The Terri Schiavo case continues to bother me – in particular, the question of precedent. The precedent that our most personal decisions – about reproduction, about designating our own guardians, about choosing our own families – can be arbitrarily decided by a public letter-writing campaign is awful. One of the most basic elements of freedom – that when it comes to extremely personal decisions of life, death, and family, people are allowed to make decisions that go against majority preferences – is under siege by right-wing Christians in Florida.<\/p>\n
I think there’s a strong connection between the view that says that women must not make their own reproductive choices, and the view that Terri’s choice of Michael to make medical decisions when she shouldn’t be respected, and the view that lesbians and gay men must be forbidden an equal right to form families.<\/p>\n
In all these case, what’s at issue is the right to make decisions that are contrary to the Christian right’s moral perspective. And while they’re happy enough to use the normal rule of law when it works in their favor (for instance, the current status quo forbidding equal marriage rights for lesbians and gays), they have no actual respect for democracy when it conflicts with what God tells them. The Light of Reason <\/a>puts it well:<\/p>\n For these folks, it has nothing to do with if Terri’s husband was abusive or not; Michael Schiavo could have been beating Terri up five times a day, and the Christian right would still overwhelmingly support him if he were calling for Terri to be kept alive indefinitely.<\/p>\n I think the precedent set by this case, if “Terri’s law” isn’t struck down by the courts, is awful. It’s saying that when a family, or a court, makes a decision the Christian right doesn’t agree with, right-wing legislators and governors have the right to overturn that decision by fiat.<\/p>\n If Jeb Bush has the right to undo the court’s decision in this case, why doesn’t he have the right to do the same thing the next time a Florida court makes a decision the Christian right doesn’t like? Maybe an abortion rights decision. Maybe a decision recognizing a lesbian couple’s right to adopt. Anytime a court goes against the Christian right, the governor will simply overturn the decision.<\/p>\n That’s theocracy for you, folks.<\/p>\n (And before anyone compares this to obscenity law, let me assure you – I would not<\/i> approve of a law allowing a governor to overturn individual court decisions on obscenity on a case-by-case basis, thus making the legal rulings of the courts subserviant to the whims of the executive. It’s the way Christian fundimentalists have shown their contempt for the checks and balances of U.S. democracy, that makes the Terri Schiavo case so offensive.).<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Terri Schiavo case continues to bother me – in particular, the question of precedent. The precedent that our most personal decisions – about reproduction, about designating our own guardians, about choosing our own families – can be arbitrarily decided … Continue reading