Kim du Toit, a man I both respect and sometimes strongly disagree with has finally posted his opinion on the case of Terri Schiavo. His opinion is that Terri is already brain dead and should be “allowed to die.” (Food and water is not medical intervention. If you think it is, try claiming your grocery bill as medical expenses on your next tax return!) Even more importantly, he thinks it’s a constitutional crisis and that Congress is shredding the Constitution to protect Terri.

I agree that it is a constitutional crisis, but I think he is dead wrong on everything else.

Persistent Vegetative State

First, let’s start with one basic fact. Judge Greer has ruled that Terri Schiavo is in a Persistent Vegetative State from which she will not recover. In other words, she is brain dead and nature must be allowed to take its course. That ruling is the centerpiece of the firestorm raging all over the internet and in the comments in response to Kim’s piece.

So what is a Persistent Vegetative State? When I started researching the definition, most of what I found was appallingly vague. It almost seemed like Jakie (say the J like a “ch”) and Amos were taking a break in the back 40 one day discussing PVS. “Vell, it’s almost lak a coma, but not quat, don’cha know. Dare eyes sorta open but dey don’ see nothin’.” “Yeah, da laghts iz on but no one’s home, okay?” The most concise definition I found was from this page from the Medical College of Wisconsin.

A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.

It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.

In short, a person is not in PVS if they speak or try to speak, swallow, or otherwise respond to their environment beyond simple reflex. There is significant evidence that Terri is actually in fact, not brain dead and that the PVS ruling is not factually correct, including video, evidence from a neurologist who spent 14 hours examining her over a two week period (note: the doctors who claim PVS spent a total of 45 minutes with her, including one who promotes killing Alzheimer’s patients), and sworn affadavits from numerous nurses and aids. Not only is Terri able to interact with her environment, she is also capable of limited speech.

That this single central question is so heavily debated, even among experts, clearly shows that we cannot assume that the issue is settled enough to irreversibly end someone’s life. In fact, as I agrue below, the government (including the federal government) has a duty to err on the side of preserving life.

The Constitutional Side

Why do we even bother with the problems caused by governments? The Declaration of Independence gives us the answer:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Kim (and others) have complained that the government has no right to step in here because it interferes in a marriage. But it doesn’t take a genius to realize that spouses often do violate each others’ most basic human rights. That’s why we have domestic violence laws. It’s also obvious that we don’t look the other way when a spouse commits murder. In fact, I think that it’s a given that whenever there is a murder, the spouse is automatically at the top of the suspect list until they are cleared.

Marriage is not a carte blanche for one spouse to do anything they want to another. In fact, The Mrs. (who has also weighed in in the comments) has often written with great eloquence on the problems of domestic violence and the need for women to escape the abusive relationship. (BTW, I’ve agreed with those articles wholeheartedly.) While society recognizes that a marriage relationship is crucial and therefore allows more benefit of the doubt when one spouse appears to be mistreating the other, such leeway is not absolute.

As the Declaration points out, the only reason for the existence of the government — as dangerous as it can become — is to protect the rights of its citizens. In situations where the life of a spouse is being threatened, not only does the government have the right to step in, it has a duty to step in. If the government has no such duty, then we should abolish it immediately and save ourselves a lot of trouble.

Has Michael Schiavo abused Terri? Did he even try to kill her? There have been allegations that he abused her and that there are xrays showing the abuse, that he stalked her, and that he stalked another girlfriend he had after Terri’s injury. There have been reports that he denied her even the most basic of care (refusing to allow brushing her teeth and antibiotics to treat an infection). There have been allegations that she was injected with insulin in an attempt to kill her. It’s obvious that he has not stayed true to his marriage vows in spite of his sworn testimony supporting those vows during the malpractice suit. He has also broken the laws of Florida which require him to make sure Terri gets therapy.

It also seems that Michael may not be motivated solely by the money. Offers of millions of dollars if he just divorces her and returns her care to her parents and offers of absolution from the parents have all been ignored. It is clear that Michael wants her to die. Is it because he is truly certain that Terri wants to die? Or is it possible that he was the cause of Terri’s injury and he’s terrified that she will recover and get him put away for attempted murder? I don’t know for certain which is the case. We do not condemn criminals to death if there is reasonable doubt, why condemn the innocent to death when there is such doubt?

Even if there is no fire there is definitely plenty of smoke. No legitimate fireman would fail to investigate smoke which could indicate a fire. Neither should a legitimate government shirk its duty to investigate questionable circumstances. To my knowledge, no such investigation has taken place. As long as such doubt remains, the government has a duty to protect the life of its only material witness about whether or not Michael may have abused her: Terri Shiavo.

Activist Judges

Here is where I’m really surprised about Kim’s post because he misses the true constitutional crisis. The problem is not the intervention of the federal government, it’s the complete lack of accountability of judges which is the real crisis.

Both the legislature and the executive branches of the Florida state government have opposed the rulings of Judge Greer. Yet, his will has prevailed so far. Why? Because judges have been assumed to have final authority. In what was supposed to be a government system of checks and balances, there is no check or balance on the judge, not even the law. (Here is a petition of impeachment listing 38 specific charges of either violating or failing to uphold very specific laws. Update: More on broken laws.)

Kim himself has railed time and again against activist judges violating the Constitution, violating laws, and creating their own laws in violation of the Constitutional separation of powers. The principle behind those rants is sound. Judges are empowered only to judge whether or not a law was broken and set the penalties when they are. That principle must be held even when a judge’s ruling supports a personal preference.

When judges ignore the laws they are sworn to upheld, they must be held accountable and punished for their actions. The appropriate avenue for such punishment is impeachment. It is the responsibility of the legislature to impeach a judge when he violates duly established laws. While such a move should never be taken lightly, to fail to do so produces tyranny — a tyranny of the men in the black robes who answer to no one, not even the supreme laws of this country. Judges who are not held to the simple and practical standards of obeying the laws and the separation of powers eventually become a law unto themselves, trampling our system of government and the rights of everyone under their power. When that happens, we are forced to turn once again to the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I certainly do not want to engage in such a duty. And for all his cussing and spitting on the topic, I sincerely doubt Kim is any more anxious to engage in a shooting war than I am. Yet by choosing the side of the activist judge in this case — rather than smacking him down as Kim usually does — I’m afraid Kim is helping to push us closer to just such a convulsion.

Vox Apologia II: Digital Salt

RazorsKiss has posted the results of the second Vox Apologia on the subject of “Digital Salt”. I was going to post a list of personal favorites, but they’re all so good that I couldn’t decide on just a few. Just go read them all.

Top Ten Reasons to Read Christian History

The archives of Christianity Today contain this excellent article on why it is critical for everyone to understand not just history, but also the Christian aspects of history.

Senator Rick Santorum on Evolution

Pennsylvania’s junior Senator, Rick Santorum, has written a very interesting article on the teaching of evolution in schools.

Charles Darwin wrote about his theory of evolution at a time when evidence was weak. In recent years, evidence of the complex circuits, miniature machines, sophisticated feedback loops, and digital information inside the cell has enabled scientists to poke holes in the principle evidence used to support evolution and therefore, more and more respected biologists are entering the debate as to the plausibility of evolution.

For these reasons, Darwin’s theory of evolution should not be taught as absolute fact in the science classroom. Instead, it should be taught as the leading and dominant scientific theory explaining the origin of species, but also as a theory subject to significant limitations, failed predictions and important criticisms.

(HT to The Black Kettle for the reference.)

More on Specter’s Schenanigans

According to this article, Senator Rick Santorum is now facing some fallout due to his support of Senator Spector instead of Representative Toomey in the Pennsylvania primaries. Now that Specter is once again showing his true (liberal) colors, conservatives are dissatisfied with Santorum’s support for a man who already had history of undermining conservative agendas and pushing liberal and statist agendas.

Personally, I’m not ready to throw Santorum out on his ear just over one mistake, even a whopper as big as this one. As long as he toes the line, he will still be better than any other candidates we are likely to see.

(HT to Hard Starbord for the link.)

One of the most divisive issues in politics today is the question of whether or not we were justified in going to war against Iraq. Opinions on the subject range from “we should go to war anytime another country even looks at us crosseyed” to “there is never a good reason to fight a war.” Both extremes are unbiblical. Consider what Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes:

There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven —

A time to give birth, and a time to die;
A time to plant, and a time to uproot what is planted.
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to tear down, and a time to build up.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, and a time to dance.
A time to throw stones, and a time to gather stones;
A time to embrace, and a time to shun embracing.
A time to search, and a time to give up as lost;
A time to keep, and a time to throw away.
A time to tear apart, and a time to sew together;
A time to be silent, and a time to speak.
A time to love, and a time to hate;
A time for war, and a time for peace.

(Eccl. 3:1-8, NASB)

So how do we identify when it is an appropriate time for peace and when war is call for? Jon Trainer at personal trainer has written an excellent article on the subject of Just War Theory.

Just War Theory (JWT) is a moderating position between these two extremes.  As a doctrine of war it has been developed over hundreds of years. Great Christian thinkers like Ambrose, Augustine, and Aquinas have influenced its formation. The purpose of JWT is to judge the appropriateness of going to war (just ad bellum), and to govern the conduct of forces in war (just in bellum). The first five of the following seven principles define the criteria for going to war, while the last two limit how such a war should be fought.

The Smallest Minority is following a story about a school in Newton, Massachussetts which has been experiencing a precipitous decline in math scores in standardized testing since 2001. The school administrators claim to be mystified about why this is happening. He refers to this article which points out:

Between 1999 and 2001, under the direction of Superintendent Young and Assistant Superintendent Wyatt, the math curriculum was redesigned to emphasize “Newton’s commitment to active anti-racist education” for the elementary and middle schools. This meant that no longer were division, multiplication, fractions and decimals the first priority for teaching math. For that matter, the teaching of math was no longer the first priority for math teachers, as indicated by the new curriculum guidelines, called benchmarks, which function as the primary instructional guide for teaching math in the Newton Public Schools.

In 2001 Mr. Young, Mrs. Wyatt and an assortment of other well-paid school administrators, defined the new number-one priority for teaching mathematics, as documented in the curriculum benchmarks, “Respect for Human Differences - students will live out the system wide core of ‘Respect for Human Differences’ by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors.” It continues, “Students will: Consistently analyze their experiences and the curriculum for bias and discrimination; Take effective anti-bias action when bias or discrimination is identified; Work with people of different backgrounds and tell how the experience affected them; Demonstrate how their membership in different groups has advantages and disadvantages that affect how they see the world and the way they are perceived by others…” It goes on and on.

These are the most important priorities that the school department has determined for teaching math from grade one through eight, as documented in the Newton Public Schools Benchmarks.

Nowhere among the first priorities for the math curriculum guidelines is the actual teaching of math. That’s a distant second. To Superintendent Young and his School Committee, mathematical problem-solving is of secondary importance to anti-racist/anti-bias math.

If teaching mathematics is not the purpose of a mathematics class, then it should be blindingly obvious that the students won’t be learning mathematics! Apparently, the administrators have been closing their eyes to truth and logic — both of which were created by God — for so long that they have become blind to even the most basic of truths. The first chapter of Romans describes what happens when people reject God, especially in these two sections:

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,”

(Rom. 1:21-22, NASB)

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie,

(Rom. 1:25a, NASB)

The subtitle of the article on The Smallest Minority is, “May I Beat Them With a ClueBat™?” As Spock would say, “Indeed.”

During the primaries in Pennsylvania, I posted a plea in this thread begging conservatives to ignore party politics and vote for Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter:

This particular race is producing incredibly strange results. Somehow Specter has managed to gain endorsements from every “official” Republican representative, in spite of the fact that he frequently votes against the interests of those very representatives. For example:

Specter is solidly pro-abortion. Yet the former county commissioner of Lancaster County, Jim Huber, recorded a radio spot supporting Specter; in spite of the fact that he sits on the board of a local pro-life organization.

It has been mentioned over and over again on this board that Supreme Court justices will be the big battleground over the next several years. If Specter is reelected, he will become the chairman of the Justice committee in charge of deciding who the Senate will even get to vote on. Since Specter lead the opposition against Robert Bork and voted in favor of Bill Clinton during his impeachment, it seems likely that Specter will oppose any Constitutionally sound judges who may be nominated by Bush; yet Bush is endorsing him anyway.

Yesterday I talked with a friend with close ties to a representative in Harrisburg. The representative’s opinion is that Rick Santorum would prefer to endorse Pat Toomey (Pat would almost certainly agree with Rick Santorum on almost every vote.) but that there is some reason why he is forced to endorse Specter.

This whole issue appears to be party politics of the worst sort. The man who is at best lukewarm to the positions espoused by the party—and is often an obstacle to those positions—is being supported wholeheartedly by that party for no apparent reason beyond the fact that he’s the incumbent and that he has power. Meanwhile, his opponent is also an incumbent, just in a different house of Congress, he has consistently held the party line, yet he is being given the cold shoulder by the same party he wholeheartedly supports.

Here’s a few things Specter has done:

- He voted against adding an AWB renewal to the Protection of Commerce Act; a good thing.

- He voted for the original AWB; a very bad (and illegal) thing.

- He was a member of the Warren Commission which investigated the JFK assassination and gave us the laughable “Magic Bullet” theory.

- He voted for the so called “Incumbent Protection Act.”

- Citizens Against Government Waste has named Specter Porker of the Year for 2003.

If you support our Constition at all—including the 2nd Amendment—and can vote in the Republican primary, please go out and vote for Pat Toomey. Our Constitutional Republic cannot survive many more years of men like Arlan Specter.

After Specter narrowly squeaked out a win in the primary due to those endorsements, I posted this message:

This is what you get when you vote for the guy who “can” win, not the guy who should win. We now have no chance of getting someone in the Senate who will confirm judges who obey the Constitution.

If Republican leaders had actually endorsed the candidate who most closely matched the party’s platforms instead of basing their endorsements on the cult of personality or seniority or power or whatever the heck it was, the most likely outcome would have been a complete landslide in favor of constitutional principles. Today our country has taken another major injury because Republican leaders put politics before principles. I am completely disgusted.

The general principle is that placing party politics above principles always produces damage. In his Farewell Address, George Washington wrote:

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

“However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

As brilliant as he was, Washington’s writing style was incredibly dense. If you didn’t understand what he wrote the first time, go back and keep reading it until it makes sense.

And for those who don’t have that much patience, here’s an executive summary: “Party politics are incredibly dangerous because they place control of who can be elected into the hands of a few men who are leading the parties, undermining the ability of The People to vote for the best person for the job.”

(Note: These last two paragraphs and the quote from George Washington were originally posted here. Warning, that commentary thread contains vulgarity.)

To add to the executive summary; Washington points out that putting men into power in such a corrupt fasion inevitably leads to the destruction of the system of government which allows it to happen.

I really hate to say this, but I was right. (I would really have preferred to be proven wrong.)