Um, so, it seems pretty much blindingly obvious that a woman who is badly brain-damaged but not entirely vegetative, and has a family that's more than willing to take care of her more or less indefinitely, shouldn't be starved to death because her husband (who incidentally wants to get remarried) claims without any documentation or proof that she would want it that
way.

Right? Nope.

PS - This is one of those cases that doubtless gets Thomas Frank's goat. (Look at all these silly working and middle class conservatives getting worked up about a pointless cultural issue!) But until the Democratic Party understands why an issue like this -- you know, life and death and all that jazz -- matters more to a lot of people than, say, defeating tort reform, they'll be pitching their tents in the political wilderness.