Will Republicans use a “judo move” with Roe vs. Wade, to repeal Healthcare?

Will Republicans use a “judo move” with Roe vs. Wade, to repeal Healthcare?

See: online.wsj.com...

Premise: The Court tells a woman that killing her unborn child is a private decision that cannot be impeded by the government then why is it okay for the government to tell me what health insurance I have to have?

Fair question, huh?

Excerpt:

The Supreme Court created the right to privacy in the 1960s and used it to strike down a series of state and federal regulations of personal (mostly sexual) conduct. This line of cases began with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (involving marital birth control), and includes the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

The court's underlying rationale was not abortion-specific. Rather, the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances. As the court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."

It is, of course, difficult to imagine choices more "central to personal dignity and autonomy" than measures to be taken for the prevention and treatment of disease -- measures that may be essential to preserve or extend life itself. Indeed, when the overwhelming moral issues that surround the abortion question are stripped away, what is left is a medical procedure determined to be "necessary" by an expectant mother and her physician.

If the government cannot proscribe -- or even "unduly burden," to use another of the Supreme Court's analytical frameworks -- access to abortion, how can it proscribe access to other medical procedures, including transplants, corrective or restorative surgeries, chemotherapy treatments, or a myriad of other health services that individuals may need or desire?

This type of "burden" analysis will be especially problematic for a national health system because, in the health area, proper care often depends upon an individual's unique physical and even genetic history and characteristics. One size clearly does not fit all, but that is the very essence of governmental regulation -- to impose a regularity (if not uniformity) in the application of governmental power and the dispersal of its largess. Taking key decisions away from patient and physician, or otherwise limiting their available choices, will render any new system constitutionally vulnerable.

Thoughts?

I think the crux of this argument is found in the following question/statement...

"If the government cannot proscribe -- or even "unduly burden," to use another of the Supreme Court's analytical frameworks -- access to abortion, how can it proscribe access to other medical procedures, including transplants, corrective or restorative surgeries, chemotherapy treatments, or a myriad of other health services that individuals may need or desire?"

Here's a little more on the issue...

Just as a woman has been granted the sacred right to manage her reproductive rights, per the Supreme Court, do not millions of Americans who would be fined for not having health care insurance have the right of privacy on how they manage their health care?

An excerpt from Mr. Justice Blackmun’s deliverance of the opinion of the court states:

“…This 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…”

Essentially, I argue that any provision in the various bills circulating through Congress that could or would limit, direct, or propagate medical direction based on age and/or the condition itself is unconstitutional, under the right to privacy and other tenets of Roe v. Wade.

more: brokengovernment.wordpress.com...

Very interesting OT.

As for the Judo move, I think it's more of Jedi Mind Trick..

They would have a great argument with what you have listed, however I think it's even simpler than that.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

Source

This in itself makes for a great case.

There is no law that says the federal government is able to make up rules on these things, it's to be left to the states. As the states are being FORCED by the Federal Government to extend services which they can't afford, it breaks this rule.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Thx T,

Great point about states rights...

The judo illustration is kinda like using your enemies "mometum" as an advantage for yourself, kinda like using the liberals words/precedence against them...it will be fun to watch....except for the money leaving my pocket

reply to post by tothetenthpower


10th is good. The 9th works as well. The people have the right not be forced to purchase anything to be considered lawful citizens. Much the way that a poll tax is illegal as a condition to vote. Or that birth control can be used to prevent pregnancy without federal interference.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

10th is good. The 9th works as well. The people have the right not be forced to purchase anything to be considered lawful citizens. Much the way that a poll tax is illegal as a condition to vote. Or that birth control can be used to prevent pregnancy without federal interference.

Excellent point about the poll tax...thx for responding!

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


" The court's underlying rationale was not abortion-specific. Rather, the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances. As the court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."


Interesting find here OldThinker , this HCB will eventually be put in front of the SCOUS to be sure , but I think the Dems. are Confident it will not be Challenged to the point of being found Unconsitutional ..................Stay Tuned.....

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
......Interesting find here OldThinker , this HCB will eventually be put in front of the SCOUS to be sure , but I think the Dems. are Confident it will not be Challenged to the point of being found Unconsitutional ..................Stay Tuned.....

I was thinking about this the other day...and googled to see if it were out there?

I've seen it in about 3 sources...not much tho...it will be interesting

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
...Interesting find here OldThinker ....

I thought soooo....

But the thread is being IGNORED???

OT wonders why?

I guess I struck a cord, with this dying thread...oh well??????

OT out!

Its simple. Your point cant be argued with. Considering the implications of abortion yet it is given a pass and seen as a freedom. And then yes the same government turns around and demands that you abort certain of your own rights for a common good.

Like this....you can if you wish have a half born child at full turm killed live between your leg...but you cant bla bla bla so on and so forth. There is no equivalence in this when comparing it to anything.

Thanks OT for putting a new angle on this debate! I'm having an evilgasm just thinking of the irony Using one of the dem's pet legal victories against them, it would be poetic Now it's a wait and see.

reply to post by OldThinker


I hate seeing health care and abortion being politicized. The crux of the matter is that the HCR bill is a band aid being applied to a gushing artery.

I just thank God that there was no public option put in. Until the government can manage Medicare, they have no right managing Health Care at large.

Being libertarian (if i am anything at all, other than "free thinking"), i do not believe that we should be told what to buy, or how to buy it.