Redstate

Bravo.

Andrew McCarthy says it better than I can:

a court-ordered torture is set to begin in Florida on Friday at 1 P.M.

It will not produce a scintilla of socially useful information. It will not save a single innocent life. It is not narrowly targeted on a morally culpable person -- the torture-victim is herself as innocent as she is defenseless. It is not, moreover, meant to be brief and non-lethal: The torture will take about two excruciating weeks, and its sole and only purpose is to kill the victim.

On Friday afternoon, unless humanity intervenes, the state of Florida is scheduled to begin its court-ordered torture-murder of Terri Schiavo, whose only crime is that she is an inconvenience. A nuisance to a faithless husband grown tired of the toll on his new love interest and depleting bank account -- an account that was inflated only because a jury, in 1992, awarded him over a million dollars, mostly as a trust to pay for Terri's continued care, in a medical malpractice verdict.

In this instance, though, deafening is the only word for the silence of my former interlocutors -- -civil-liberties activists characteristically set on hysteria auto-pilot the moment an al Qaeda terrorist is rumored to have been sent to bed without supper by Don Rumsfeld or Al Gonzales (something that would, of course, be rank rumor since, if you kill or try to kill enough Americans, you can be certain our government will get you three halal squares a day).

Not so Terri Schiavo. She will be starved and dehydrated. Until she is dead. By court order.

becomes the expectation that one will (or would) choose death becomes the duty to choose death becomes....  the requirement that one be put to death.

Don't talk to me about illigitimate slippery-slope arguments.  The slippery-slope is here because our culture's valorization of the "quality of life" meme entails the absence of any defensible stopping point between here and there.  In case that isn't clear, the insistence upon quality of life considerations means that the "right to die" ultimately entails involuntary euthanasia.  

And quality of life considerations are amazingly malleable.  Try it.

But today you are spinning it a little.  Yes her husband now has a girlfriend.  But he didn't when she went into the coma.  I would suspect that most of us who had a significant other that had been in a persistent vegatative state for 15 years would still love & care for that person but would also entertain the possibility of going on with their live.

You make it sound like he is being immoral.  I don't believe he is, with the circumstances & all.  What does everyone else think?

If he wants to go on with his life, fine.  Divorce Terri and let her parents be responsible for her care.  That is all they have ever wanted.

Instead, he wants to "let her die" and be relieved of his "burden."

If he wasn't after the large financial settlement he would have divorced his wife and "moved on" years ago.

He's so far past immoral he couldn't find it with a telescope.

Plus, I don't see you putting yourself in his shoes which is what I was saying.

What would you do in his shoes?

but found myself incapable; I'm just not heartless enough.

Enjoining others to put themselves into the shoes of that man is what happens when the virtue of sympathy is completely corrupted.  

She's my wife.

Even if that's not an option -- assume she really did pinky swear she wants to die -- I certainly wouldn't fool around on her while she's lying there, still married to me.

The word is "honor."

get the picture.  It's not about his shoes, it's about her life.

FWIW my family and I have been in similar shoes with a terminally ill relative.  So, get off your high horse!

I may have not heard it right but a few days ago he was on Nightline stating there was no insurance and he would not get anything.   Does anyone know the scoop?  I assume they must have her on Medicare/Medicaid to be in the nursing home.  The Medi-? people watch where your money is pretty close anymore to thwart Baby Boomers from hiding their parents assets and putting them on the govmnt. They look at financial transactions back 3 to 5 years to see if money or property has been transferred to trusts, other people etc.  If so you must pay an equal amount before they take over.  They are even going back on the kids and making them pay if they can.  I had a rich aunt that had to expend all her assets before you get on medicaid long term care.  So they force you into poverty prior.

I would bet if he does have some large insurance deal coming the govmnt would try to get reimbursement for the medicaid if that is what she is on.  

Which I guess is the concept of government aid to start with.

The feminists should be howling, but they are silent. Were Terry Schiavo one of them, instead of a devout Catholic whose life is championed by conservatives, they probably would.

This is the kind of baseless, name-calling and sleazy assertion that gets us absolutely nowhere.  You could switch this life/death scenario around a million ways to include feminists, lesbians, gays, transgendered people, children -- even people from France! etc., and I'll guarantee that in at least some of them you would find a scenario in which people were fighting as hard as they are about this case.  

It's a really cheap shot, and it does nothing to make Catholicism seem like a more welcoming house to anyone.  I'm sure there are atheists and feminists out there who are making the same kinds of sleazy, cheap, and baseless assertions for political purposes.  

But this is what this case has really become all about.  "My Group Is More Righetous Than Your Group, And You Should Vote For Me."

It's sickening.

I think it's just about whether the weakest among us have value - and whether we have grown so callous as a nation that we stand by while a defenseless woman is slowly, painfully murdered.

I don't think it has anything to do with voting.

. . .of the merits or the outcome of this case, I would very much like to see this loophole curtailed severely or closed in the future.  I can see a scenario where Richard Ramirez (for example) is finally about to meet his richly deserved end, only to have one or several moonbat congressmen decide to keep him alive indefinitely via this method.  It's clearly a power that invites abuse, and it needs to be limited to legitimate and intended purposes.

And I'm actually glad to see the Congressman step in here. But what I'm objecting to is this: "feminists should be howling...and they probably would be."

Coupled with the insinution that they're not howling because of her religion.  That's exactly what that is.  It's just a cheap slur.  I'm sure there are some people out there who think of themselves as feminists and Catholics who don't want to see Schiavo's feeding tube removed by a court order.  

I'm the Papist on this thread. Erick is Protestant.

What is the Federal issue which makes this effort by the GOP proper in getting involved in what is purely a state issue?

Or are you all putting your personal beliefs ahead of the principle of Federalism?

For the record, I believe Michael Schiavo is doing exactly what I would do - fighting for my wife's wishes as she told me, regardless of all the circus surrounding me.

The Enzi staffer is that came up with this?

Has a vested interest, and a duty to defend, the life and liberty of its citizens. (Interestingly, that's precisely how Federalism works -- the two sovereigns are at war over who has authority so much, the rest of us are left alone.)

And were that not so, there's the tricky matter of Amendment 14.

If she dies, I will never feel save with a doctor or medical institution again. Several years ago, the grandfather of my step-daughter was in intensive care dying. My step-daughter lived in another state and the doctor called me asking about 'medical instructions'. I had no legal rights really, but I did go and see him several times. I made it clear I expected him to receive food and water. With that statement the doctor ended the conversation. That was all he wanted to know. Horror went through me as I thought how close that man came to a horrible death. And I thank God that the call came to me.

But who will be there for me when the time comes? Apparently the judical system no longer thinks in terms of justice or protection of the innocent. This could be the ultimate solution for the social security problem...and don't think it won't come up if this happens.

And I don't want to beat it to death, but here goes:

One of the people that I've worked for in the past was a woman.  By a lot of measures, she could be described as a feminist:  she believed in equal pay for equal work, she had children and a husband but also a successful career (one of her kids, the girl, grew up to become a lawyer and a pilot of small airplanes and the other one, her son, grew up to become a successful database programmer/administrator) and she was sharp as a tack, a business manager, and didn't take any BS from anybody.  She was also a Catholic, and went to church often enough that she couldn't be described as "lapsed."  And if I know her at all, she would certainly want to do everything possible to save Terri Schiavo's life.  

That statement would come as a slap in the face to her.  And that's the kind of statement that doesn't do our side any good.  End of rant.

isn't doesn't mean they know better then he does what her wishes might be in this case.  If your significant other died and had made it clear that they didn't want to be kept alive artificially if there was no hope, would you wash your hands of it and divorce him or her, or would you feel perhaps that it would be your last cance to honor their wishes by ensuring that they died with dignity.  I'm not saying this is the situation in this case, but it's at least as plausible as any other scenario being touted.  Assuming all the above, I would fight just as hard as the husband seems to be.  

if you care to peruse previous threads on this topic, you would learn that there is no evidence regarding her wishes save the word of her husband, and that, were ordinary legal procedures observed, and all of the pertinent circumstances taken into consideration, his word would be worth next to nothing.  

She's my wife.

Perhaps their relationship wasn't as selfish as yours might be.  If you discuss this type of thing with your wife/girlfriend, do you say:  "Keep me alive in a hospital for decades even with no hope, and I don't want you to be happy or move on with your life in any way, but just sit next to my bed and keep the tube in, or else divorce me."?

You can talk all you want about "slippery slope" all you want, but for Congress to insert itself in this manner turns this already tragic situation into political pornography.

Don't agree with the decision of a State court?  Claim it's really a "federal case" by using the same sort of "logic" the Left does whenever they want to twist the Fourteenth Amendment (or "interstate commerce clause") to justify further erosion of the separation of powers between the federal and State governments.

a certain type of degradation of life, what is actually taking place is, by analogy, an attempt to halt the spread of a type of cultural degradation or obscenity.

Note the perverted logic of this type of "thought":

not wanting to euthanize someone = selfishness.  This is truly a cultural nadir.

that were used to decide that his word did mean something(repeatedly)?  If the case would normally be so cut and dried, they must have done some serious bending of the laws.  I'm just curious how they managed it?  

What we're seeing here is the implosion of any serious attempt that those of us who actually do believe in federalism and putting strict constructionists on the bench by those who merely mouth these concepts as platitudes when it's convenient but abandon them as soon as they disagree with the outcome.

has done a great job of explaining the problems.

Federalism as a principle outranks the inherent value of human life?

I guess you can have that as your priority, but mine is a little different.  The point where Federalism becomes a justification for the destruction of innocent human life is the point where I have a problem.

Perhaps an old hypothetical from Thomas is apt: if the Thirteenth Amendment is somehow repealed and Iowa decides to institute chattel slavery, am I allowed to oppose that particular decision under your definition?  Even though I live in Texas, or Florida, or New York, and it therefore has nothing to do with me?  Please?  I'd really like to.

I have seen it in my family.  So don't get all high horse here.  The issue at hand is can someone love and care for an invalid & live a full life outside that.  I think that they morally can.

Here we have an example of a 15 year irreversable coma.  I have seen the alzenheimers end of it.  I honestly don't believe those of you who are saying you would pine away forever if in those circumstances.  Sorry but I don't.

& the issue of dying.  You can't draw this from the bible and say it reflects god's will exactly.  When the bible was written, if someone was too sick to eat, they died.  That was how it was dealt with.  We've already played god here.  Now the issue is when is enough enough.

test case by which all other such situations should be judged.  We don't know what she wanted, and perhaps legally without a living will the husband has no rights, but if what he says is true (and you have zero reason to doubt him other than partisan poilitics) then absolutely he could see it as selfish of him not to allow her to die.  If you can't see that then I think you need to learn about empathy.

The Los Angeles Times reports today:

Senate Republicans today asked Terri Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged Florida woman kept alive by a feeding tube for 15 years, to appear before a Senate committee and issued a warning that anyone who impedes her could face criminal fines and imprisonment. [emphasis mine]

The feeding tube is not a respirator.  It's not even a machine-that-goes-"PING."  In what manner does the tube keep her alive?

She is keeping herself alive, and the tube is providing her with the sustenance to do that.

Is Judge Greer being kept alive by Wendy's or McDonald's?

The report either wants to portray her as near death sans extraordinary means, or it is just sloppy.

I can think of nothing more degrading than to ignore a patient's wish to die with some dignity.  Yes, I know there are arguments on both sides as to what she wanted and how clearly she made her wishes known.  Every court that has examined the facts and ambiguity surrounding this case has, as far as I know, sided with Schiavo's desire to fulfill her wish.  This has got to stop.

matter at this point?

Even if Thomas' legal analysis is spot on the courts have decided the case.

Also, I mean no offense to Thomas' skills as an attorney, but I doubt his legal abilitities are far better than the teams of lawyers on both sides of this case.  Up to this point, the Parent's legal arguments haven't convinced the courts.  

Federalism as a principle outranks the inherent value of human life?

Substitute any of the following: "fairness," "equality," "human dignity," or "social justice" for "inherent value of human life" and you've got the exact same argument the Left uses for pretty much any federal social program or incident of judicial activism.  Actually you probably don't even need to make the substitution because any of the above could and probably are argued to be part of the "inherent value of human life."

I guess you can have that as your priority, but mine is a little different.  

Yes my priority, politically speaking would be to actually uphold the Constitution which establishes a pretty clear line between the powers of the federal and State governments and where each is supreme.  Upholding the principle of federalism means that you have to do so consistently and not just when you agree with the particular outcome.  A pity that so many who have high-jacked the term "conservative" seem to have forgotten this.

The point where Federalism becomes a justification for the destruction of innocent human life is the point where I have a problem.

Okay everyone think long and hard about this platitude the next time we're trying to argue against a federal takeover of the health care system or increased welfare spending or banning SUV's or banning anything that might be unhealthy for you because Mr. Augustine has just thrown it all overboard.

I like the end, but am less-than-satisfied with the means.  These types of issues -- withdrawal of care, euthanasia, abortion, etc. -- should be decided at the state level.

von

Courts are not now, nor ever have been, infallible interpreters of the law.  

Enzi is in the Senate.

We both know Patrick Henry would disagree with the claptrap you've just spouted.  And I think he had his priorities straight.

But then, he was a damned anti-Federalist, so you don't have to listen to him.

An unjust law is no law at all, Mr. Winston.  An older Augustine wrote that.

My point is that, legally, his uncorroborated word, given the circumstances of the case, his wife's condition and its origination (and by this I am NOT asserting that he caused it), as well as the details of the settlement he won, is worth approximately nothing, if the law is followed.  

Let's think carefully before we allow the establishment of a precedent allowing for the termination of life on the basis of utterly uncorroborated, unprovable statements on the part of parties even the noncynical can perceive to have vested interest.  You won't like what could be done with them.

I believe the error was Drudge's, not Erick's.

Two points:

Brush up on the Federalist Papers. My explanation of Federalism is cogent. You may have a point about subsidiarity, but those are two different things.

Second, I didn't draft the Fourteenth Amendment. But it's there, and I suspect the due process clause is implicated; insofar as it's not, there's more than enough Fourteenth to go around.

The term for which you are reaching is "incorporation." With due respect, you're wide of the mark.

I mean, life is wholly different from an Amendment that forbids Congress from doing a thing, yes?

(this one with real assets, unlike another one we like to argue about) was set-up as a result of a medical malpractice award.  The trust-fund is what is paying for her care - I don't believe the Medicare/aid program(s) are involved in any way.

Some info on the subject (though not current) here.

I do not know what the status of the trust-fund is, but I suspect there is plenty there to allow Schiavo to live for quite some time.  As such, it must be a sizeable amount of money, indeed.

I'm opposed to both abortion and active euthanasia but not the withdrawal of medical care which this case is.  Frankly once people started throwing around unfounded smears of "spousal abuse," "murder," and "torture" I pretty much realized that this is purely an emotional issue and the best we can hope for is to minimize the damage they're doing to any serious attempt at reigning in the federal government including the federal judiciary.

the only court system we have, and there are many levels of appeal to weed out errors.  

If we shouldn't rely on the courts findings what alternative should be used?  What system doesn't make mistakes?  

testimony, in contravention of established practice, has got to stop.  

What is so difficult to grasp in the truism that courts are not now, nor ever have been, infallible?

I'm kinda fond of mine. To each their own, but I would suggest that your wife or girlfriend be very clear about her desires to others, so that if she ends up in this state, you don't finish her off out of hand without her permission.

If I discuss this with my wife, I do it more than once during a television special on brain damaged patients; I also do something utterly outrageous like have my desires committed to writing. I'm a Statute of Frauds kind of guy, though.

I don't have to tell her not to fool around on me while I'm lying there, dying at her hands. She's decent enough not to do so, and were she not, she'd still be decent enough to divorce me first.

But that "honor" thing is apparently lost on you.

But the court has sided with Schiavo <u>time after time</u&gt.  Is EVERY judge wrong?  Look, I feel for her parents, but she's been long gone.  Any facial expressions are the result of involuntary muscle activity.  The only parts of her brain not dead just happen to be the areas that control respiratory functions.

She's long dead.  Let her body join her, and let her rest in peace.

Is it that straightforward?  Do all husbands who pull the plug on their wives just want them dead?

I happen to actually know some husbands who had to make that choice and it wasn't as crystal clear to them as you apparantly think it is.

Also, is it necessary to ridicule someone about his wishes for a loved one when you respond to a comment?  If dlev did something to deserve a response like yours I am not sure what it was.

If your wife died of a sudden cardiac arrest at a young age as in this case (god forbid), before most people would think to make a living will, but you had still discussed it, you wouldn't feel obligated in any way to carry out her wishes?  All I'm saying is that legally he may have no rights, but it's hardly clear that he's some sort of money hungry monster.

Snark:snark.

Cue in on the word "selfish."

legislative oversight of judicial actions, among other things, so the process now ongoing seems to me to be entirely appropriate, even if it appears unseemly to those who would prefer that this sort of thing happen in the dark.

...while watching TV in some gooey 20/20 special n the matter, I'd probably not act on it. That is, after all, the extent of Schiavo's marching orders.

I say this for two reasons:

What if she were overly emotional that once? Tired? Sick? Influenced by the gauzey 20/20 production values?

Second, unless I'm one hundred percent sure she's not getting better, I'm not killing her. That's murder. It may be excusable murder, or not; but it's still murder. For moral, ethical, and religious reasons, I'm not killing my wife. She knows this. I know her response, too.

I didn't say anything about him being a money hungry monster. Just a monster.

That when I say "better," I mean "from a brain dead state." Just for clarity, and in case my wife is reading this.

muscle spasms with the visits of her parents are wholly and completely coincidental, too.

Medical science is not so exact as you suppose.  If, then, we err, let us err on the side of life.

could not be reproduced.  Yes, they WERE coincidental.

from what I've read she's is in a persistant vegitative state with no higher reasoning function left.  Would you want to be kept alive?  (Not meant as sarcasm, I'm really curious, I don't think I would)  

I'm not trying to be snide. If I'm like that, it's not as if I'm aware of it. I'm on permanent mental vacation at that point.

There is, suffice it to say, some dispute about Terri's condition.

by nature a somewhat less-than-fully-rational aspect of consciousness, should be the basis of momentous public policy decisions; the latter ought to be made on the basis of as much reason and sound moral judgment as we are able to muster.

By the way, my 8-month old doesn't yet have any higher-order rational faculties.  At least, they have not yet manifested themselves.  They are latent in the manner appropriate to his age.  It doesn't follow that he is less worthy of life.

I have no idea what you're getting at.  If I say that the "free speech/press clause" was incorporated via the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, your response is going to be, what?  The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits euthanasia?

but Terry Schiavo is never getting better.  Never.  Never.

Her brain (at least the portion that was once capable of cognitive functions) has literally turned to liquid.  There isn't a doctor in the country who believes that a patient in her condition  will ever recover.  It's like believing that an amputee will regrow a limb.  Doesn't happen.  Ever.

For some reason, the "keep Terry alive" folks continue to downplay this truth.  This is not just a woman in a coma who is "unable to communicate".  She is no more capable of thought or feeling than a rock.

I'm right, you're wrong.  Nah-Nah-Nah-

Boo Boo Stick Your Head In Doo Doo.

Okay, sorry.  Heh.

If we assume that somehow the Fourteenth has the magic power to drag the entire Bill of Rights onto the states, I don't see how it can't act the way it was intended -- to protect citizens of the United States from the predations of the several States. Indeed, I would humbly suggest that mine is the slightly more logical reading. Humbly.

That particular conclusion is, as I understand it, in some dispute.

"Rocks" do not generate multimillion dollar cash windfalls to care for them in perpetuity.

Her brain is liquid.  Got it.  Nobody disputes that.  Nobody.

Yes, some people choose to IGNORE that inconvenient fact for their own selfish polical reasons.  But that doesn't change the fact that tests register NO brain activity.   None.  Period.

is the legal inheritance of a husband a "windfall"?  Maybe in your world.

Where ever did you hear that piece of tripe? Good grief, grow up, get an education. The brain does not liquify. BTW - who is next on the list to push into the great beyond? Who is next on the list of killer doctors and judges? Its illegal for judges to declare a death sentence on murderers - only a jury can do that - but they can kill the handicapped? Wow! I feel so much safer now! Thanks a bunch....

I'm not being smart. If you have some inner knowledge here, I'd appreciate the insight. Otherwise, you're like the rest of us, dealing with press releases.

science of this sort of thing is not uncontroverted.  Neither, for that matter, is medical science capable of determining that nature or status of consciousness so finely as to rule out the possibility that she is still "in there".  Hers is obviously not a case of total brain death.

I was talking about the proceeds of the underlying suit, which were designated for "the rock"'s continued care, in large part. Rocks generally do not require long-term care.

Compensation from a malpractice suit is not a windfall either.  (But I assume you doubt that there was malpractice in the first place)

I just don't see what the money has to do with this at all.  If the husband divorces her, the parents will will end up with a large portion.  I fail to see why to are assuming the husband is being motivated by money but the parents aren't. (Incidentally, I don't think they are being gold-diggers here, but there is no reason why their motives should be assumed to be purer than his.)

that was only the conclusion of the neurological experts who examined her.

If she's a rock, it's not compensation, it's a windfall for her caretaker. Sort of like a damaged house.

The money solely has to do with your allegation that she's as cognizant as a rock. I see you've joined the long line of reading comprehension deficient folks who stumble across my comments and wage jihad on words that aren't there.

Have at it.

Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure.At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs.

Emphasis mine.

By the way, my 8-month old doesn't yet have any higher-order rational faculties.  At least, they have not yet manifested themselves.  They are latent in the manner appropriate to his age.  It doesn't follow that he is less worthy of life.

I regret that your argument misses the point of the abortionists' logic.  It is the same logic that justifies Teri's murder.

We know that life must begin at some point after (maybe immediately after) conception and at some point before age 21. Life to begin, must be characterized by something.  Higher mental activity?  Prenatal and postnatal babies are very similar.  Air breathing?  Nope.  My daughter was born unable to breathe (31 weeks).  Strangely this otherwise hazardous waste item was granted medical care at huge expense without examination of her mental capacity.  In fact to have denied her care on the baisis of lack of her having proper mental function would have been illegal once she had been born-- at least I assume so.  I didn't ask my wife's perinatalogist if we could check for brain damage before caring for her.

For abortion to be 'right' let alone justified the aborted must not be living people.  We know that after 28 weeks of gestation medical techniques can keep a child alive if it has been born, but that medical technique can also 'abort' the pregnancy.  

What makes one foetus a child and the other medical waste?  

The mere want of the mother.  What basis must she use to justify her choice?  None.

Mister Schiavo's wants are of the same validity.

missed that; I simply presupposed that the argument from consciousness or higher-order reason is arbitrary, and, in point of fact, most often a cloak for naked willfulness.  

I hope that your daughter is now well.

Discussed in a prior thread. I commend you to a Google search.

I believe what space is referring too is this.

"If you look at a brain scan of Terri, where her cerebral cortex used to be is a black hole filled with spinal fluid," he said. "There is simply no hope of recovery for Terri."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/22/coma.woman/

So while you are correct, her brain tissue did not literally turn to liquid it has atrophied and the space that it once occupied is now filled with CSF.

This decision was not made by judges.  It was made by the person who has the legal authority and responsibility to make it.  Her husband.  You may not like him, you may think he is wrong.  But who would you want in charge of your medical care, and its potential withdrawal?  If it is anyone other than your spouse you should probably see your lawyer ASAP.

. . . which is why you notice that those who are pushing for federal intervention in what is pretty clearly a State issue (Tenth Amendment and doctrine of enumeration anyone?) are using many of the same specious arguments that they decry whenever it's someone from the Left trying to impose their whims from Washington.

Never fail to impute ill motives, friend.

The Federal Gov't has a mandated interest in seeing that no state exceeds it's authority against citizens of the nation.

. . .of those who have been throwing around charges of "murder" or trying to show by innuendo that there is some sinister motive on the part of the husband.  

Your primary beef appears to be with federalism, and the disregard for it you perceive.

that started the snarky, "in his shoes" meme.  My point to convey to you isthat many of us have been in his shoes.

Sorry, without a written declaration of wishes, I'm erring on the side of feeding and hydrating her.  To do otherwise would be wrong.

So we will ultimately be able to clone humans.

Doesn't mean we should.

Neither should we attempt to play god in this instance, let her go.  

I'm not getting into a debate over the privileges and immunities clause (and not that p&i, not due process, is the clause I'm citing).  I will say, however, that you're employing the same facile argument that proponents of gay marriage employ with respect to the epc.  (As you know, I support gay marriage -- strongly support it, even.  But I don't support it by judicial order.)

The words of the Constitution must be interpeted in context, and according to their original meaning.*  I'm aware of no originalist interpretation of the p&i, due process, or epc that indicates that these clauses control what has always been a state law issue -- the regulation of end of life issues.  If you know of one, please share it.  Otherwise, don't complain when others read their preferred rights into the Constitution.

von

*I'm a bit of a squishy textual originalist, I'll admit, because I think that originalism sometimes doesn't pay enough attention to the notice function of the Constitution.  We interprete statutes (and, to a significant extent, patents and other rights-providing documents) according to how they would be read, not only by the intent of their drafters.  We should do the same with the Constitution.  I'm also much more willing to go to the first two of the so-called "four organic laws" of the U.S. to aid in resolving tough questions (the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance).  

IOW, I'm a confused mix of Justice Black and Justice Thomas -- with the smarts of neither.

One way would be to decide that a woman who is not incontestably vegetative should be killed.  

Unless, of course, the bare act of feeding someone constitutes evidence that one is "playing God."

And the clear intent of the drafters of the 14th. It was exclusively to protect citizens of the United States (newly freed citizens) from the depradations of state law. There is a colorable argument that that's precisely at work here.

Before that, the clear powers of the States regulated a whole host of things the Federal government never touched -- the death penalty, for example. Once your peeps got a hold of it and ran, suddenly, the Amendment meant that the Federal Government had a hand in all sorts of things it never had before.

Respectfully, I'd submit you're just picking and choosing. The death penalty, free expression, prison terms, sentencing guidelines, "privacy" -- take your pick, these all have Federal oversight. Why the state sanctioned killing of an invalid doesn't fall into those penumbrae is lost on me.

Your analysis or mine, it works.

My "peeps"?  That's very odd, given that Justice Black dissented in Griswold:

I agree with my Brother STEWART'S dissenting opinion. And like him I do not to any extent whatever base my view that this Connecticut law is constitutional on a belief that the law is wise or that its policy is a good one. In order that there may be no room at all to doubt why I vote as I do, I feel constrained to add that the law is every bit as offensive to me as it is to my Brethren of the majority and my Brothers HARLAN, WHITE and GOLDBERG who, reciting reasons why it is offensive to them, hold it unconstitutional. There is no single one of the graphic and eloquent strictures and criticisms fired at the policy of this Connecticut law either by the Court's opinion or by those of my concurring Brethren to which I cannot subscribe - except their conclusion that the evil qualities they see in the law make it unconstitutional.

....

The Court talks about a constitutional "right of privacy" as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the "privacy" of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth [381 U.S. 479, 509]   Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but "privacy." To treat it that way is to give it a niggardly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given. The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. He simply wants his property left alone. And a person can be just as much, if not more, irritated, annoyed and injured by an unceremonious public arrest by a policeman as he is by a seizure in the privacy of his office or home.

One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term "right of privacy" as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." "Privacy" is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I have expressed the view many times that First Amendment freedoms, for example, have suffered from a failure of the courts to stick to the simple language of the First Amendment in construing it, instead of invoking multitudes of words substituted for those the Framers used. See e. g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 293 (concurring opinion); cases collected in City of El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S. 497, 517 , n. 1 (dissenting opinion); Black, The Bill of Rights, 35 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 865. For these reasons I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional "right of privacy" as an emanation from [381 U.S. 479, 510]   one or more constitutional provisions. 1 I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional.