Government Health Care and Roe v. Wade Don't Jibe

A necessary result of any of the major health care bills passing will be an unprecedented access to our private medical records on the part of the federal government. Surprisingly, this gross invasion of our privacy has received little press. The Dems are upset that they can't get a public option to stay on the table, and the GOP is upset that they can't get significant tort reform provisions in the bills.

But the privacy issue will become significant the moment the legislation passes because its Constitutionality will be challenged. Queen Pelosi condescendingly disregarded a challenge to the legality of the insurance mandate by predictably citing the federal government's responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. This tired argument has been used successfully to justify pretty much anything the feds fancy. A challenge to this will barely be considered before it is laughingly tossed aside by the Supreme Court.

No no. This challenge will come in a different form.

Rewind 36 years. The U. S. Supreme Court made what can arguably called the most controversial judgment in the history of our nation in Roe v. Wade. The decision struck down a Texas abortion law as unconstitutional. It did so on the grounds of the implied "right to privacy" the mother has, derived specifically from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the federal government decided that what a person does with her body, and her medical decisions, are between her and her doctor, and the government has no right to meddle in these affairs.

Uh oh.

So, the legislation will be challenged. Either the court will be forced to stand by Roe v. Wade and declare the health care bill unconstitutional, or it will uphold the bill and overturn Roe v. Wade. Is there any other option?

I've got one! This is going to sound a little crazy, but what if we actually function like a republic, and leave these matters to the states? What a novel idea! How constitutionally sound! As the good folks at the Tenth Amendment Center pointed out, "In a truly federal government, Massachusetts could allow same-sex marriages and bar the Ten Commandments from public displays. In a truly federal government, Alabama could display the Ten Commandments in state courtrooms and outlaw same-sex marriages."

Taking issues of this nature from the federal arena and placing them in the hands of the states where they belong is the best way to make the voice of the people heard. Progressives may want to argue that a 7-to-2 court decision made in a stuffy chamber in Washington, D. C. 36 years ago is the proper way to decide what a woman in Utah does with her baby, but I say let the people govern themselves in their own states, and let the federal government do what we told it to do when we created it and ratified our Founding Document.

What to do in Afghanistan?

This is a question I definitely don't have the answer for. Tonight on NPR here in Utah there was a public debate (it's usually broadcast from some Ivy League school) titled "The War in Afghanistan is unwinnable and we should withdraw troops immediately." I mean that wasn't the exact title, but it was something like that. I only caught part of it, but one of the general's that was in support of the war argued that stability in Afghanistan with both the Taliban and Al-Qaida not in control makes for a safer America. Just when he had me convinced, the other side responded "How many Americans are we going to sacrifice for Hamid Karzhai's government?" (Sorry if I spell some of this stuff wrong, but you know who I'm talking about.) I thought that was also a good point, with the election fraud recently and what not. Right now I think I'm leaning toward it's not worth it. But then part of me says that we can't let Bin Laden, Al-Quaida, and the Taliban win. But when I ask myself, would I be willing to sacrifice my own life for this cause, the answer is definitely not. So for me, I feel like this war is turning into a modern-day Vietnam. How does everyone else feel about it?

Thought of the Day

Brought to you by Thomas Sowell:

"When politicians propose some hugely expensive new program and are asked how the government is going to pay for it, a standard ploy over the years has been to claim that they will pay for it by eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse." At a recent town hall meeting, a citizen raised the obvious question: If you can do that, why haven't you done it already?"

SNL, Maher, and Stewart Taking Jabs at Obama??

You know things aren't all rosy for Obama when SNL, Bill Maher, and Jon Stewart are making him the butt of their jokes. Check it out:



So what's Obama's counterpunch? I say that, like Sarah Palin, go on SNL and prove that you are capable of making fun of yourself. Will that happen? Not a chance - a man too proud to admit that an individual mandate for health care is a tax, even when the dictionary says otherwise, will definitely be too proud to make fun of himself on SNL. What's really hilarious is that CNN did a "fact check" segment for the skit - yeah, they actually fact checked an SNL skit!

The folks on SNL aren't the only ones making this point. So are heavy hitting liberals Bill Maher and Jon Stewart.

Maher: "You don't have to be on television every minute of every day. You're the President, not a rerun of 'Law and Order.' TV stars are too worried about being popular and too worried about being renewed. You're skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady, but so is Lindsay Lohan. And just like Lindsay, we see your name in the paper a lot but we're kind of wondering when you are actually going to do something."

Stewart: "I know you have a lot on your desk plate. But as a think man who smokes, you may not understand the concept. All that stuff you've been putting on your plate, it's chow time, brother. That's how you get things off your plate."

So what do you guys think? Is there some truth to the SNL skit and these quotes? And what of the bungled lobbying trip to Copenhagen for Chicago 2016? I'm surprised no one has said anything about that yet.

Fuzzy Med Math?

I just read that the CBO estimated the Sen Finance Committee health reform bill would cost $829 billion (Woo hoo! JUST that much!) over 10 years.
It also will reduce the deficit by $81 billion in 10 years.
I wish our family could celebrate when we spend $8,000 in order to save $800.