Posted on 10/03/2013 6:56:15 AM PDT by Maceman
OK. Here's a question for brighter minds than mine. Roe v. Wade established the "right to privacy." I personally believe that the right to privacy is inherent in the unenumerated rights referred to in the Ninth Amendment, although I don't believe it is applicable to the abortion issue, but that's a subject for another day.
So the question is: If the right to privacy designated in Roe v. Wade is widely accepted (especially by leftists) as the Law of the Land, wouldn't that mean that the government has no right to our personal healthcare information?
Doesn't that put Obamacare at odds with Roe v. Wade, and thus render it unconstitutional? Of course I realize that the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare to be constitutionally valid, but that is because the right to privacy was never brought up in the arguments to be considered, nor addressed in the Court's decision.
If the right to privacy were to be invoked before the Supreme Court, wouldn't the court have to rule Obamacare unconstitutional on that basis alone? Or else would they rule that the right to privacy only applies to abortion, a ruling which would be absurd on its face.
See Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
Or am I missing something?
Your thoughts?
Prohibition was the law of the land, too. So was slavery.
CA, home Babs and DiFi
http://therightscoop.com/california-hasnt-enrolled-a-single-person-in-obamacare/
I’ve put forth that idea in several replies to Obamacare threads, you’ve raised it to a vanity post.
If it hasn’t been killed before then, someone must mount a suit against Obamacare’s constitutionality on the basis of the Roe v. Wade precedent the moment the government does anything under the terms of the act that intrudes on their relationship with their physician, be it a reporting requirement or a denial of treatment. People forget that the “reasoning” such as it was in Roe was not about abortion per se but about government interference in the physician-patient relationship which the SCOTUS held was covered by the generalized “right of privacy” conjured out of constitutional “penumbrae”.
It could be tried sooner, but the old lack-of-standing trick would be applied to keep it from advancing.
It would be worth it maybe for the spectacle.
However until the Lord is enthroned again in most people’s hearts as He was at the start of the republic (and no, morality mongers won’t do it, it needs full on gospel preaching) this sort of nonsense will keep going on. Consistency is not most liberals’ strong suit. We need to be rooted in God to get consistency.
I would think so. If the courts deem a woman’s right to abortion inherent based on privacy, I don’t see how the same government can demand to have access to our health records and dictate how and when we receive health care. Seems like a good approach to attack some of the intrusive aspects of the law.
There was an article posted here a couple years ago that sarcastically thanks Obama for taking the “right to privacy” argument out of the infanticide debate.
The Constitution means what obama and the dems tell you it means...
It was HIPAA(Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), passed in 1996, that protects private healthcare information.
Every time you go to a new healthcare provider they will ask to sign a HIPAA document.
Dump all the laws and go back to the Original Ten!!!
Good question
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.