E.J. Dionne, one of the more ignorant columnists in the United States, hits us up again today. Dionne, amazingly, concedes very early that some of the right-to-lifers talking about the Schiavo case had grounds to stand on:

Nothing in the autopsy report prevents those who opposed removing Schiavo's feeding tube from continuing to insist they were right. It's legitimate and honorable to argue on philosophical grounds that every medical decision in a tragic circumstance such as Schiavo's should be made on the side of keeping the sick person alive.

But then the attack begins:

"As I understand it," Frist said on the Senate floor, "Terri's husband will not divorce Terri and will not allow her parents to take care of her. Terri's husband, who I have not met, does have a girlfriend he lives with and they have children of their own." No accusation here, just a brisk walk through innuendo city.

Well, is it not true? Isn't there a HUGE conflict of interest in this case that raises all kinds of flags, from bright orange to purple?

Right-to-life politicians have done terrible damage to a serious cause. They claimed to know what they did not, and could not, know. They were willing to imply, without proof, terrible things about a husband who was getting in their way. Instead of making the hard and morally challenging case for keeping Terri Schiavo on life support, they spun an emotional narrative that they thought would play well on cable TV and talk radio.

Isn't that exactly what the other side is doing. How could they possibly know that she was brain dead and that she wouldn't recover? They were willing to imply, without proof, that Terri was in a state so as to conveniently kill her off. And what is this "emotional narrative" he speaks of. A woman's life was at stake here. The narrative was emotional far before any Senator or misguided columnist spoke out.

No, we should not move on. We should remember that some politicians will say whatever is necessary to advance their immediate purposes. Apologies, anyone?

Well, that's true and there's no better case study than that of the Democratic Party. I seem to recall a Senator running from President who said he "morally opposes" abortion but that he couldn't impose his belief on others. Yet, one can be sure that he would have taken my tax dollars to use in whatever way he and his party saw fit. If that isn't imposition, I don't know what is. If that isn't someone saying whatever is necessary to advance their immediate purposes, I don't know what is. Terri Schiavo is dead. Apologies, anyone?