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.

"Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!"

Though it's always fun to listen to Pink Floyd anyway, I also feel like everyone would do well to remember the song Another Brick in the Wall with everything that's been going on lately. I assure you this isn't another joke, just read the words:

"We dont need no education.
We dont need no thought control.
No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Teacher, leave those kids alone.
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!
All in all its just another brick in the wall.
All in all youre just another brick in the wall."

Isn't it sad our education system needs Pink Floyd to keep them in line?! For those who don't know what I'm talking about here's there are two frightening recent events I'm thinking of in particular:

This video has recently been shown to elementary kids in school throughout the country:



I know it's kinda long, but most of it is either grossly misleading or totally full of crap. But even if it were accurate, would it be proper to schow it to little kids IN SCHOOL? Do we really expect elementary kids to have an informed opinion about it?

Here's another one:



Again, this is in an elementary school! Whoever thought this kind of thing would happen in America? Ridiculous.

What I Learned Today at School

Today my Business Organizations prof was out of town. Instead of canceling class to make it up later - what usually happens - we had to go to class and watch a 2.5 hour Canadian documentary, "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power." To minimize the temptation to sluff, a class roll was passed around, and our prof informed us earlier to expect a weighty question on our final regarding the film content. Here is what I learned:

"Most" Corporations are, among other things . . . (notice the quotation marks)

"slave owners, sharks, master exploiters, reckless, cancer-spreaders, doom machines [my personal favorite], liars, criminals, psychopaths, unaccountable tyrants, profit hungry swine, monsters, polluters, predators, plunderers, manipulators, skull collectors, invaders, imperialists, brain washers, Fascist Nazis, responsible for Hitler's rise to power [mainly IBM and Coca-Cola], and thus complicit in the Holocaust."

Who knew? Thank you Joel Bakan, Micheal Moore and friends, for enlightening me today.

The Royal "We"?

I listened to part of Pres. Obama's speech to the U.N. General Assembly this morning. He said many things I agree with, some I did not. The speech revealed a strategy behind some of his earlier decisions / actions that made no sense otherwise. I was generally reinforced in my impression that we have a very intelligent and capable head of state.

What gnawed at me, though, was his use of the first person throughout the speech. "MY first day in office I . . . " signed an order" ending torture by the U.S. "I ordered the closure" of Gitmo. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. There seems to be no recognition of his position in this. Barack Obama didn't do anything. The President of the United States, and therefore the government of the United States, did.

It got worse (in my probably-paranoid view). When referring to the United States, more often than not, Pres. Obama repeatedly used the phrase "MY country." Now the United States is my country, too, and there is nothing evil about singing the tune "This Is My Country." But given his position as chief executive, it would have been more appropriate to say "the U.S." or "the United States" or "this country" (in context) or "America" (he used the phrase anti-American" so why not "America?"). I can't imagine George Washington referring to America in a speech to foreign heads of state as "my country" as it lacks humility, possibly conveying the impression that the chief executive owns, or at least possesses, the country.

So when Pres Obama started using the first person plural, I started hearing the language of royalty. Even when the king stands alone, he refers to himself as "us." What the queen owns is "ours." A royal person does not say "I believe" or "I decree." It is "We believe" and "We decree." If you listen to the speech in this light, you may find it disturbing, whether you agree with the substance of his speech or not.

I think humility is a scarce commodity among national politicians. But the more experienced ones do a better job of putting on the pretense. Yes, I prefer pretended humility to unvarnished conceit.

Avoiding the Word "Tax" at All Costs

I hesitated to post about this because I know some readers don't appreciate negative exposure to the Pres, but I just couldn't pass this up. Pres. Obama has a very interesting definition of what a "tax" is, and is not. Apparently, a health care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good. The following is an excerpt from a WSJ opinion article, with emphasis added:

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Mr. Obama was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about the "individual mandate." Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when "the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?"

"Well, hold on a second, George," Mr. Obama replied. "Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average—our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's . . ."

"That may be," Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, "but it's still a tax increase." (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.)

Mr. Obama: "No. That's not true, George. The—for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . ." In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don't call it a tax—is for your own good.

Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—"

Mr. Obama: "No, but—but, George, you—you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."

"I don't think I'm making it up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary's definition of "tax"—"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."

Mr. Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . ."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase."

Mr. Obama: "My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but . . ."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But you reject that it's a tax increase?"

Mr. Obama: "I absolutely reject that notion."

Anyone have any thoughts on this? My personal opinion is that he is trying way too hard to make good on one of his very popular campaign promises - that if you made less than 200K per year (or whatever it was), you would not see your taxes go up "one dime." Does Obama really think people believe his side in this interview, with the dictionary and common sense on the other side? Isn't it worse that he had to be cornered like this, on national TV, and still deny the obvious rather than own up to it, admit that it is clearly a tax, but mitigate the damage by explaining why he thinks it is still necessary? It's only one tiny little three letter word, no big deal!

The saddest, most embarrassing part of the interview for Obama was when he first accused George of "making up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," Then, when George pulls out the dictionary, as if to say, "These aren't my words, I'm not making this language up," Obama then accuses him of "stretching a little bit." Clearly, this interview showed the nation that it was President Obama, not George, who was "stretching" by "making up that language" and "deciding that that's [not] called a tax increase."

What's your opinion?

Since we have a lot of legally minded people that read this, I wanted to get your opinion on this particular case out of Arizona. Here's a short synopsis of the case.


Arizona parents sue over kids' bath pictures
September 17th, 2009 @ 6:05pm
PHOENIX (AP) - An Arizona couple accused of sexual abuse after taking bath-time photos of their children and then trying to have them developed at Walmart are suing the state and the retail giant.
Lisa and Anthony "A.J." Demaree's three young daughters were taken away by Arizona Child Protective Services last fall when a Walmart employee found partially nude pictures of the girls on a camera memory stick taken to the store for processing, according to the suit.
The Peoria couple's attorney said Walmart turned the photos over to police and the Demarees were not allowed to see their children for several days and didn't regain custody for a month while the state investigated.
Neither parent was charged with sexual abuse and they regained custody of their children _ then ages 1 1/2, 4 and 5 _ but the Demarees claim the incident inflicted lasting harm.
The couple is seeking undetermined monetary damages from both Walmart and the state and have requested a jury trial.
Richard Treon, the lawyer for the Demarees, said the images of the girls were part of a group of 144 photographs taken mostly during the family's vacation in San Diego.
There were seven to eight bath- and playtime photos of the girls that showed a "portion or outline or genitalia."
"There was nothing sexual about it," Treon said. "This is a parent's worst nightmare."
One lawsuit names Arizona, Peoria and the state Attorney General's Office as defendants, claiming that employees from each defamed them by telling friends, family members and co-workers that they had "sexually abused" their children by taking pornographic pictures of them.
A second lawsuit, naming Walmart as the defendant, says the company is at fault for not telling Anthony Demaree that it had an "unsuitable print policy" and could decide to turn any photos over to law enforcement.
Calls to Arkansas-based Walmart and officials from Peoria and Arizona seeking comment on the suits were not immediately returned Thursday.

So what do you think? Should the parents be registered as sex offenders? Is America sue happy? Do these parents deserve compensation for their "loss"? I'm interested in what everyone thinks, because I honestly don't quite know what to think.