[Abcdxxxx]

He can divorce her if he wants, and make his current family legal if that interests him. He wouldn't even lose legal control over Schiavo's care, and could still be as involved as he is now, should he chose to be. That's typically the behavior of someone who really wants to move on with their life.

Hospice is a care oganization, it's not a specific ward of a hospital for terminal patients. They offer assisted care to families, and provide doctors that adhere to their philosphy, much of it religious based, and much of it about easing "suffering". They will even provide home care, narcotic drugs, and pain killers, clean the homes of families, cook meals not just for the patient, but the families themselves... they also get involved negotiating a patients rights with medical staff, and offer second opinions, and alternative nursing along the lines of their own philosophy. You don't have to be terminal to receive hospice assistance, and their definition of terminal is very broad.

About Federal judges.... I just don't think we should allow them to be end all to rulings involving personal ethics hot bed issues. I don't perceive this as a right to die issue, but most do, and that brings a bias.

It turns out the husband actually has a Conservatership, which is a an extreme version of having power of attorney. It's a court appointed duty, and he must report to the courts regarding her well being, and financials. This means the Schiavo family aren't just discrediting their Son in Law, their discrediting the ability of the Court who appointed him. In that case, a Federal judge ruling on this issue has reason to show bias against the family. (Edit. I might be mistaken about the converatorship part)