Sometimes the logic and ethics of the political arena can be so fucking backward that you can miss the forest for the trees. Witness the recent Terri Schiavo case; we witnessed a Republican tour de force rally around a "culture of life."
Which is interesting because in that case we had a woman in a persistent and non-recoverable vegitative state for 15 years. Terri voiced her desire to not be kept alive in such a situation by three individuals the courts -- and a total of 9 judges -- found to be relible.
So what about Angel Raich, a woman who is still alive? She writes:
I suffer from several conditions that cause severe, chronic pain, including fibromyalgia, endometriosis, scoliosis, uterine fibroid tumors and rotator cuff syndrome. I am also battling an inoperable brain tumor, seizures, and life-threatening wasting syndrome, accompanied by near-constant nausea, as well as several other diseases.
Unfortunately, she is violently allergic to every drug that her doctors can give her. Without medical marijuana, she'll die. Which makes you wonder why she has to sue Ashcroft -- a Bush appointee, just to be clear -- in order to live.
In 2003, the courts ruled that it is illegal for the federal government to interfere with the people and state of California who have voiced their desire that medical marijuana should be legal. Having lost, the government has pursued this to the Supreme Court in order to overturn this judgement and, let's be honest, kill Mrs. Raich in the process.
Where is Bush and his sanctity of human life photo opportunity? Where is DeLay's moral outrage when the goverment goes out of its way to kill a woman who wants to live. Republicans are silent because they can only side with a "culture of life" by admitting that cannabis has some redeeming value. This would be in direct opposition to their classification of cannabis as having no medicinal value which is the very foundation of their anti-drug position.
So in order to maintain this lie, they are willing to kill Angel Raich.
As a side note, I hate to come across as a plaigarist here. I swear, I came to this conclusion while sitting around doing jack and shit at work but Angel makes a very similar observation on her website which I didn't find until I started this post:
John Ashcroft you claim to have a deeply-held moral belief in the sanctity of human life. Yet, your recent actions have caused many to wonder, whose "life" you are "pro"? Why are you not "pro" my life? Does my life not mean anything? I am a law biding citizen who is not hurting anyone. The hardest part is watching the suffering in my children’s eyes as they watched me suffer, with no end in sight. I have to do what is in the best interest of my children, and what is best for them is to have me alive.
So be not decieved. These people are interested in life only when it suits them. In the vast majority of cases it is spectacularly expendible.