"Surely, many of those who oppose what Congress did in the Schiavo case do generally approve of intruding on the state to impose a higher standard of individual rights - including the rights of the disabled. They would not normally stand back and allow the states to innovate and experiment with the narrowing of individual rights..."
I confess, I have nothing profound to add to the many discussions on the Schiavo case. This post by Dr. Althouse did catch my eye however - in particular, the focus on the rights of the disabled. I don't know if this reasoning should apply to the case of Terri Schaivo ( who is not really disabled in the way we commonly think of that term) but I was intrigued with the notion of the individual rights of a minority as being at the center of this case. The right-to-die argument seems to be getting the most play. Most of the right of center blogs I have been reading, which tend to be of the libertarian stripe, seem appalled by the intervention of Congress in this case.
UPDATE: Come to think of it, I'm not sure why this should be such a novel idea. Of course it's pitting the idea of which 'right' should prevail in the absence of a living will. And in the absence of a living will, we have a process through the Florida legislature and courts which has answered this question, which is why so many people are appalled. I guess it was the idea that the intervention of Congress, by siding with the governor and legislature, was actually an application of federalism. Anyway, I'm probably getting it all wrong so just read the post : )
Comments