Such Unbelievable Hypocrisy

I wrote this last week but was so disgusted by ongoing events that I didn't want to write any more. Since I already finished it, though, I figured I might as well post it.

Perhaps the thing I despise most about this administration is its unending hypocrisy.

The Terri Schiavo case brings up all sorts of issues: life, liberty, ethics, separation of powers, the role of the courts, the role of Congress, the role of physicians, medical technology, end-of-life care, medical decision-making, the role of government in health, etc. The list could fill a couple pages, I'm sure.

On Monday, the White House released the following statement by the President:

Today, I signed into law a bill that will allow Federal courts to hear a claim by or on behalf of Terri Schiavo for violation of her rights relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. This presumption is especially critical for those like Terri Schiavo who live at the mercy of others. I appreciate the bipartisan action by the Members of Congress to pass this bill. I will continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans, including those with disabilities.

US Newswire reported similar a statement from Tom Delay:

Tonight we have given Terri Schiavo all we could: a chance to live," DeLay said. "After four days of words, the best of them uttered in prayer, Congress has acted, and a life may have been saved. Democrats and Republicans, congressmen and senators all deserve respect and gratitude for their commitment to giving Mrs. Schiavo the chance we all deserve."

Hmmm. Let's extract some quotations from these statements....

• Our society should "have a presumption in favor of life" for people who "live at the mercy of others,” including “those with disabilities.”
  
• Pres. Bush wishes to support those who are "defending life for all Americans."
  
• The congressional action for Mrs. Schiavo may have "saved a life."
  
• Tom Delay belives that "we all deserve...the chance to live."

..and identify some core principles. For example, society and government should:

• Favor/defend/protect life.
  
• Favor/defend/protect the lives of individuals who are disabled or who are otherwise unable to provide for themselves.

Now, let's look at some recent policy decisions by the Bush administration:

• Proposed cutting $15 billion from Medicaid and SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program). For those don’t know, Medicaid is a public health insurance program that covers over 52 million of the poorest people in our country. We already have 45 million uninsured people in this country, and these cuts will certainly add to that population. And what happens to individuals without health insurance? They die. According to the Institute of Medicine, more than 18,000 Americans aged 25 to 64 will die this year because they don't have health insurance. That's one death every 30 minutes. Defending life for all Americans? Of course.
  
  
• Cut federal funding for the housing of disabled individuals, including "the mentally ill and physically handicapped." Quoting the NYT, "The proposal appears to comport with the administration's broader determination to trim domestic programs in the face of record deficits." Sure, that makes plenty of sense. After all, the $118 million cut to this program is pretty important when we're cutting taxes by hundreds of billion of dollars over ten years. Why should we help poor people get housing when we can help the uber-wealthy retain more of their income? Seems totally reasonable to me. After all, it's not like these these disabled and mentally ill people live at the mercy of others. They'll certainly adapt to life on the street. The uber-wealthy beneficiaries of the Bush administration tax cuts, in contrast, live at the mercy of our tyrannical progressive tax system and would be devastated by any loss of income.
  
  
• Cut $658 million from the Women, Children and Infants (WIC) program. As Broder writes in the Washington Post, WIC is "a major preventative against low-weight babies." Apparently the Bush administration believes that a baby's chance to eat (and live) should be proporational to the economic class of its parents. And while Bush seems quite concerned that Terri Schiavo gets her feeding tube, he doesn't seem bothered by the idea of witholding food vouchers from mothers and children. Interesting...it seems like a presumption in favor of life would be quite similar to a presumption in favor of food for babies. I guess I was wrong.