It has been called many things: "judicial murder," "medical terrorism" and "modern-day crucifixion" (Time April 4, 2005). James Dobson of Focus on the Family even described it as a "cold-blooded, cold-hearted extermination" (The New York Times April 1, 2005). However, there is more to the controversy of Terri Schiavo than her death alone.

No matter how you feel about the court's decision regarding Schiavo, Congress' contentious involvement cannot be ignored.

Congress' decision to intervene over the court's decision shows the disintegration of the separation of powers set up in the United States government and the extremism that has formed from political parties becoming the voice for their religious constituencies.

The court's decision over Schiavo isn't a new and recent occurrence; the court battles have been going on since 1990, when Schiavo's husband Michael was first appointed her guardian. After a falling out with Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, in 1993, several court battles ensued over Terri's life beginning in 1998 when Michael first petitioned to have her feeding tube removed.

This led to a series of court decisions: In 2000 Judge George Greer ruled that Schiavo would not want to live and ordered her feeding tube removed, but the action was stayed to allow the Schindlers to appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly denied the Schindler's appeal to bring the case to federal courts. Florida passed legislation known as "Terri's Law" to allow the governor to overrule the court's decision and have Schiavo's tube reinserted in 2003, but that law was later ruled unconstitutional.

The court's earlier persistence in keeping the Schiavo case out of federal courts was based on an understanding of the separation of judicial and legislative powers as defined in the Constitution and the belief that the federal government should not encroach on state and individual rights.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, stated that she believed "very strongly that the federal government should not be imposing its will in situations better left to individuals, families and the states" (New York Times).

As citizens of the United States, we are granted freedoms under the Constitution, freedoms that include the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These freedoms are granted to us, and it is up to us to choose whether to take them or not. If we decide that we don't want to continue our life because we are in a persistent vegetative state or have to rely on medical technology to survive, than we have a right to that decision.

Was Terri happy? Did she want to live? Did her guardian really know what she wanted? These questions will never be answered. It may be cloudy, but despite the uncertainty surrounding the complexity of the Schiavo case, the issue at heart remains centered on individual rights and the separation of powers.

According to polls in Time, 75 percent said it was not right for Congress to intervene. Furthermore, 65 percent thought that Congress and the President's actions had more to do with politics than values, which may have had been influenced by the president's suspiciously visible role in when he cut short his Easter rest at the ranch for the first time to fly to Congress to sign a bill he could have approved from home.

Representative Christopher Shays, one of the only five House Republicans to vote against the so-called "Terri Bill," declared that "this Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy" (Time).

By acting as the representative for Christianity, President Bush and his followers in Congress have created a schism in U.S. politics that has led to the polarizing of political parties. Moderates have become increasingly rare as the debate over religion and politics gets more and more heated over symbolic issues such as Schiavo.

Schiavo has become the launch pad for the battle over abortion, stem cell research, the right-to-die movement, and judicial activism, not to mention the role religion should play in politics.

Representative Tom DeLay commented that indeed the issue is not just Schiavo, but that it is just one of many "attacks against the conservative movement" (Time). This warlike mentality is dividing the country.

Also consider that while, from one perspective, the country appears fiercely divided, on he other hand it took cooperation from several groups, which disagree on several key issues but somehow managed to agree on the rights of the disabled, to bring Schiavo's case into Congress (New York Times). The possibility of cooperation between lobbying groups that can find common grounds can provide staggering political power in issues in the future.

And it is just the beginning. As the time nears to appoint new Supreme Court judges and as the religious right grows more powerful and the political system continues to divide, we will find more and more controversial and ground breaking events such as Terri Schiavo arise. What will come next?