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.

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.

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 puts it well:

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.

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.

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.

That’s theocracy for you, folks.

(And before anyone compares this to obscenity law, let me assure you - I would not 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.)

• Understanding Terri Schiavo, from the St. Petersburg Times. A decent one-stop summary of the conflict, with a lot of focus on the videos that Terri’s parents have released.

• The Terri Schiavo Information Page, a sub-project of the Abstract Appeal blog. Absolutely the best source of information about Terri Schiavo, including a timeline and links to the relevant court decisions. Abstract Appeal itself is the best blog to check for breaking news on this story.
• The Lost Lesson of Terri Schiavo points out that Terri’s condition was brought on by her bulimia, which in turn was brought on (or at least encouraged) by an appearance-obsessed society.
• To read what “the other side” says, visit TerrisFight.org.

Amy Welborn quotes a newspaper columnist:

I’ve seen this going around lately: the right-wing is glooming onto the arguments of disabled rights activists in order to argue that Terri Schiavo’s body must be kept alive at any cost. Allowing Terri Schiavo to die, we are told, is the equivalent of murdering Stephen Hawking, or that newspaper columnist’s little sister.

As it happens, the disabled activists have a good point, especially when it comes to media coverage of the case. It’s degrading when reporters bring up Terri Schiavo’s inability to talk, or to feed and care for herself, as if these things determined the worth or lack of worth of a human life. That’s ridiculous: there is infinitely more to existence than the ability to wipe one’s own rear end.

However, as applied to Terri Schiavo, the argument is nonsense.

Look, I’m convinced that people can have meaningful, great lives without talking, walking, eating unassisted or controlling one’s bowels. What I’m not convinced of is that Terri Schiavo can have a meaningful existence if she can’t think. Here’s how Florida’s 2nd court of appeals described Terri’s medical condition:

Without a cerebral cortex, Terri Schiavo cannot think. She cannot feel. She cannot experience.

There’s a huge gulf between being disabled and being unable to think, feel, or experience. It’s the gulf between being alive and being dead. Terri Schiavo is dead, and has been dead for years; to compare her condition to folks who are alive and disabled is, it seems to be, an insult to disabled people everywhere. (Obviously, many disabled activists disagree with me).

How can anyone say that Terri Schiavo can still lead a fulfilling life, when “fulfillment” itself can’t be experienced without a cerebral cortex?

• A victory for the pro-lifers today: The Senate Approves Ban on Abortion Procedure. Enjoy your victory while it lasts, is my advice to the right. Once I was very worried about this, but that was when I was assuming that O’Conner was going to retire from the Supreme Court during Bush’s first term. With O’Conner staying on the Court, however, it’s very likely that the Court is going to find this ban unconstitutional.

• Proof that not all conservatives are anti-gay: There’s a good Andrew Sullivan essay in the Wall Street Journal, criticizing other conservatives for their anti-gay attitudes.
  So what is it? What exactly is the post-Lawrence conservative social policy toward homosexuals? Amazingly, the current answer is entirely a negative one. The majority of social conservatives oppose gay marriage; they oppose gay citizens serving their country in the military; they oppose gay citizens raising children; they oppose protecting gay citizens from workplace discrimination; they oppose including gays in hate-crime legislation, while including every other victimized group; they oppose civil unions; they oppose domestic partnerships; they oppose . . . well, they oppose, for the most part, every single practical measure that brings gay citizens into the mainstream of American life.

  This is simply bizarre. Can you think of any other legal, noncriminal minority in society toward which social conservatives have nothing but a negative social policy? What other group in society do conservatives believe should be kept outside integrating social institutions? On what other issue do conservatives favor separatism over integration? We know, in short, what conservatives are against in this matter. But what exactly are they for?

• But then again… for a laugh, check out this response to Sullivan by David Frum, also in the WSJ. Frum argues that conservatives have no choice but to oppose gay marriage laws. Why? Because if gays can marry, the goverment will be forced to set up halfway-marriage laws, which heterosexuals will want access to, which will reduce heterosexual marraige. Why will halfway-marriage laws be necessary? Because conservatives will oppose full gay-marriage laws.

  In other words - if we cut out the fuzzy middle of this logic chain, and look only at the start and end - conservatives have no choice but to oppose gay marriage laws because conservatives will oppose gay marriage laws. Oy.

• A few days ago, I mentioned the Terri Schiavo case. Today, Jeb Bush has signed a new law which will cause Schiavo to be kept alive via a tube feeder.
• Jasperboi, a non-op (I think - it’s not really my business, of course) FtM transsexual (I think) feminist - muses on the kinds of men that different parts of our society will allow/expect him to be, and also on the difficulties men can have on finding a place in feminism. Interesting stuff.
• From back in June, a very good post on Procrastination, arguing that arranged marriages have been overrated.
• Two interesting Times articles on childbearing and poverty. First, a case of a woman charged with child endangerment after her two children were murdered while she was at her job. She wasn’t able to find a baby-sitter, and she couldn’t risk being fired, so she left her two kids, ages 8 and 2, at home. While she was out, someone deliberately set her apartment on fire, killing the children. Now she’s been charged with child endangerment.

  This underscores the desparate need for universal, free child-care. There’s no reason anyone should be faced with this sort of “leave your kids alone or lose your job and watch the kids starve” choice. To then charge the woman with a crime is disgusting.

  Second, a new study finds that chlidren’s behavior improves as their family’s income goes up.

• Over on Body and Soul, why I’m probably voting for Kucinich in the primary.
• A really interesting essay, Free Mickey!, on an 1970s satire of Mickey Mouse that Disney attempted to sue into oblivionland.

There’s, like, ten thousand things I’ve missed posting links to lately, while I’ve been busy painting and working and suchlike. I won’t even attempt to catch up. But here’s a few of the things that are open in my browser right now:

• Over at Cut on the Bias, I’ve been participating in a discussion of art and comics with the (mostly right-wing) group that hangs out there. Right-wing cartoonist Chris Muir, of Day by Day, has also been contributing. (I like Chris’ cartoons better than he likes mine, alas).

  (If anyone from Alas comments over there, by the way, please be polite!)

• Susanna linked to this essay about Dave Sim’s misogyny, which I thought was pretty good.
• The Washington Post reports on a study which found that the more people watch FoxNews, the less they’re able to accurately answer factual questions about the war in Iraq.
• You may think you’re geeky, but compared to some people, you’re not a geek at all. Check out this apartment for sale on Ebay.
• Lots of people have linked to this Calpundit post on the Texas Republican party, and rightly so. The Republican party is being taken over by people who are, frankly, scarey.
• Of all the Rush-mocking articles I’ve read lately, this one - If Bill Clinton were an addict, this is how Rush might spin it - is the most on-target.
• Arnold Kling’s much-linked tech-central column criticizing Paul Krugman is fairly on-target, I think. Although Krugman actually uses a lot more “type C” arguments than Kling credits him for. Via Brad DeLong.
• If you haven’t been reading the comments to PDP’s post “Ms. Fat-so,” you should - there’s been some really good discussion there. Fatshadow also added a typically well-written comment on her own blog.
• The best interview with candidates I’ve seen in ages: a local paper uses Philip K. Dick’s Voight-Kampff Test to find out if the candidates are humans or replicants. Via Charles Murtaugh.
• Have you heard of Terri Schiavo? I hadn’t, until yesterday. She’s a woman in a coma (or maybe not, according to some folks) who was taken off her feeding tube yesterday. It’s a fascinating issue, and one that’s apparently very big in some right-wing circles. Amy Welborn has some informative links. Or for a wider range of views, check google news. Via Eve Tushnet.
• “Resolved: It is a complete fabrication that the Bush administration argued in the runup to the war that there was an imminent thread from Iraq.” This question is being debated semi-formally by Jonathan Schwarz and Sebastian Holsclaw on Daniel Drezner’s blog; if you enjoy debate, check it out.
• Will Baude of Crescat Sententia points to an good Dahlia Lithwick article taking apart Greg Easterbrook’s “no doesn’t mean no” argument. There’s much more discussion of this going on - scroll around on Crescat Sententia to find more links.
• Also at Crescat Sententia, Amy Lamboley responds to part of my wage gap series. I don’t really disagree with Amy; obviously (and thanks mainly to feminism), things have improved substantially since Amy’s mother entered the workforce. If Amy’s arguing that discrimination is no longer a significant factor at all, I’d disagree with her, but I’m not sure that is what she’s arguing.
• Eve Tushnet has been arguing against same-sex marriage. I disagree with Eve, but her blog is a good place to go if you want to see the most intelligent, coherent arguments agailable against SSM - just click here and then scroll upwards. I hope to find time to respond to some of Eve’s points in the next week.

  Oh, and hey: Congrats to Eve on her new post as editor of the Marriage Deabte blog.

Whoops - time for me to run to work. I haven’t spell-checked this post; hopefully none of my typos will be too humiliating.