The Top of My To-Do List
I just got married last autumn, and my wife and I have discussed getting our house in order with regards to a will. Well, after the events of this last weekend with the sad case of Terry Schiavo, I must say we need both a will and a living will just to be safe from government intervention. This whole thing is reaching unbelievable heights of ridiculous posturing (and I suppose I'm now part of the problem as I weigh in on it as well). Salon's War Room blog has been doing a good job at covering it today, and one of their entries quotes Right-leaning radio host Neal Boortz (whom, they point out, is a bit more libertarian on social issues and church/state separation than many on the Right):

The congress of the United States worked into the early hours of this morning for one reason; to serve the interests of the so-called pro-life movement. This isn't about Terri Schiavo. It's about abortion. The anti-abortion movement saw an opportunity to take Terri's tragedy and turn it into a spectacular pageant in support of life. Quality of life means nothing to these people ... only the fact that some sort of life is present.

I was doing some trolling around other blogs this morning and found this posted on the blog of a woman who appears to be a conservative Evangelical (and Mel Gibson fan, according to her favorite films in her bio section:

Who Should Pay For Terri Schiavo's Care? Eleanor Clift was again on Fox News this morning arguing for the death of Terri Schiavo. One of her justifications is contained in this question she asked, which I have paraphrased: "Who is going to pay for the massive bills it will take to sustain Terri?" What depravity! Shall we go into nursing homes, institutions and community homes for the retarded and to the wards of Children's Hospitals and justify depriving those who live in those places food and water because of cost?

That's a good question, but one that was answered by George Bush when he was Governor of Texas (again, via Salon

As Republicans plotted congressional intervention last week to extend the life of Terri Schiavo, a Texas woman named Wanda Hudson watched her 6-month-old baby die in her arms after doctors removed the breathing tube that kept him alive. Hudson didn't want the tube removed, but the baby's doctors decided for her. A judge signed off on the decision under the Texas futile care law -- a provision first signed into law in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush. Under the 1999 law, doctors in Texas, with the support of a hospital ethics committee, can overrule the wishes of family members and terminate life-support measures if they believe further care would be futile. Bush signed the bill after interested parties, including antiabortion activists, agreed on compromise language that required hospitals to give families 10 days' notice before terminating care and to help families find an alternative treatment facility that would continue care instead. That process worked last week for the family of Spiro Nikolouzos, a retired electrical engineer who was critically injured in a car accident 10 years ago and has been in a persistent vegetative state since at least 2001. The Houston Chronicle reports that a lawyer for Nikolouzos' family was able to delay the termination of care by a Houston hospital just long enough for the family to find a nursing home in San Antonio that would take him in. Wanda Hudson didn't have that option. According to the Chronicle, Texas Children's Hospital said it contacted 40 facilities with newborn intensive care units, but not one of them would accept Hudson's baby. He died last Tuesday, just minutes after doctors removed his breathing tube. So far as we can tell, neither the White House nor any member of Congress made any effort to intervene in the case.

So, a missed opportunity for the Bush administration to show their support for a culture of life. But the Schiavo crisis was certainly more than enough to get this President who's famous for his early-to-bed regimen up-and-at-'em in the middle of the night:

On Aug. 6, 2001, George W. Bush was given a Presidential Daily Brief that carried the headline: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." The president went fishing. On Sept. 11, 2001, Andy Card told Bush: "America is under attack." The president continued to listen to a second-grade class read "The Pet Goat." On Dec. 26, 2004, Bush learned that a massive tsunami had caused unimaginable devastation all around the Indian Ocean. The president waited three days before making any public comment. But let the record show, when important issues demand presidential action, George W. Bush is a man of action. The House of Representatives passed emergency legislation in the Terri Schiavo case just after midnight this morning, and the president was on it immediately. Here's the blow-by-blow from Scott McClellan's gaggle today on Air Force One: Question: Can you go over what went on last night, in terms of the President signing the bill and how it went down? McClellan: Sure. I guess the bill -- the House passed it shortly after midnight, and then the President signed it at 1:11 a.m., in the morning. The Staff Secretary, Brett Kavanaugh, walked the legislation over to the residence for the President to sign. He came outside his bedroom and signed it in the residence. Question: Had he been asleep? McClellan: Yes, he was woken up after it was passed, when it was ready to be signed.

If President Bush is so concerned with the welfare of the disabled, why did he nominate Terrence W. Boyle to the Fourth Circuit court? As I was trolling the blogs, I came across a comment at the Think Progress blog that asked this question, so I did a quick search and found this bit of info at Independent Judiciary:

Disability Discrimination and States' Rights. Judge Boyle has aggressively championed gutting Congress' efforts to ensure equal treatment for the disabled. In Brown v. North Carolina Dep't of Motor Vehicles, several individuals eligible for handicapped parking privileges alleged that North Carolina violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by charging excessive parking fees. Judge Boyle dismissed the case, ruling that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to enact Title II. Although a conservative 2-1 Fourth Circuit panel affirmed - on narrower grounds, without invalidating the entire law, as Judge Boyle did - Judge Boyle's decision to undo landmark federal legislation in deference to states' rights conflicts with numerous prior and subsequent decisions in district and circuit courts nationwide and likely conflicts with a recent Supreme Court decision holding that Congress in fact possesses the power to authorize certain suits against the states under Title II. Judge Boyle also dismissed an ADA-based suit by an inmate, saying that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to extend the ADA to state prisons. On appeal, without addressing the constitutional power issue, the Supreme Court vacated the decision, unanimously holding that the ADA does cover state prisons. In another ADA case, the Fourth Circuit said that Judge Boyle's approach to determining whether a business reasonably accommodated an employee's disability was "misguided." Although upholding Judge Boyle's decision for other reasons, the Court criticized him for breaching the spirit of the ADA by effectively rubber-stamping the business' actions.