The disabled. Liberals have, to their great credit, been defenders of the disabled. They passed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, a sweeping federal law to prevent the disabled from, for instance, being denied access to movie theaters ? a minor question, surely, compared with being denied sustenance. A principled Democrat in this regard is Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa), an advocate for the disabled who supports taking ?every precaution? in the Schiavo case.
Violence against women. In the early 1990s, Democrats championed legislation to create federal penalties for gender-related violence. In other words, every time some abusive husband slaps his wife, it is a federal matter. But when a husband ? with motivations questioned by his wife?s family ? wants to starve his wife, suddenly some Democrats become George Wallace-like opponents of federal power.
The death penalty. Whenever life-related issues arise, liberals ask: How can conservatives favor preserving life when they support executing people? There?s an answer for that (for another day), but the more acute question is for the other side: How can you oppose death sentences for killers, but support one, in effect, for Schiavo, whose only crime is not being capable of feeding herself? Of course, it?s possible to oppose the Schiavo bill on principled procedural grounds, maintaining that it is not the business of Congress or the federal courts. But one suspects that as soon as they are considering anything other than the fate of poor Terri Schiavo, liberals will lose their newfound suspicion of federal action.