To make a point, you sometimes have to be hypothetical. Let us suppose that Beijing stepped in with a new law to prolong the life of a brain-damaged patient after Hong Kong's courts had ordered the removal of the feeding tubes. For sure, it would cause outrage here, but how would the US react? If past behaviour is any guide, it would scold the mainland for meddling in Hong Kong's autonomy. But then again, the Bush administration likes to champion the 'culture of life' and might salute Beijing's meddling. Either response would expose a double standard that much of the world now associates with American policy. If Washington applauds Beijing's interference, it would be saying that meddling is fine for US-backed issues. If it scolds the mainland government, it would be saying that America can interfere with the courts, but the Chinese cannot. Like I said, this is all very hypothetical. But if you are looking for American hypocrisy, then look no further than the sickening way that some US politicians, including President George W. Bush, manipulated the tragic circumstances surrounding the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo to serve their own cause. Schiavo died at the end of last month after a judge ordered the removal of her feeding tube. Every court in Florida that ruled on her case over the past seven years sided with her husband that she be allowed to die, against the wishes of her parents. Florida's legislature voted not to meddle in the matter. But the US Congress and Mr Bush did not like the court rulings. Congress passed a new law to force the reversal of Florida's rulings - and the president rushed to sign it. Does this sound familiar? That was, in effect, what the National People's Congress did in 1999 when Hong Kong's highest court granted the right of abode to a large number of mainland children. The Hong Kong government wanted the ruling reversed, and the NPC obliged by reinterpreting the Basic Law. Purists will argue that all the US Congress did was to involve the federal court on a state matter. But that is exactly the point. By allowing federal interference, Congress meddled with state rights. Think of state rights as a 'high degree of autonomy', which Hong Kong is supposed to have. America's 50 states like to protect their autonomy, and Mr Bush's Republican Party has always defended minimal interference in state matters. The Schiavo case was purely a state matter in which Florida's highest court and legislature had already ruled. Apologists for the behaviour of Mr Bush and Congress will argue that the system worked, since the federal courts refused to interfere. But that is not the point. What matters is that Mr Bush, and like-minded legislators, tailor-made a law for Schiavo's parents to reverse a court ruling. How often have you heard the US warn others, notably Beijing, that the rule of law must prevail? This is what federal court judge Stanley Birch said of Mr Bush and Congress: 'They have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our founding fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people.' After Schiavo died, the Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay, threatened the judges: 'We will hold those responsible for Schiavo's death accountable. They chose not to participate, contrary to what Congress and the president asked them to do.' Politicians rebuking judges for not following orders? Just imagine Washington's reaction if the NPC behaved in such a thuggish way towards Hong Kong's judges. No one likes Beijing to interfere in our affairs, which it is about to do again, but Mr Bush and the hypocrites who supported him on the Schiavo case are the least qualified to complain. Michael Chugani is editor-in-chief of ATV English News and Current Affairs