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 3 of 4)
As long as that question can be answered with any response that implies breathing by a born human, it is very clear that Roe, citing the 14th and 9th Amendments, protects not just the health of a woman but the health of us all. It gives every American with a beating heart a “right to privacy” to make exactly the medical choices they wish to make with their own bodies. Or, in the blunt words of a feminist blogger (the bloggers stylistic phrasing and caps included) over at one very typical liberal site called progressivesonline.com:
Keep Your Hands Off My Body!
I’ll make it simple for everyone.
MY BODY belongs to ME
I make decisions alone (or with the help of my family, my doctor, my God) for MY BODY
KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY BODY!
OK, then! Are we clear?
Well, apparently the President is not.
When it comes to the Roe v. Wade principle that the progressivesonline blogger has stated — “I make decisions alone (or with the help of my family, my doctor, my God) for MY BODY. KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY BODY!” — the President tells Charlie Gibson “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 discussing care for seniors, the president is even more explicit: He says that people not of your choosing (Government bureaucrats) “one way or another” are going to be making decisions about your body.
Meaning, contrary to the constitutional language of Roe and the more colorful lingo over at progressivesonline, Obama feels third party “evidence” from “every study” is more important in deciding what goes on with your body than the rights liberals insist have been granted by Roe. This “evidence” in turn is what Obama is using to justify the presence of a Third Party empowered to step between you and your doctor. A Third Party of government bureaucrats authorized to put their medical hands on your body or, notably, to refuse to do so because they — not your doctor — have judged you to be too old, too sick or too something else that is not convenient to their system. Not to mention a third party that gets to decide when and at what cost to do or not do. The State of Texas lives, this time as the Obama Administration.
The progressive feminist blogger and her pro-choice friends are being informed by Barack Obama that when it comes to Roe v. Wade versus Obama’s desire to have government bureaucrats deciding who puts whose hands on whose bodies, well, Roe loses. “A woman’s right to choose” is now made legally vulnerable by the demand of the Obama Administration that, in fact, one does not have any right at all to choose whose hands are going on one’s body or what those hands will do once there. In the President’s words, (bolded emphasis mine):
“But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that’s not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”
Again, let’s parse. Let’s translate.
• “We” means a third party — the federal government in this case. The State of Texas in the original Roe case.
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
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
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
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 !