Somewhere in the dusty shelves of antiquity there lies a
document which said something about life, liberty and happiness being human rights. But, it's not really law of the land, so we can mostly ignore this one. A harder to ignore
document mentions something about promoting the general welfare. But, surely adequate food isn't a part of general welfare, right?
Bush tells us that a person's basic nutritive requirements are not rights but needs. Fair enough. These needs, he says, are not in the government's domain and should be left for charity. Religious and humanitarian organizations must take responsibility for our nation's poor and hungry. I disagree, but if that's his belief then he should act accordingly. Bush's
new budget makes huge cuts in food stamp funding. This will deprive
200,000-300,000 low income citizens of their basic food source. I don't like it, but it's Bush's prerogative to determine policy.
Then we come to Terry Schiavo. It's debatable whether a brain-dead person has any "needs" at all, but Bush and other Republicans claim that Terry needs food. Fine. I disagree, but I know that many people have differing philosophical views from my own. We are all free to disagree with each other. But, we are at least expected to be reasonable about our actions.
Magically, in contrast to the walking, talking, struggling citizens of the United States, Terry Schiavo has not only a need for food, but a right to it. And not only does she have an unnaturally important right to food, but it's suddenly the government's responsibility to enforce this right. Bush says that keeping Terry Schiavo's body functional is a matter of national importance. Bush is taking his own time to campaign for her body's nutritive needs and is forcing federal courts to use their time and resources as well.
So, for the record, Bush states the following:
- One brain-dead woman has a "right" to food, and the government should use it's resources for her aid.
- 200,000-300,000 Americans have no right to basic food, and the government should not use it's resources to aid their struggle for food.
Even more disturbing is the fact that the government's "responsibility" in Terry Schiavo's case is happening at the expense of her husband's legal responsibility over his wife's last wishes. I highly recommend a very
insightful editorial in the Arizona Republic. Yes, I know it's a Republican-leaning paper. But it's also contains some surprisingly balanced reporting and occasionally some moderately progressive ideas. Go read, people. And think. It does the body good.
