By abbotn Ahhhh, very good, Thanks.
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
you're welcome.
i've been struck by the e-mails and calls i've gotten (huge numbers on the past 2 columns, linked above), how personal and nuanced this topic is. the stories people have told me, on both sides, indicated much thought and agonizing.
once you get past the initial opinions and, yes, some rancor, this is a difficult, difficult topic.
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By abbotn The GOP has spent quite a bit of effort lately defining marriage, controlling who should have it and the rights and responsibilities it bestows. It can be perceived now that they equally want to dissolve it as they feel. How would you respond to squelch that perception, either in this case or any?
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
hi,
i hardly think that considering the wishes of the parents here -- given that the husband was/is involved with another woman and had children with that woman -- would have marked a dissolution of marriage.
also, there's some irony here. some good number of people seemed to want to treat terri as property, as chattel. what's up with that?
in most child custody cases, for instance, the husband has trouble making any headway at all. here, the husband wanted to take steps that today brought about the death of his wife, and people rushed to support him. so, put simply, he can kill his wife but not take care of the kids?
i don't get it.
best,
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By javajen Hillary has certainly been mia on this one. Given her recent shift to the center. So if/when roe v wade is revisited, do the conservatives come out stronger?
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
re, hillary, note peggy noonan's column today on opinionjournal.com. i don't think that hillary's move to the center means she would have been in favor of keeping terri schiavo alive.
re, roe v/ wade, that's more difficult. the conservatives may come out stronger, but i don't see any end to this national division any time soon. bush is unlikely to nominate a conservative to replace a moderate on the court. and for all the gnashing of teeth, it's the current court that has so far supported the decision.
best,
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By javajen Hi. What does this mean for the democrats?
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
Hi,
For the democrats, right now, it won't have any impact. but it's a dangerous issue for the dems. the issue certainly isn't one that would fire up their base. and given the party's stand on abortion, it doesn't need the affiliation with death that a right-to-die case would bring.
i think the dems have wisely said little. not much for them to gain here.
all of that noted, it's nuanced. i mean, jesse jackson shows up, gives support and solace to her parents' family, and casts it as a civil rights issue. we may find this one isn't strictly republican or democrat, when we get down the road a few years.
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By abbotn I was disappointed that Congress acted. After that, I was disappointed that the Supreme Court did not; that it didn’t even try. There are some parallels between this case and a women’s right to choose and yet they decided not to review the case. Why do suppose that is, was?
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
i don't know that all judges saw it this way, but i certainly think some saw the congressional action and bush commentary as an interference with the courts.
the problem, of course, is the reluctance to go back to the initial determination/decision.
there are parallels to the abortion/choice issue. maybe the court thought there was no new ground to break.
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By abbotn Hi Doug, How are you? Read your works, Ms. Noonan’s too, enjoy them both. You said there would be price to pay by the GOP. The law was only for a federal review, not to explicitly save Terri’s life. Could you expand on what that price might be?
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
hi,
thanks for writing. i think the price is this: republicans, particularly george bush, have made much of the 'culture of life.' i agree it's one of those easy buzzwords, but there is some meaning attached to it.
this was one of those cases where the topic was demonstrated, right there, in front of us. and the republicans, who control -- or are supposed to control -- much of government, couldn't deliver. so the question becomes, are they serious, or not? or is it just a buzzword?
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------