In 1973, the SCOTUS ruled on Roe V. Wade, the historic abortion verdict that took the right of the states to administer and regulate abortion.  In that case, it was determined that the Texas law conflicted with the 9th Amendment of the COTUS, which says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The SCOTUS determined that there was an over-riding importance where pregnancy was concerned....ancient traditions, historic findings and medical opinions were cited.  However, there was a section in the majority decision that says that an unborn human being is not considered a person. 

I will paste the quote: “...in nearly all these instances (where the word ‘person’ appears in the COTUS), the use of the word (person) is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.” The SCOTUS, therefore, ruled that an unborn child has no legal standing under the COTUS, and that laws restricting abortion were in violation of the 9th and 14th Amendments.

Why?  Because there was an inherent quality of the fetus that took it outside of COTUS protection....it was not postnatal, or a person as defined by the COTUS.  In other words, the fetus is not politically viable. 

I’m not talking about political in the GOP/DEM sense, but viable as an individual body politic....someone that was able to participate in the process.  Because if it’s lack of being born, the person was not considered as such.  It could not vote, or be elected to a political office.  It has an inherent quality that inhibits it. 

So...this has a lot to do with Terri Schiavo.  That’s why the pro-lifers were involved.  Here’s the connection. 

There was this person, a citizen of the USA, protected by the COTUS and the 9th Amendment and all that jazz.  Problem is, she was not able to speak for herself.  She wasn’t politically viable.  She couldn’t act on her own, put forth a defense of herself...by her condition, she was inherently unable to participate.  Now, she was not a fetus....but just as unable to protect or defend herself. 

The fact that she was more ‘definable’ as a person is important....she had been viable before.  She had been active, and a full US citizen, as defined in the COTUS.  However, something happened to her that took her out of that status.  Like if she declared herself a citizen of another country, and took the oath of citizenship for that country, there was an incident that took her outside the protection of the COTUS.  From that point, due to the flow of power, another Roe V. Wade was created. 

However, this time the rights of the husband were comparable to the rights of the pregnant woman.  And, because of the 14th Amendment, and the existing case law that Roe V. Wade created, Section 765 of the Forida Code, created pre-Shiavo case, was found to be Constitutional and legal, and it was upheld by Republican and Democrat judges. 

What was held legal?  The right of someone that is the sole protector of a human being that is not politically viable to end the biological processes that non-viable human by means that are readily available to a physician. 

You don’t think the two things are similar?  Well, read this:

7. The position of the American Public Health Association. In October 1970, the Executive Board of the APHA adopted Standards for Abortion Services. These were five in number:

“e. Contraception and/or sterilization should be discussed with each abortion patient.” Recommended Standards for Abortion Services, 61 Am. J. Pub. Health 396 (1971).

OK...what if it read like this?

7. The position of the American Public Health Association. In March, 2005, the Executive Board of the APHA adopted Standards for Right-to-Die Services. These were five in number:

“e. Dehydration and other life-termination processes should be discussed with each Right-to-Die guardian.” Recommended Standards for Right-To-Die Services, 61 Am. J. Pub. Health 396 (2005).

What’s the difference?  The discussions would take place not with the human whose life was being taken by choice, but by the person who desired to take that life. 

See, this is why the RTL’ers were involved.  They see this comparison.  And, this is why the Left was adamant about it, because Terri Schiavo’s death reinforces the decision of 1973.  Political viability and the inherent qualities of a person can be used when deciding if they live or die....as opposed to their actions. 

This is the slippery slope I spoke of a few days ago. 

What is a person in a permanent vegetative state?  In Florida, it is:

“Persistent vegetative state” means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

The only difference, legally, as far as the SCOTUS is concerned, is that a fetus becomes able to “..communicate or interact purposefully with the environment..” when it is born.  Someone dislaying PVS does it by...what?  Communicating?  Displaying voluntary action? 

What is swallowing? Is that voluntary?  If Terri Schiavo could swallow, would she have been considered able to communicate or interact purposefully with her environment?

OK...I still hold to the opinion that the 14th Amendment to the COTUS was followed by Florida, that Terri Schiavo was afforded due process, that the law was interpreted in a constitutional (if very narrow) manner, and that everything that happened was totally legal and in accordance with both Florida law, and the COTUS. 

However, I hold also that the activist courts that found that a fetus was not a ‘person’, and not politically viable, were going to hold the same opinion of Terri Schiavo....and therein lies the Left/Right issue. 

The people on the Right...most of them....didn’t say anything about Terri Schiavo not being a person.  For the most part, they talked about either the federalist principles of following powers clearly given to the States (14th Amendment), or the right to life that Terri Schiavo had.  The Left...the same Left that forced a retreat from Vietnam, that protested the WoT, that dreaded the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and that produced John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and the large percentage of the Baby Boomer protest-whores, were in lock-step about terri Schiavo....they wanted her to die.  Not personally, but politically, because it fits their world-view. 

Remember, these are people that didn’t give a care if the Iraqis were dying by the bushel under Saddam, or the Cambodians under Pol Pot.  They just didn’t want America involved.  They didn’t want people that were important to them dying.  They themselves didn’t want to die.  Their distrust of America notwithstanding, they were inherently selfish....here....does this fit?

“We will not accept situations that reduce our ability to live how we wish.”

That kind of nails it.  That brings in the whole right-to-die, abortion, sex-ed, contraception, removal-of-social mores and morals thing, doesn’t it?  And those things are hills the Left would die on....the removal of discipline and traditional values.  The dislike of those things that make life challenging.  The distrust of those situations or persons who would put responsibility for things and/or people on their shoulders.  No wonder anarchists are leftists. 

I think this is as clear as a bell...the positions of the Left, the abortion issue, and this issue with Terri Schiavo....they are all interconnected.  They are all things we need to strive to change.  We need to vote, install judges that are not willing to go with social convention, and that will look at equality, as opposed to political viability. 

Thanks for reading this.  Comment freely.