US environmental agency lowers value of a human life.I am not making this up.
Here is what they are talking about:
When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule.
The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation – such as the tighter restrictions on pollution that the EPA refused to impose today, effectively postponing any action on climate change until after Bush leaves office.
Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18bn to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8m per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9m per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.
Some environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of changing the value to avoid tougher rules, a charge the EPA denies.I'm sorry, but I don't value my life in terms of how much the government is willing to spend to save it, so I don't take this move by the EPA too personally.
What I do take personally is the fact that the goverment is willing to pay to terminate my life if I am an unborn child, by giving American tax dollars to organizations like Planned Parenthood.
Some of our congressmen/women are working to fix this:
Click here for more comments from legislators on this issue.