Was that article in the Opinions section? If it wasn't, it should have been. Quite biased, IMO. They may as well have made the headline exactly what Barbara's thread topic was.
That said...OK, I can see the differences in the cases from his (general "his") perspective. A respirator and dialysis seems to be more extreme measures to sustaining life than food and water even by artificial means.
But I also have to agree that there is a lot of hypocracy about this entire case in politics. GOP wanting to basically destroy the spouse as the guardian in this case because they don't like what he says, and wanting to take it to federal judges...and beyond all of THAT, basically asking for those judges to rule again the law and be "activist judges" to get what they want. On the other hand, the Dems want to keep it away from the judges that they have relied on, per se, to change the marriage laws in various states. (You all know I'm for equality of marriage rights by law to everyone, straight or gay doesn't matter.) And all of this basically because of their respective positions on something that has nothing at all to do with Terri - abortion. Which has never made sense to me in the first place! GOP are usually for individual rights....except for that one instance. But the Dems usually want to have the government involved in people's lives...except for that, then they should be able to choose.
I don't get it. I don't get it at all. (Yes, I know it's all about the Religious Right and all that rot, but it isn't logical for either side!!)