Yesterday I posted an angry entry about Michael Schiavo's denial of Easter communion to his wife. Shortly after I posted, it seems, Terri was, in fact, given communion and last rites.

I'm glad for that, but the case still galls me. The blogosphere is full of passionate talk about this topic now, and I've steered clear of it because, quite frankly, I don't have anything new to say that hasn't already been said.

But, I will pass on these three items about the Schiavo case from Rush Limbaugh, today... in case you don't listen to him on the radio. These are the points Rush made, but their related by me in my own terms:

1) Barney Frank took some calls on C-Span this morning, and a caller asked him if he'd find it acceptable to execute a mass murderer, such as Charles Mansion, by starving him to death. Of course, Frank said that it wouldn't be acceptable to do that. It is acceptable to starve a handicapped woman to death, but it would be cruel to do that to a murderer. (I can't help but wonder if people like Frank have any trouble sleeping at night. Does their hypocrisy keep them awake?)

2) Many of those who approve of Terri Schiavo's murder feel sure that, by starving her to death, the powers that be are granting her a "euphoric, painless" death. Euphoric? Painless? Alright, then why the hell was she hooked up to morphine today? I was under the impression that morphine was used to ease intense physical pain. But what the hell do I know, I'm no doctor.

3) The court order that removed Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is, in fact, an order of execution and not an order to stop keeping her alive by artificial means. If it weren't, it would not have provided that she is not to be given nourishment by mouth, whether she can receive it orally or not. By banning her from receiving food and water by mouth, the court order insures that she will die, regardless of her ability (or lack thereof) to eat or drink. It is not a matter of removing artificial life support. It is a matter of insuring that a person be murdered by way of starvation regardless of how they might ingest food and drink. Don't flatter yourselves, "enlightened" liberals and Christian-haters, with the notion that you support a natural death, here. Denying a severely injured woman food is not natural.

If Limbaugh's ideas, as I've tried to represent them, aren't eloquent, then that is my fault and not Rush's. As usual, he did a fine job of making his points. I hope I've done him justice by trying to pass some of this on.