Political Hay

No Obama Care for Terri Schiavo

If you are annoyingly disabled, don't count on any help from Barack.

By 2.28.08

Send to Kindle

The Democrats favor "universal health care for all" save at the most crucial moments of life, its beginning and end. The unborn and disabled elderly won't enjoy Barack Obama's largesse and fervent hopes for All Good Things.

Notice that after spending much of Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate rattling on about his commitment to universal health care, Obama in the final moments of it delivered himself of the regret that he failed to support more vigorously those calling for Terri Schiavo's death by starvation and dehydration.

"When I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decisionmaking process of the families," he said. "It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake..."

Not comfortable interjecting himself into health care decisions? Here we see once again liberalism as willfulness writ large. It permits any and all contradictions, proposing endless federal meddling in the health care decisions of states and families at one moment, then forbidding such meddling in the next, lest abortion and euthanasia be jeopardized.

Obama's health care plan is predicated on massive interference. He knows what is good for families and states far better than they do, all the way down to the smallest details of policy. But we're told by him that the federal government has no interest in stopping a cloddish husband from finishing off his inconveniently disabled wife.

IT IS NOW A cliche that the GOP blew it by defending Schiavo so loudly. The truth is that moment represented one of the few honorable acts of a dishonorable GOP Congress, and if the Republicans had any sense they would revisit these fundamental moral issues, which provide the starkest dividing line between liberalism and conservatism.

Why let Obama occupy the moral high ground? For all his pious progressive prattle, for all the windy talk about human rights, he leads a party whose platform rests on the gravest human rights abuses imaginable.

The Democrats support killing unborn children at the beginning of life, the elderly at the end of it, and not so long from now the disabled in between. (If you doubt the latter, look at the now-routine eugenics aimed at the disabled unborn, the logic of which applies to the living disabled.) Whatever national health care plan the Democrats eventually enact will incorporate and accelerate this grim harvest.

In every liberal scheme of human improvement, no matter how mellifluous the rhetorical bells and whistles that accompany it, the final solution is death. What Obama means by "progress" is more like regress into a pagan past. Instead of abandoning babies on hilltops and the doddering to snow drifts, Obama Care will let Ivy League doctors get the job done.

Obama in effect casts himself as a moralist, appealing to the better angels of our nature. But in reality all the old Democratic demons hover above him, counseling despair, not hope. "Yes, we can," he says to starry-eyed affluent voters. No, we can't, he says to the voiceless weak who need hope the most.

ONE WOULD THINK a civilized health care plan at the very least wouldn't entail an attempt on the recipient's life. But no such guarantee is forthcoming in any Democratic plan I've ever seen. Entrusting one's health care to pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia Democrats makes about as much sense as hiring a doctor who prides himself on not signing the Hippocratic Oath.

Children and the elderly make nice props in Obama's speeches, but they will be disposable in his legislation. He no doubt thought he was playing it safe by identifying insufficient enthusiasm for Schiavo's death as a serious fault -- probably something in his mind as innocuous as a disorganized desk, the fault he confessed in a previous debate.

But his answer was really quite revealing and damning, reducing his assurances of universal health care for all to sham posturing -- a reminder that beneath Obama's rainbow there are some very sinister shadows.

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author of No Higher Power: Obama's War on Religious Freedom.