Some e-mails (to which I am randomly responding):

One:

OK. I’ve reached total saturation here.
Been on the Corner since it started, but I’m Schiavo’ed all the way out. Not coming back until it’s not in every post in my browser window, or almost every post. 11 posts in the window, 10 are Schiavo related.

[KJL: It was the news of the day. ]

Two:

I support the idea behind the “right to die” but only if there is a definitive prior indication that the individual has made that choice should the situation arise (i.e. a witnessed signed statement). I’ve become more pro-life over the years though not full-on quite yet (I think it should be about as rare as I think the death penalty should be, which is extremely limited). But, on the word of a husband that has already moved on and in light of the other facts in the case? Forget it, this one shouldn’t even be close. Whoever pulls those tubes is committing murder. And the husband and courts are accessories.

[KJL: I think more people would be there if they knew the facts..]

Three:

The Federal Gov’t should not be deciding the specific case of Schiavo.
If they had really cared they could have passed legislation about this in the past seven years. It never came up, because everyone in Congress knew it was not their role.
Every court case that gets decided in a wrong or immoral manner does not get to go to the US Congress for appeal. Yes it is a matter of life or death but this is not for Congress to intervene in.
This sets a precedent in which every family with someone on death row can bring their case to Congress.
If this was the case you would’ve died of a brain explosion during the early Clinton years.
Congress does not get special rights when you happen to agree with the party in power.

[KJL: I refer you to Andy’s post of earlier. More than anything else, perhaps, this case points to the courts and the responsibility Congress has in regard to who sits on them. I refer you prior discussions on the conflicts of interest discussions of earlier…]

Four:

Whatever happened to the sanctity of marriage your party has championed at the expense of homosexuals wanting to marry? Schiavo’s husband is straight, right? They ARE married, right? So… where exactly is your leg to stand on?
You all are shameful- really, really shameful.

[KJL: again, I refer you to the facts of this case (see Wesley Smith, Andy McCarthy, Fr. J, etc…..]

Five:

Count me as a “Schwarzenegger Republican” who’s mostly in favor of abortion rights (though not Roe v. Wade), who’s very disturbed by the Schiavo case.

Six:

You are right that this is a terrible story, but not for the reasons that you are espousing. It is terrible whenever a tremendously sad situation gets blown into a circus. The circus atmosphere that accompanied the matter in 2003 and over the past two days is sad. What is lost in this whole matter is that there are two sides to Terri’s case, with no winners and no losers. (I have no opinion one way or the other on Terri and the feeding tube removal, by the way.)
While much has been said about Terri’s family and their efforts to allow her to live, very little has been said about her husband and what he has been going through. He is depicted — either explicitly or by implication — as an uncaring person who, for selfish reasons, wants to be rid of his burdensome wife. I cannot see into the husband’s “heart of hearts” so I will give him the benefit of the doubt: that he agonized over this decision for nine years before making the decision to go ahead with the petition, asserting that Terri would have wanted this, to have the feeding withheld. As a husband and father, I cannot begin to fathom the depths of despair and agony I would endure if I had to make a similar decision for my wife or son. This type of decision would be hell on earth.
I am well aware of the response — that while it may be “hell on earth” for the decision-maker, it is death for the wife/son/Terri. This is true and merely highlights that there are no winners in this situation. But neither is there a moral high ground. I do not know what process of a hearing or trial that Terri’s husband and her family went through that led to the court decision to allow removal of the feeding tube; I can only assume that there was such a hearing, that both sides had an opportunity to present their respective cases and that a fair-minded intelligent judge made a decision, which could then be appealed by the losing side.
That is the where the matter should end. But it didn’t. Whether because of the family or the press, or a combination of the two, a circus arose. Jeb Bush got involved, the Florida legislature got involved. And now, Congress got involved. And, to top off the whole thing, Terri’s parents are going to be on Larry King tonight. No doubt they will villify the courts, the husband, etc., and will try to increase public sympathy to get the feeding restarted.
Do you truly believe that Congress and Larry King care about this poor woman? Don’t kid yourself. This is grandstanding just like the baseball steroid hearings were (Rep. Davis gets a twofer). Congressmen and senators are using Terri. Larry King just wants ratings.
And the parents? They sound like they are in denial about their daughter’s condition. Are they caring people? They truly care about their daughter, that much is true. But what about their son-in-law? They obviously don’t mind 1) publicizing a sad, private matter; and 2) depriving him of his privacy. Let’s assume he wants to get on with his life? The press will descend on him if he ever tries to get married. Is that fair? He never asked for this.
I may agree with you on your political views, but I think you are just as much to blame for this circus.

[KJL: “I do not know what process…” Excuse the broken record: The process is the thing to a large extent here….]

Seven:

Kathryn:
Don’t know if you saw my earlier e-mail about the circus, but Congress’s actions are revolting.
The misuse of subpoenas to try to keep Terri from being harmed is disgusting and inappropriate. Funny, but I seem to recall a lot of complaints this week about Davis and Waxman misusing their incredibly-broad subpoena power to grandstand with baseball and steroids, and how that was a waste of tax money. Seems to me the same argument has to apply here.
John Miller’s rhetorical question appeals to the lowest common denominator and implies that her husband and the courts — the objective bastion in our civilized world — are murderers or complicit in a murder. This type of hyperbole just ignores that 1) this young lady has suffered a severe, conscious-depriving accident; and 2) that this accident has deprived her parents of a daughter and her husband of a wife.
Can’t you just display an ounce of compassion? You are acting like a zealot rather than an intelligent person.
So where’s the outcry on the Corner urging action on the genocide in Darfur? “Culture of Life,” indeed. I guess Darfur just isn’t a good occasion for sanctimonious grandstanding. Truly pathetic.

[KJL: If we were actually silent on Sudan, I’d feel guilty…]