Would this issue be brought up if this woman was black?

I don't think it would be as most of the republicans are racists, but also because of other reasons. Would if be brought up if she were of lower income? I don't think so, because most republicans are bigots and hypocrits. Republicans are making themselves look really bad right now.

view point of this woman JUST AS LONG AS THE REPUGS COULD SPIN IT THEIR WAY.

All that matters is the fact that they can get air time.

The only time it would not matter is if her family had not made this a media circus for the past 15 years.

George W. Bush, while governor of Texas, signed a law allowing hospitals to terminate life-support for incapacitated patients, even against the wishes of the family. Especially if the patient cannot pay.

Here's the Houston Chronicle's story referencing the state law signed by Bush:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3073295

Hospitals can end life support
Decision hinges on patient's ability to pay, prognosis

and another recent Chronicle story regarding the termination of life support of an infant against the mother's wishes:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3087387

Baby dies after hospital removes breathing tube
Case is the first in which a judge allowed a hospital to discontinue care

(This weekend Tom DeLay gave a press conference stating that (1) patients in this condition deserve due process and (2) doctors can be wrong about a prognosis ). Where was Tom DeLay? This story was in the news for several weeks - in his own district.
____________________________

And here's a copy of the state statute:

Texas Health & Safety Code - Chapter 166

  § 166.046.  PROCEDURE IF NOT EFFECTUATING A DIRECTIVE OR
TREATMENT DECISION.  (a)  If an attending physician refuses to
honor a patient's advance directive or a health care or treatment
decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician's refusal
shall be reviewed by an ethics<0> or medical committee.  The attending
physician may not be a member of that committee.  The patient shall
be given life<0>-sustaining treatment during the review.
        (b)  The patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the individual who has made the decision
regarding the directive or treatment decision:
                (1)  may be given a written description of the ethics<0> or
medical committee review process and any other policies and
procedures related to this section adopted by the health care
facility;
                (2)  shall be informed of the committee review process
not less than 48 hours before the meeting called to discuss the
patient's directive, unless the time period is waived by mutual
agreement;
                (3)  at the time of being so informed, shall be
provided:                  
                        (A)  a copy of the appropriate statement set forth
in Section 166.052;  and
                        (B)  a copy of the registry list of health care
providers and referral groups that have volunteered their readiness
to consider accepting transfer or to assist in locating a provider
willing to accept transfer that is posted on the website maintained
by the Texas Health Care Information Council under Section 166.053;  
and
                (4)  is entitled to:                                                          
                        (A)  attend the meeting;  and                                                
                        (B)  receive a written explanation of the decision
reached during the review process.
        (c)  The written explanation required by Subsection
(b)(2)(B) must be included in the patient's medical record.
        (d)  If the attending physician, the patient, or the person
responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does
not agree with the decision reached during the review process under
Subsection (b), the physician shall make a reasonable effort to
transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with
the directive.  If the patient is a patient in a health care
facility, the facility's personnel shall assist the physician in
arranging the patient's transfer to:
                (1)  another physician;                                                      
                (2)  an alternative care setting within that facility;  
or                  
                (3)  another facility.                                                        
        (e)  If the patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the patient is requesting life<0>-sustaining
treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review
process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall
be given available life<0>-sustaining treatment pending transfer
under Subsection (d).  The patient is responsible for any costs
incurred in transferring the patient to another facility.  The
physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide
life<0>-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written
decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient
or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the
patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).
        (e-1)  If during a previous admission to a facility a
patient's attending physician and the review process under
Subsection (b) have determined that life<0>-sustaining treatment is
inappropriate, and the patient is readmitted to the same facility
within six months from the date of the decision reached during the
review process conducted upon the previous admission, Subsections
(b) through (e) need not be followed if the patient's attending
physician and a consulting physician who is a member of the ethics<0>
or medical committee of the facility document on the patient's
readmission that the patient's condition either has not improved or
has deteriorated since the review process was conducted.
        (f)  Life<0>-sustaining treatment under this section may not be
entered in the patient's medical record as medically unnecessary
treatment until the time period provided under Subsection (e) has
expired.
        (g)  At the request of the patient or the person responsible
for the health care decisions of the patient, the appropriate
district or county court shall extend the time period provided
under Subsection (e) only if the court finds, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that there is a reasonable expectation that a
physician or health care facility that will honor the patient's
directive will be found if the time extension is granted.
        (h)  This section may not be construed to impose an
obligation on a facility or a home and community support services
agency licensed under Chapter 142 or similar organization that is
beyond the scope of the services or resources of the facility or
agency.  This section does not apply to hospice services provided by
a home and community support services agency licensed under Chapter
142.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 450, § 1.03, eff. Sept. 1,
1999.  Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1228, § 3, 4, eff.
June 20, 2003

This is nothing but a fucking effort by the Radical Right to fool, once again, the Christian right people who they fooled into putting them into power.

Where is the "sanctity of marriage and the family" now ????

taken up the cause...they are racists

Consider they didn't give a shit about that BAY BEE in Delay's back yard whose life support was terminated over the objcection of his mother because his mother couldn't pay for his care. The kid was black and the mother was poor and the right wing couldn't be bothered.

It was even a cute little kid, a real punkin face.

This gal is white and her parents have money. They're so delusional with false hope that they've allied themselves with the worst hypocrite the extreme right has ever produced, Randall Terry. They're so unconcerned with who their daughter was that they're on record as saying they don't care what she wanted (leading me to believe they KNOW), they're going to keep her corpse alive as long as they can.

The fact that an adult white woman was chosen for this fight over a black infant less than a year old speaks volumes about who these people really are and where their priorities lie.

relate to a vegetable spending over a decade with round-the-clock care? Utterly mind-blowing and surreal watching this farce continue to unfold.

they would protect her under the endangered species act

I'd have popped her on week one with a snub nose .38, and I would have been out of prison by now.

she said she would do the same for me then asked if she needed to wait for the flatline....ahhhh true love!!!

I think I might sleep in the truck tonight with the door locked however.

I asked my 88 year old father if he thought he was gonna make it to 100.

"Not if I can still buy a gun."

I think not.

(sarcasm) of course not. How much air time did the 6 month baby get? That's your answer.

My own personal feelings about Terry is to let her parents have her, because her husband just makes me feel uncomfortable. There is something else going on bessides his claim that this wasn't what Terry wanted. It's a shame that it has come to this point.