The Right Prescription
Is ObamaCare the End of Roe v. Wade?
The president's health-care proposals target the right to privacy -- as Sen. Arlen Specter very well knows.
(Page 2 of 4)
It is the self-appointed job of these entrepreneurial lawyers to go to every length available to prove the doctor in question simply didn't do enough to correctly diagnose and correctly treat the diseases listed by the lawyers themselves. The lawyers are thus at one with patients who believe (as did Arlen Specter) that one more test, one more opinion correctly done -- a second or third or a fourth -- is the one that would have resulted in eventually restoring the patient to health. A health that Roe v. Wade quite specifically says is "an important and legitimate interest" of the State.
Yet here is the President on ABC (with anchor Charlie Gibson) responding to the notion at the very core of the medical malpractice profession and, indeed, of most Americans: that Americans want the freedom -- indeed have the right -- to seek the best health care that exists for themselves and their families. Says the President in the transcript provided by ABC News:
OBAMA: I think families all across America are going through decisions like that all the time. And you're absolutely right that, if it's my family member, it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care. But here's the problem that we have in our current health care system, is that there is a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier.
GIBSON: But you don't know what that test is.
OBAMA: Well, oftentimes we do, though. There are going to be situations where there are going to be disagreements among experts, but often times we do know what makes sense and what doesn't.
Let's parse. The "problem" says the President, "is that there is a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier."
In other words, the President has just said it that his health care plan, what we will call here ObamaCare, intends to insert a third party -- the government -- between you and your doctor. Why? Because the President, a third party, believes "a whole bunch of care...may not be making us healthier." This is in direct conflict with Roe, which says:
The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
A "woman" as defined in Roe is a person, as in someone who, along with all other Americans of both genders, is entitled to "the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people" and the 14th Amendment's "concept of personal liberty." She may be pregnant, something not doable for men, but that both men and women are "people" is not in dispute. And whatever else one may say of abortion, it is precisely a medical procedure just as everything from brain surgery to stitches.
According to the principle laid down in Roe, every American (except, of course, the unborn) has the constitutionally protected right to have our health care decided on by ourselves and our doctors, without disapproving courts, legislatures, presidents or health care bureaucrats getting in the way. (In the case of Roe, the third party was the state of Texas.) Roe specifically forbids third parties interfering in the patient-doctor relationship. To say, as the President has said, that "every study, every bit of evidence" produced by some third party (an ObamaCare medical bureaucrat, for example) is somehow relevant to the treatment of a patient -- and that it will be mandatory to heed -- is a direct contravention of the two-party patient-doctor relationship legalized by Roe on the grounds of "personal liberty" and the "right to privacy." The President's ambition is simply to insert the federal government into the role played by the state of Texas in the original Roe decision.
Roe is quite specific as well that "the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman." In that one partial sentence every American becomes a pregnant woman, their health protected for the same reason as the pregnant woman's -- because the Court found a constitutional protection that does so. If there's any doubt about the sacredness Roe attaches to this principle, which in political and constitutional shorthand has become known as "the right to privacy," Roe restates it a second way. The State, says Roe, has still another "important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life." Which it proceeded, to much controversy, to define as the "point at which the fetus becomes viable."
So in ruling out the unviable life -- the fetus -- as worthy of protection, the Court left no doubt whatsoever that "viable" human beings must be protected as the State has a "legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life."
Read those phrases again: "viable" and "protecting the potentiality of human life."
If you are reading this, you are a "viable" human being as specifically defined by Roe v. Wade. If you have plans for five minutes from now, we are talking about your potentiality for human life.
Whatever else is said about Roe and the argument over the unborn, there is not the slightest doubt whatsoever that the born -- until their last breath is drawn -- meet exactly Roe's standard of "the potentiality of human life." Your beloved spouse, parent, child, relative, friend has at the minimum a potential for something as long as they live. That something could be a Michael Jackson-style 50-concert extravaganza or your 90-year-old mother bringing joy to life by simply holding your hand. Both are physical manifestations of the "potentiality of human life" as specifically defined by Roe. The much publicized exertions to save Michael Jackson are emblematic of the point, and in fact such ministrations go on all across America every single minute of the day. The entire point of frantic efforts to save a life -- Michael Jackson's, yours, your spouse's or the life of someone you have never heard of -- is because of the fundamental belief in that person's "potentiality" in human life.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (119) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/30/is-obamacare-the-end-of-roe-v
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Useless Wonks
- Barney Shuffles Off
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Big J| 6.30.09 @ 7:35AM
An interesting thought, but I think it ends there.
Obama cares nothing for Roe v. Wade, constitutional amendments or the constitution itself - other than the placement on the doorsteps of the white house, and addition he uses to wipe his feet with each time he enters.
In this administration's strange parallel universe, Obama-care can coexist with Roe.
After all, the government can better manage health care, the banking system, the auto industry, insurance and home loans waaaaay better than the private sector.
Obama knows best.
By the way, did I mention that government bureaucrats will be exempt from Obama-care? They will never be subjected to their own "administration" of health-care decisions.
Good for the goose, but not the gander.
Deborah D| 6.30.09 @ 8:13AM
Hmmm...very interesting take on the situation. Big J makes a good point as well. What was the Orwell description of Doublethink? "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." Since we're living in the novel 1984, why not go all the way?
jerryofva| 6.30.09 @ 9:02AM
Nice theorectical argument, and I have made it myself, but Roe v Wade is not applicable. As applied Roe v Wade places abortion in a special extra-constitutional position. There have already been several lawsuits filed by seniors trying to opt out of medicare. The courts have ruled against them even though medicare prevents patients from negotiating with their doctors outside the system which is clearly a private relationship between two parties.
William| 6.30.09 @ 9:07AM
Interesting theory, but in practice abortion is pillar of neo-savage liberalism and will not be touched. It is too close to a ritual sacrament.
The point of all of this is to kill more people, in this case the retired and the invalid. They are no longer paying taxes after all. THIS is the Social Security fix the collectivists offer. Euthanasia or at best palliative care for the boomers.
Another thing that will ensue will be affirmative action on things like organ transplants or costly procedures. That has not been addressed yet but it is the corrupting rot in everything bureaucracy touches.
I can see old coots who have been denied necessary treatment or just watched a loved one die going into gov admin offices and going postal.
KyMouse| 6.30.09 @ 9:43AM
I think the commentors above have it exactly right. Mr. Lord makes a good case, but I just don't think it will matter. Most people don't want to think about the rights and wrongs of abortion; they've already made up their minds about it, one way or the other, and have moved on to other topics. The pro-abortion side has been very effective at couching the issue in terms of women's rights, and that's where many millions of people leave it. That's tragic for babies, their mothers, and for our society.
Tony in Central PA| 6.30.09 @ 10:19AM
The author assumes that we have a rational judiciary as far as interpreting existing law when it comes to Obamacare.
We are likely to end up with health care that makes decisions based on money instead of need, at least for the vast majority of us. People are going to die and suffer from things that are easily treatable now, but won't be the case in the future. The government won't pay for your bypass, however, they will pay for your assisted suicide. They won't pay for the obstetric costs of your kid with Down's Syndrome, but they will pay to abort him. You'll be on a waiting list for so long that your condition will deterirorate to the point that you no longer qualify for the procedure.
Things will be much worse than they are now, we just won't hear much about it from the media.
Becky| 6.30.09 @ 10:30AM
I have long thought of how it makes sense that abortion as known (between a dr and patient) will be preserved in light of universal care.
I guess that Roe is not really a female issue, but a more specific pregnant female issue. I guess at 51 with a 31 year old, I can't have one of those abortion thingys now that I realize my kid's been a hassle. That is really what the majority of the abortion debate is about, not the immediate medical health or viability of the woman, but the hassle an unwanted kid may be on that woman and ultimately society.
I have also thought that if our medical care comes down to cold hard cash, wouldn't those unwanted babies be worth quite a bit on the market? Possibly turn down the abortion request on non life threatening pregnacies, and sell those babies for much more than the medical care costs. Another profit center for government, courtesy of your right to private property or privacy. How about letting them grow for organ harvesting or scientific studies? If they are unwanted...........isn't that the stem cell theory?
Bo Darville| 6.30.09 @ 11:26AM
The subjectivists that run our country can just choose to believe that everything is consistent and OK. Fret not, we will have taxpayer funded abortions for all babies soon enough.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.30.09 @ 11:38AM
This is Barack Obama we're talking about. The man Evan Thomas of Newsweek called a god. The man whose followers seem to believe is godlike. From his arrogant and condescending manner Obama believes in his near divinity too.
If Obama wants more abortions and he does there will be more abortions. If he wants the elderly to take a pain pill and die they will. If he wants Americans with good health care plans to pay for those who don't they will. Logic and reason like wisdom, common sense, mercy and compassion have no place in the Obamanation. All that matters to the neo-fascists of the Democrat party is fulfilling the will of their master - Barack Hussein Obama.
SEIG HEIL!
Pingback| 6.30.09 @ 12:16PM
COACHEP » Blog Archive » Posts about Obama Health Care Failure as of June 30, 2009 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 6.30.09 @ 12:43PM
With the guidance of noted Constitutional and judicial authority, that wise Latina woman saint sonia, the supreme court will discern no conflict between a person’s right to privacy and obumah-care. Along with all the exemptions for the pirates of the potomac and the un-yuns, there will be a provision allowing a woman to abort her child until it attains age 18 by simply stating its life is inconvenient. At 18, the child is eligible to vote, so COI (aka Acorn) needs it for its voter rolls. obumassiah will be thrilled since the more teenagers are aborted there will be fewer drug addicts, teen pregnancies and teen suicide. This will save taxpayers a wad of cash. It will be a huge wad when inevitable inflation is considered.
Pingback| 6.30.09 @ 2:53PM
The Obama ‘Evil Eye’ « Jim Blazsik links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Big J| 6.30.09 @ 2:56PM
Off topic:
Al Frankenstein has been declared the winner of the contested Minnesota Senate race.
Insert huge sigh.
The American people are so screwed! Just in time for Crap and Tax to enter the great halls of the Senate. Just in time for "health-care reform". Just in time for Sonya Sotomayor's confirmation.
I repeat: We are so screwed.
I am starting to become a fan of I.Q. testing in order to be illegible to vote. Anyone with me?
Old Texican| 6.30.09 @ 3:14PM
Thank you guys!
Mr. Lord for a truly thoughtful article. All you guys for splendid commentary on the article.
Especially you...Big J!
I have despised the fact that the idiot in front of you at the grocery buys...and BELIEVES The National Inquirer...his/her vote is worth the same as yours. ARGHHHHHHH!
I am quietly accepting that the majority of adult Americans...aren't.
Then, I recall that a pretty small minority sided with George Washington in 1776 and beyond.
Big J| 6.30.09 @ 3:21PM
Texican:
Couldn't agree more.
Go read this article by the mother of a fallen Navy Seal. She just spearheaded a fundraiser in support of our troops and had some choice words for the "Micheal Jackson" (excuse me, just puked on my keyboard) worship coverage we have experienced for the last week.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/gsmothers/2009/06/26/debbie-lee-americans-celebrate-michael-jackson-ignore-troops/
Go grab a tissue if you dare to read the final letter this brave sailor sent home (2 weeks before his death).
Hope to see you Friday in front of the GRB. Look for the sign that says "One Way" (like a one-way sign) to Prosperity - Lower Taxes.
Hope to meet you there!
Jeff | 6.30.09 @ 3:40PM
You are aware that the current bill will extend coverage to MORE people? More people will receive the lifesaving care they need. Not interested?
Republican rants about rationing of care seem to ignore the convenient fact that private insurers ration care all the time. You guys cry about government beuaracrats standing between doctor and patient (something that isn't even going to happen) but private insurers stand between doctor and patient constantly. Why does this not get your life loving panties in such a bunch. Is it because the people being denied are dumb, poor or minorities and thus not deserving of care?
john f| 6.30.09 @ 4:27PM
Even with Roe vs Wade in effect it has not required the government to pay for the abortion that the Woman has a RIGHT to have. The Government allowed the proceedure but did not incur the obligation to make it a covered service even when the government (ie the military ) was the provider of health care.
ds80| 6.30.09 @ 4:33PM
Jeff: government dictated "public" healthcare -
tried in Canada: FAIL
tried in UK: FAIL
tried in Massachusetts: FAIL
tried in Tennessee: FAIL
Big J| 6.30.09 @ 8:16PM
Jeff, you sound a lot like the old Troll, Dave M. Your blather falls on deaf ears here, bro. Go back to HuffPo or MoveOn or wherever you came from. This forum has actually returned to a reasonable discussion, and we're not interested in your liberal rantings.
I hope the rest of the INTELLIGENT posters here don't mind me speaking for them.
Dante| 6.30.09 @ 8:20PM
My God! Is there any correlation between the very interesting intellectual argument Jeffrey Lord makes and the rational and more correct pragmatic responses that initially follow.....which subsequently denegrate into the emotional abyss of frustrated conservative politics?
We all live in a representative democracy that lives and breaths its present, with the potential for future asphyiciation dependent entirely on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the majority. Democrats are in power now. Republicans were last, and may be so again. RvW is law, right or wrong, and it may change, though that is not likely.
Obama-led healthcare reform may very well, as it my prediction, not end up as conservatives lament. But there will be reform of some sort out of great imperative, somehow. That is a critical need that will not go away.
Neither will the need to reduce unwanted pregnancies that legally can lead to abortion.
Smart conservatives should focus on needs not desires.
Than I'll rejoin the party.
Dante
Pingback| 6.30.09 @ 9:30PM
ObamaCare is the end of Roe v. Wade… « Truth, Lies and In Between links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Rapnsum| 7.1.09 @ 10:14AM
Great Points. Hey when will American Spectator do a review of MAAFA21 - it is a stunning expose on Planned Parenthood that everyone needs to see. Watch short clips here : www.maafa21.com
KyMouse| 7.2.09 @ 2:27PM
Jeff, I do believe that "minorities" are "deserving of care." That's one reason I'm pro-life. Black women represent only 14% of the U.S. population of women of child-bearing age, but they account for 32% of all abortions performed in America. Almost half of all black pregnancies end in abortion, but only one in six white pregnancies do (according to 2000 U.S. census data). More than 15 million black babies have died by abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973.
Abortion means the loss of black artists, scientists, teachers, engineers, athletes, and business leaders. Planned Parenthood puts most (more than 70%) of its abortion mills in or near minority neighborhoods; Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote ina letter to a physician, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population...". Planned Parenthood partnered with the American Eugenics Society, and Sanger developed the Negro Project to do exactly that -- eliminate the "Negro population."
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s neice, Dr. Alveda King, has written that "blacks and other minorities have been targeted by the genocidal eugenics of reproductive racism." You can read more about this topic at www.kingforamerica.com, www.protectingblacklife.org, and www.everlastinglightministries.org.
Neo| 7.6.09 @ 12:51AM
I was left wondering if Obama-care allows patients (and their lawyers) to sue the government if a treatment is forbidden or opposed by the insurer, which in this case may be the US government ?
RegularJoe| 7.6.09 @ 6:09PM
You forget that abortion is "different". Teenagers can't get a Tylenol without permission from a parent, but they can get an abortion. Abortion is a procedure apart. A sacrament to the sacrilegious. Why would that NOT extend to the Supreme Court? They capriciously excluded fetuses; why not the whole procedure?
Pingback| 7.6.09 @ 6:24PM
I Think It Got Hidden With Rosetta’s Pants, Mesa’s Bacon, and TBOM’s Butt Paste, and links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Dark-Star| 7.6.09 @ 8:38PM
You've got to be kidding. If Obama were to seriously threaten 'reproductive choice' (AKA the ability to legally murder your baby at will), we would be seeing mass protests that would number in the millions and border on all-out riots. The brainless dopes in the media would be running a nonstop smear campaign against him and anyone who even remotely agreed with him.
Obama may be incompetant, but he's not stupid!
Emy| 7.7.09 @ 2:34AM
Really good point, but it will never fly. You're confusing the people behind this brave new world with rational people.
Emy| 7.7.09 @ 2:45AM
Jeff,
We need a plan to cover the 5% of the population that is currently uninsurable. We don't need a plan to cover everyone.
The problem with your case about HMO bureocrats is that we currently have the option to get care away from our health plan (at our own expense, but usually better than dying), change health plans, sue the health plan, etc. With a single payer system, all those options will disappear (except the first might not, but it would be on a black market system).
pk| 7.7.09 @ 8:58AM
There is one good thing that can come from Obamacare. By the time a girl can set up an apointment with an abortionist, her baby will be 5 years old, a viable human being!
mk| 7.7.09 @ 12:00PM
Roe will be strengthened under Obama care. Every person he has installed in his administration is adamantly pro-abortion. They also believe that humans contribute to global warming, so decreasing the number of people on the planet will be good for the environement. His administration is pushing for world wide abortion sevices at the U.N. Obama is not only a threat to American liberty , he is a direct threat to human life.
Pingback| 7.7.09 @ 11:16PM
Roe v. Obamacare « Unkategorized links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
eddietoo| 7.8.09 @ 11:10AM
Under obama's idea of health care, the government could decide that abortion was the best alternative in treating a pregnancy.
Population control anyone?
Bill G| 7.12.09 @ 6:22AM
Agree with John F above. Supreme Court upheld the Hyde Amendment in Harris v McRae: abortion is a right of action but does not obligate public funding. What Obama would call a "negative right". Unless the federal government declares a monopoly (or monopsony=only purchaser), as in Canada, in which out-of-system care is not available, restricting fed-funded care would be rationing but would not be unconstitutional.
Kevin K| 7.13.09 @ 8:49PM
Excellent article. I have been scouring the internet on ObamaCare and this by far has been one of the more interesting, non fallacious ones.
sare| 7.15.09 @ 9:41PM
http://www.fantastic-replica.net
sare | 8.1.09 @ 5:06AM
http://www.fantastic-replica.net
bonjour| 11.24.09 @ 9:38PM
Very good topic.Thank you for sharing.Good luck !
mimi| 12.15.09 @ 12:39AM
cheap watches