There are those who seem to have an opposing opinion on how I view the Terry Schiavo situation. So let me put it all in very clear terms on how I feel.

Her husband and friends have said she stated she never wanted to live in this condition. On this count alone she falls within the Supreme Court ruling in 1990 that pertained to Nancy Cruzan. Nancy Cruzan told her friends and family repeatedly she never wanted to live in a vegetative state and her family fought so she could die with dignity and not live in a manner win which was against her wishes and desires. Terry Schiavo did this and her parents aren't willing to let her die with the dignity she wants.

There is a law on the Florida books right now that says that a person has the right to choose to refuse medical treatment even if the end result could be or will be death with additional provisions set up for the role of a guardian who can terminate treatment if no living will is in place -- this is that exact situation. Additionally, in 1990, the year this all began incidentally, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that feeding tubes can be removed from a person who is in a persistive vegetative state based upon the Florida constitution's guaranteed right to privacy.

The law passed this week violates the law currently on the books and a florida Supreme Court ruling.

This is part of what pisses me off.

I feel for her parents...I do. However, the courts have consistently ruled against them and they continue to fight when her husband wants to honors his wife's wishes. This isn't a Republican or a Bush thing (and that's for the person who seems to think I only care about tallying up my nonexistent fuck buddies, making such statements when I'll never be a parent -- which I assure you one day I will, being into myself, and being a liberal freak which makes me go...oh...okay...whatever...if you don't like what I have to say then why do you keep coming back to read). I will say that I find it interesting that one Republican lawmaker in Florida after voting for the bill wondered if he had done the right thing and if it was what Terry Schiavo would want. Her husband has repeatedly said what Terry would want -- not to live in a vegetative state.

This is about respecting the wishes of a person who is living a life they have said they don't want to be in. Yes, there are doctors who will come out on both sides of the situation but I believe it ultimately comes down to what she wants in this situation. I would have this same opinion if it was a Democratic legislature doing it as well. It's about the checks and balances in our Constitution that gets me the most. We have the legislature that passes the laws which the governor then can veto if he sees that it is not in the best interest of the state. If he does sign them, there is still a court system that can say, "Sorry, you're wrong. You can't do that." This legislation gave Governor Bush the right to override the court decision. This is against the checks and balances that has been set up by the Florida constitution (and before you say that I don't know anything about the Florida constitution, I lived there for twelve years so I know quite a bit).

If I was Terry Schiavo and I was in her situation, I wouldn't want to be kept in that state either even if it is against what my parents want or think is best for me. Having followed this case for years I am more convinced than ever that this is the wrong decision. Doctors can come down on both sides as to whether or not she can be rehabilitated but the real question comes down to whether or not she would want to be rehabilitated. That is the one question that has been answered over and over again. She does not want to live in this condition.

This has nothing to do with politics or parenting. It comes down to human decency and dignity.