Disgust at the Hypocrisy of the Administration

20 03 2005

I’ve tried not to post too much political drivel here lately, but this one really pegged my buttons.
Apparently the Bush administration, in true show of how religion, opinion, and personal agenda is affecting state policy, has announced they will intervene in the Terry Schiavo case.
Ignoring the fact that all the courts, all the doctors, and the state legislature of Florida has sided with the legal guardian (the woman’s husband), the Bush administration has decided they will intervene and pass emergency legislation against the wills of the husband, the courts, and the doctors in this case.
What bothers me the most about this is that it flies in the face of all that the Republican party is supposed to believe in. The rights of states to manage and legislate their own issues. The rights of an family to pursue their lives without intervention by the Federal regime, etc. Toss all that out the window. Bush feels that he knows better than the courts, the husband, and the doctors, and will force this woman, who everyone -but- the parents agrees is basically dead, to continue breathing and twitching in a horrible mockery of life.
The woman has died. Her collapse and later heart attack has destroyed most of her brain. The husband is not some ‘money grubbing relative looking to slurp up the insurance’ – in fact the husband has publically stated :

Raising the issue of a possible conflict of interest is the fact that Michael Schiavo stands to inherit the remainder of Terri’s malpractice settlement upon her death. Michael Schiavo has publicly responded to this charge by claiming that, of the original $1,050,000 awarded in the malpractice suit, less than $50,000 is left, the rest having been spent under a judge’s supervision on medical care for Terri and the ongoing legal battle. He has also stated that, if he does receive this money, he will donate it to charity.

So the only thing we can interpret from the administration is yet another attempt to foist Bush’s skewed morals on a country, regardless of law, public commentary, or even consistency within the their own party.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

2 responses

21 03 2005
catya

i think it’s more complicated than you are giving it credit for. this wasn’t a totally partisan vote, and her wishes are not clear – the blood family is on the oppoite side from the husband.
i personally agree that she should be let go. but it’s not a simple question, and i’m neither her husband nor her mother.

5 12 2006
toshiba notebook accessory

toshiba notebook accessory




%d bloggers like this: