful is the “choice” narrative, so powerful that when Terri was dying, no amount of evidence was enough to convince many people–some very smart people who should have known better–that this wasn’t about “choice” at all.

But that issue isn’t where the discussion thread has gone. Instead the discussion has centered on the horrific practice which I cite in the article of “humanitarian” condom-passing workers who make deals with the devil, i.e. sex slavers. All over the world, these workers are making agreements with pimps not to help the girls escape, not to talk to them about how to get out of prostitution, and to turn a blind eye to the enslavement even where it is illegal, all so that they can get condoms to the prostitutes and the customers and teach the prostitutes “condom negotiation techniques.” This is a tacit normalization not just of prostitution per se but even of sex slavery. Some of my commentators do not seem to understand this, and I have been rather surprised at the willingness to defend the aid workers as making a tough call in order to continue their “useful work.” This, of course, is the road to the legalization of horrific evils, though I do not believe that is what my commentator intends. Indeed, it has even been argued that it is better if the sex slave camps and brothels are not hidden, because this way the “health care workers” will know how to find them to offer “health services” (but not, evidently, the help the victims most need).

An interesting thread following, I trust, an interesting post.

This is a heads up alert concerning the issue of the attempt to introduce RU486 into Australia. I have set up some new blogs that address the many issues relating to the dangers to the health of women from the use of Mifepristone and the prostaglandin that together make up RU486.

The number of recorded deaths around the world stands at something like 10. I can verify 9 of these 10 deaths as 5 in the USA, 1 in France, 1 in Canada, and two elsewhere. One of the women had an ectopic pregnancy, at least two died as a result of a blood sepsis that was caused by a germ that invaded the lining of the uterus. The youngest to die, Holly Patterson was 18 years old. She had heavy bleeding but she was told that was normal, was given pain killers and sent home. Within two days she was dead. The first recorded death, that of a French woman during the trial period of this abortion method, had 13 pregnancies and up to 10 live children. She was over 31 when she died as a result of complications due to taking RU486.

There is a study that was completed by three feminists here in Australia, titled “RU486, Misconceptions, Myths and Morals”. The work can be found online at the following link: http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/non-fict/ru486.htm
Do keep in mind when you read this work that the authors are pro-choice and they are writing from a pro-choice point of view.

The current situation in Australia is that there had been a previous attempt to introduce RU486 in Australia. This was thwarted by an amendment that was passed in the Senate that restricted the importation of Mifepristone, so that it could be used for legitimate purposes. The final say is in the hands of the Minister for Health. However, the abortion industry, plus a group of feminists want to have this method of abortion approved for use in Australia. Some women Senators from all political parties are pushing for an amendment that would take the final say away from the Minister for Health and be returned to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This amendment is now before the Senate.

A new group has been formed - AustraliansAgainstRU486. They have a website at the following URL:
www.aaru486.com.au

This group consists of both pro-choice and pro-life activists. They have come together because of their concern that women are not being told the truth about the safety and the efficacy of this form of abortion.

What is with Planned Parenthood? Have they no shame? Have they no consideration for the beliefs of others? Have they no brains? Do they think that by stomping on all that is sacred or held in high esteem that they will win support?

The latest idiotic move by these witless fools is being sold from the Planned Parenthood Connecticut web site. Picture the Sistine Chapel’s magnificent fresco where God is reaching down from heaven and touching the finger of Adam to endow him with life. Picture that hand holding a condom. That is exactly what Planned Parenthood is selling on its web site. The picture is in a key chain. But wait there’s more. Other key chains being sold contain pictures to offend everyone. Condoms also appear on pictures of Uncle Sam and the Statue of Liberty.

Drudge has more:

Planned Parenthood has launched a line of condom key chains — key chains that offend “just about everyone in the country,” claims Jim Sedlak, executive director of American Life League’s STOPP International. “Some are even blasphemous.”

The condom key chains, featuring 28 different designs, are offered for sale on Planned Parenthood of Connecticut’s web site. Each chain has a picture or slogan on a plastic holder containing a latex condom.

[…]

“Planned Parenthood goes on to offend parents with its key chain that shows a caricature of a loudly crying baby,” said Sedlak. “Planned Parenthood’s slogan accompanying the caricature states, ‘Condoms are cheaper than diapers.’

Such clueless pranks would be considered infantile coming from adolescent junior high-schoolers. What is with Planned Parenthood?

Wisconsin’s strident pro abortion governor, Jim Doyle, has vetoed a bill which would inform women about the pain their baby would feel during an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. This is the latest in a series of actions by Doyle which promote his anti-life agenda.

LifeNews.com has more:

Despite testimony from leading experts in the field, Doyle claimed no proof exists that unborn children feel pain. He said the state legislature should not be allowed to make scientific decisions.

“It would be reckless to inject a requirement that doctors communicate unproven science to their patients during an already difficult and sometimes traumatic time,'’ Doyle said in his veto message. “This bill intrudes on the doctor-patient relationship … and contravenes the requirement that doctors provide objective and accurate information to their patients.'’

Bob Delaporte, a spokesman for Republican Assembly Speaker John Gard told the Associated Press Doyle was guilty of “ignoring the science on this one.'’

Several experts in embryology testified in the state legislature that unborn children have the capacity to feel pain and several told lawmakers that’s the case. They include Steven Calvin, perinatologist at the University of Minnesota; Robert J. White, professor of neurosurgery at Case Western University; and Paul Ranalli, neurologist at the University of Toronto.

Under the measure, women would receive the fetal pain information and be allowed to have anesthesia administered to the baby before the abortion. Pro-life groups strongly supported the measure and hope it will persuade women to opt against an abortion.

The people of the great state of Wisconsin deserve better than this.

In what may be a reflection of the propensity of teens to rebel against authority or the result of teens recognizing the true nature of abortion, a recent poll indicates that 67% of high school seniors said abortion is either always or usually morally wrong. The poll was conducted by Hamilton College sociology students working with Zogby International.

LifeNews.com reports:

A new national poll finds high school seniors take a pro-life position on abortion saying it’s morally wrong and supporting legislative proposals that would limit abortions and help women find alternatives…

[…]

Some 72 percent of teen girls say they would not consider an abortion and, of all high school seniors, just 13 percent would counsel a pregnant friend to consider an abortion. Some 54 percent of seniors say they would suggest adoption and 26 percent say they would encourage a pregnant friend to keep her baby.

Meanwhile, 69 percent of the male teens surveyed said they would not want their partner to consider an abortion.

[…]

According to the poll two-thirds of high school seniors would require parental consent before a girl under 18 could get an abortion.

It looks like today’s teens are using their heads and aren’t all buying into the tripe coming out of Planned Parenthood or the UN.

Brain injured Scott Thomas, the 34 year old man who was mysteriously injured over a year ago while home alone with his wife, Eliza, and their baby son. Within one month of the injury, hospital officials warned Scott’s mom, Pamela Patton, that Eliza had contacted Community Hospice of Northeast Florida Inc. The hospice reportedly agreed to accept him and was preparing a bed for him. Echoing the Terri Schindler Schiavo case, Eliza’s spoken intent at that time was to remove his feeding tube.

Today, Scott’s mother Pamela was granted another six months of full guardianship of Scott. According to ScottsFight.com:

Today was the long-anticipated status hearing on guardianship for Scott. The hearing took place in judge’s chambers with Pamela and her attorneys and Eliza and her attorneys. Pamela’s attorneys presented the court with information that she has now filed with the court to have Scott declared “partially capacitated”. This means, at the very least, that he would then be allowed to indicate his preferences for his social environment, such as who is allowed to visit. He has repeatedly indicated that he does not want to see Eliza, but he does wants to see his son. The court was also informed that, after Scott is legally determined to be “partially capacitated”, they would be filing for a divorce. The final item that was presented to the judge is that Scott is scheduled for surgery to close his tracheotomy opening, which should allow him to regain his ability to speak and make sound.

Based on all the above information, Judge Wilkes ruled to grant Pamela another six months of full guardianship of Scott. This will be a crucial time for Pamela and Scott, as they continue to work, not only for Scott’s recovery, but for him to regain the right and ability to truly “speak for himself”.

Read more about Scott here.

In case you haven’t heard, a much-hyped embryonic stem-cell study from Korea turns out to have been a big fake. Seoul National University has investigated and says there is no evidence the results were ever obtained from cloned embryos as claimed. The U.S. journal Science is rushing to retract the study, which it published.

One can argue from this revelation that the system works, that science was indeed self-correcting here. There’s some truth in that. But one has to wonder–did the study get less scrutiny than it deserved because journalists, and journal editors, wanted its claims to be true? There are plenty of people out there who think it would be just ducky if they could justify their irrational passion for embryo-destroying research in terms of some real results, not just empty promises. This seemed to give them what they wanted. But it was a lie.

Science is susceptible to ideology, like other human endeavours. Let’s just hope the fakes keep getting caught.

In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum….et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt….Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; et vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Thanks be to God.

The darkness comprehended it not. Let’s not forget that when we are tempted to look too long at the darkness of this world.

A Merry Christmas to all our readers and to my fellow bloggers at Truth and Action.

The ill advised American Girl partnership with Girls, Inc. is coming to an end thanks to a boycott organized by Pro-Life Action League.

Pro-Life Action League’s web site states:

“American Girl is trying to restore its wholesome image with pro-life families,” said League Executive Director Ann Scheidler. “Their efforts at damage control show how effective our protest and boycott have been.”

“The ‘I Can’ bracelet project which funded Girls Inc. abruptly comes to an end December 26,” said Scheidler. “This new ‘Save Girlhood’ project proves that consumers can demand integrity from a company by refusing to buy its products when it betrays its consumers’ trust.”

[…]

The League held pickets at American Girl Place in Chicago on November 25 and December 3, and at American Girl Place on Fifth Avenue in New York on December 10.

“The League’s boycott and the pickets have been highly successful. We are happy that American Girl is trying to win back our confidence. But we continue to be watchful,” said Scheidler.

According to Pro-Life Action League, the December 26th date to end the Girls Inc. partnership is “…the earliest possible day they could end the program without losing face.”

UPDATE: LifeNews.com reports that the CBS Early Show aired a report about the American Girl new “Save Girlhood” campaign. In a demonstration of why the MSM is not trusted as an unbiased source of news, the reporter said: “The ad campaign may also be helping the company to refocus after controversy this year over the company’s affiliation with Girls, Inc., an organization that supports underprivileged girls but also favors an open discussion of abortion.” Unfortunately, an open discussion is not what Girls Inc. favors. According to Girls Inc.’s Advocacy Statement: “Girls Incorporated supports a woman’s freedom of choice, a constitutional right established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade.” they continue: “… To make responsible decisions about sexuality, pregnancy and parenthood, girls need and have a right to sensitive, truthful sexuality education; convenient access to safe, effective methods of contraception and protection from disease; and referral to comprehensive information, counseling, clinical and other services that support their responsible decisions.” All of this for doll aged girls?

American Thinker has an eye opening piece about an AP article on pollution danger to minorities. American Thinker says the AP article is built upon “speculation on top of speculation which gets top billing because it has a highly charged minorities-as-victims-of- capitalism and the Bush- Administration- is- bad…” A subtext of the American Thinker piece explains that since DDT was banned millions of humans in poor third world countries have died from malaria and from the consequences of economies destroyed by pestilence.

Interestingly:

Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.”

Read some facts about DDT here.

Readers of Truth and Action will be interested in my recent post at Right Reason, the weblog for conservative philosophers. There I revisit the question of whether Terri’s death was legally a result of state action. To us laymen, this seems obvious. But from a legal point of view it was argued that it was a private action because it was carrying out her own wishes. This was one part of the basis of the refusal of federal review.

While I actually feel some sympathy for the federal judges who had this whole thing dropped in their laps because of the gross failures of the Florida system to protect the vulnerable, I do believe Terri’s death should have been regarded as resulting from state action and hence as requiring due process. Of course, the state could still argue that it gave her “due process,” and at that point we do have to ask what counts as due process for purposes of the state’s taking life. Again, it would seem to us ordinary folk that the person should have to be convicted of a crime, not just “convicted” of having made some statements about not wanting “tubes.” But even if that had not been the case, if federal review had been allowed, Terri’s life would have been spared for a time while that was taking place.

This matter will, as I point out in my Right Reason post, become even more urgent if (when?) active suicide and euthanasia for the incompetent becomes a reality. Will federal review also be refused there on the grounds that the state isn’t actually killing the person, that his death is by some legal fiction his own act, merely carried out or enforced by the various officers of the law upon his unconscious self? I invite readers to comment and would especially welcome comments from those versed in the area of the law concerning what counts as “state action.”

According to WorldNetDaily.com, another protest of the American Girl toy company’s support of pro-abortion, pro-lesbian Girls, Inc. is scheduled for tomorrow, December 10.

Tomorrow’s picket, scheduled for 10 a.m. outside the company’s store on Fifth Avenue will include parents and their daughters, the Pro-Life Action League says.

“December is the busiest shopping season of the year,” said the group’s executive director, Ann Scheidler, in a statement. “Our picket will reach thousands of shoppers on New York’s Fifth Avenue with the unfortunate news that American Girl is funding Girls Inc., a group that strongly advocates abortion.”

The organization says the protest will include pro-life girls holding signs, many of whom will also hold popular American Girl dolls – such as Samantha, Kit and Molly – who will be hoisting their own miniature picket signs.

The American Family Association also has initiated a campaign to warn parents about American Girls’ connection to Girls Inc.

This article from the Population Research Institute provides an insight into the Middle East conflict that I had never considered.

The theory is that Sharon shed Gaza for nothing (not even for peace) for demographic reasons. Sharon himself has reportedly said something very much like this, quoted in the article. The Palestinians in the areas Israel picked up during the Six-Day War are out-reproducing Israeli Jews by a huge margin. In a relatively short time (say, a generation), the best anti-Jewish strategy for Palestinians will be to demand not a state of their own but a “single-state solution” involving the permanent incorporation of the disputed lands into Israel together with full Israeli citizenship for all the inhabitants of those lands. At that point, the entire political landscape of Israel could change in a very short time as radical Muslim new Israeli citizens simply voted in the regime they favored, leading, potentially, to shari’a in Israel itself, democratically attained.

It’s not implausible at all.

So we see once again that the refusal of the gift of children on the part of those with (relatively) peaceful political views and (relatively) democratic political objectives can lead to unexpected consequences–to the eventual death of the democratic societies themselves.