If this same scenario was being played out in the kind of case you linked to, Carol, and the courts down in Florida were trying to make sure the life support was switched off on a child to save money, would it be such a black and white issue, and so inescapably right that people should respect that local court decision, and that "states rights" should prevail?

These are two very different kinds of issues, McGrath. In the Texas case, there is a law that very well could be unconstitutional, that allows hospitals to make decisions that should be made by families. That law could be tested, and it could be ruled on by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court determined that the law was unconstitutional (as I think it may be), the law would be struck down.

In the Schiavo case, there are no laws that are being tested for their possibility of being unconstitutional except for the laws that Congress created specifically for Terri Schiavo, and that don't apply to anyone else. And it is my opinion that those laws are unconstitutional, and should be struck down because they violate the "equal protection under the law" part of the Constitution.

I think, if you are going to give your input into this subject, you really need to become much more informed about our legal and political processes than you are, and also become much more informed about the Schiavo case than you currently are. Because you are arguing points that really do not pertain to any of the factors that are relevant in this case.