On Tuesday, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed executive order number 03-201 calling for the reinsertion of a feeding tube to save the life of a woman who has been in a vegetative state since 1990.

For 13 years, Terri Schiavo has shown a complete lack of cognitive ability, aside from being able to “smile at her mother” and follow a balloon around the room with her eyes.

The swift, decisive actions of Florida’s Congress and Gov. Bush would have been warranted if circumstances were different.

For instance, if this battle for life had been waged in a shorter amount of time, then I could understand an overturning of our judicial system, despite the possibility of it being an unconstitutional act. However, this war between Terri’s husband, Michael, and her parents has spanned enough time for a court to make the correct decision.

“Any life-or-death decision should be made only after careful consideration of all related facts and conditions,” Bush said in a statement about his decision.

It is incredibly irresponsible for Gov. Bush to jump into the situation and block a court order that has withstood appeal after appeal. It’s not an easy decision to allow a person to die.

Nevertheless, this situation has been spun by the family members and their supporters. They’ve made the husband look like a villain, even going so far as to accuse him of assaulting her the day she experienced cardiac arrest.

One fact remains: this woman has not demonstrated cognitive ability for a very long time and has not shown any signs of improvement.

The Florida Supreme Court has twice refused to hear the case, and the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected it for review.

When asked about the constitutionality of the law created specifically for Schiavo’s case, Stephen Grimes, former Florida Supreme Court Justice, was reported by Fox News as saying, “It presents a new legal issue I’ve never heard of.”

Is it right for Congress and an executive officer to act as a judiciary?

At the forefront of the debate in Florida’s Senate is Sen. Daniel Webster, adamantly opposing a removal of the feeding tube.

On Tuesday’s edition of Nightline, Ted Koppel asked some tough questions of the senator. Webster replied with stammering incoherency, much akin to sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad’s opening statements in his own court case.

Webster used an analogy to justify his stance. I must say using analogies to prove points is my biggest pet peeve. Any idiot can spout a loosely connected analogy.

The senator chose to compare the situation at hand to a burning house with a person inside. In his analogy, Webster says it would be right to ignore a No Trespassing sign and save the person from a fiery death.

Obviously, it is impossible to disagree with this conclusion. On the other hand, this argument drastically oversimplifies and distorts Schiavo’s case. Terri Schiavo has been brain-dead for 13 years. There has been an ongoing court battle which has resulted consistently in victory for Michael Schiavo.

I hope Sen. Webster enjoys the limelight at the expense of his credibility.

Lots of support for Schiavo’s family has come from pro-lifers and people against euthanasia.

Labeling the act as murderous, these groups protest removing the feeding tube by tugging at the heartstrings of America. They describe the act as barbaric, saying the conscious patient would endure 10 to 14 days of intense agony due to dehydration.

Supporters of Schiavo’s family contend the state would be committing murder.

I offer a different definition. Why can’t this be seen as letting someone die?

No proven sign of cognitive ability has occurred in more than a decade. Responding to auditory input and being able to visually follow a moving object are characteristic of people in vegetative states.

What person would want to be kept alive artificially in this state of being?

I think it’s time for her family to move on. A terrible tragedy occurred years ago, and no present action can change that.

Terri has been dead for years. Let’s put this matter to rest.