Well, on the tiny bright side, at least now I'm getting all righteously indigant about something that calls for some righteous indignation, rather than silly sibling crap. Atrios pulls the key quotes, originally from here, but let's start with Tom DeLay's quote, "Mrs. Schiavo's life is not slipping away - it is being violently wrenched from her body in an act of medical terrorism." Sliding right over the nauseating use of terrorism in this context, let's jump to here, where we learn about a six month old boy who's life support was pulled, against his mother's wishes, because in Texas it's ok to refuse support of a terminal patient if neither the family nor insurance can afford to pay the bill. Or the 68-year-old (same link) who's life support is currently in jeopardy under the same Texas law. Interestingly, as Kleiman wisely points out, there are two differences between these cases and the Schiavo case:

1. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state, but isn't terminal. The two Texas patients were terminal but not vegetative. It seems to me that the distinction between a patient who is aware and a patient who isn't aware is the morally relevant one, while the disctinction between a death that is sure to occur soon and a death that is sure to occur eventually is morally irrelevant. (Try pleading as a defense to a murder charge that the victim had a terminal ailment.) (even more disturbing, the former is a morally relevant distinction while the latter is an economically relevant one - mp)

2. Terry Schiavo's husband has decided that she would have wanted to die, and the courts have upheld his view against the view of her parents. The mother of Sun Hudson wanted her child to live, and the wife and children of Spiro Nikolouzos want him to live. So while the Schiavo case is an intra-family dispute, the two Texas cases pit the families against health-care institutions motivated at least in part by financial considerations.

So my question (and plenty of others wonder this as well) - where's the outrage about all the other cases? Oh, I'm sorry, is Schiavo merely conventient? How repulsive can these people be? (for those who don't follow the links, here's the post from atrios)

By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.

Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schivos because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.

And those of us who read liberal blogs also know that this grandstanding by the congress is a purely political move designed to appease the religious right and that the legal maneuverings being employed would be anathema to any true small government conservative.

Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is "stepping in to save Terry Schiavo" mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain.