Larry Ribstein, University of Illinois College of Law:

"Schiavo is about abortion, at least that much is obvious. Terri Schiavo is a "fetus" tethered by life-giving machines rather than to her mother. There's speculation about whether she shows signs of life. Portraying the "fetus" as an adult lying on a bed outside of the womb makes the right to life more salient and politically persuasive.

I have been arguing for resolution of such morally contentious issues at the state rather than federal level, focusing on same sex marriage, e.g., here, and in the Marriage archive of this blog. In that case, the parties have the opportunity to choose, and the argument for intervention rests on the propriety of forcing others in the community to recognize this choice.

Of course Terri Schiavo has no such choice, and it is at least debatable to let others make it for her. Obviously this isn't about the "right to die," but about the "right to kill."

Others who come to Terri's position might make the choice in a living will before they're disabled. This opportunity for advance choice distinguishes the right to die from both abortion and Terri Schiavo. The states might offer a variety of living will options, making this situation at least somewhat comparable to the same sex marriage debate.

But for now, the "right to kill" is a battle in the abortion war, and it has dragged Congress and the right to die along with it. Living wills may be a victim of this political struggle, as this post suggests. If so, they would be another casualty of the battle that began with the Supreme Court's attempt to foreclose the national debate 30 years ago." [March 20, 2005; Ideoblog has the post]