Perhaps I've missed this somewhere:

Did Terri ever, by clear and convincing evidence, by preponderance of the evidence, or even by the slightest notion in hell, ever evince the slightest desire to die by a lingering, slow and painful death such as starvation and dehydration?

As I've read elsewhere, if we conclude that she did show that she wanted to die under such circumstances, and we absolutely, positively, undeniably, and most generously, want to effectuate her desires, why don't we just put her to sleep, like the kindness we give a mutt in a dog pound?

What? We can't do that? Why not? Because we are not allowed to kill her? And given her current inability to feed and water herself, are we, as a nation, so collectively possessed of a single digit IQ that we do not understand the consequences of denying her food and water?

Kill her painlessly like we do unlucky convicts on Death Row. But if not, turn her over to those relatives who love her. Concern yourself not further with he.

By voting against the bill, Congressman Kennedy did not "in effect vot[e] to deny Ms. Schiavo 'food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.'" Rather, a vote against the bill was a vote against Congress infringing on Ms. Schiavo's right to die. This was not a right to life issue; it was a right to die issue. The Florida courts have determined that it was Ms. Schiavo's wish not to live under her current circumstances. As today's federal court decision shows, the state of the law, as established by the Supreme Court, required the removal of the feeding tube.

Balderdash.

The only effect relevant to Terri of your Congresscritter's vote would have been to reduce to zero any chance of her continuing to live.

Again, Terri never made a choice to die by dehydration and hunger.