Posted on 12/25/2009 5:17:49 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE
The democrat's Supreme Court ruled abortion was legal throughout the United States despite state laws regulating individually by "inventing" (re-defining) a patient's "right to privacy" in medical terms.
That is, by re-defining the natural "right to privacy" for matters between a doctor and patient as a reason for REMOVING a specific specially-selected form of medical treatment (abortion) from state regulation in Roe vs Wade by a narrow 5-4 vote on ideological lines, the socialists/democrats on the Supreme Court moved medicine from state control to national control. Well, more accurately, they moved it from state control into national "illegal to control" by judicial fiat. Roe vs Wade of course, has never been voted on or resolved by the people, but has become the single unwavering yardstick, , milepost and goalpost of every democrat since then. If you don't fully and completely vote to support abortion, and ANY matters in any way relating to abortion, you are not a democrat. You cannot be a democrat.
Even in schools, for minors where aspirin cannot be given by a school nurse, a minor can - without permission or knowledge of their parents, be taken from school, taken across state lines if necessary by non-school government-hired social workers and contractors, and be "given" an abortion and abortion inducing drugs, contraceptives, and "family planning advice" - all due to the "liberal's" demands for "any abortions, all abortions, any of the time, to any and all (legal or illegal) who want abortions."
Well, that is their demand. And, with the media's unwavering support, they have gotten their demand.
But ObamaCare now demands the right to "regulate" who a physician can refer to to (more accurately, ObamaCare RESTRICTS BY LAW who a physician can refer his or her patient to, what they can charge to see patients, and how many people the physicians can see in a year.
ObamaCare regulates who I can go to visit, what that doctor or hospital can do, and whether a specialist can be used. What that referral can accomplish (some items will become mandatory (immunizations for the hyped-up swine flu will be/can become mandatory for children or people going to a doctor for other reasons) but other items (surgeries, alternative treatments, experimental treatments) will not be paid for (will not be authorized by the federal health administrators) under any circumstances.
And, of course, my tax dollars are pulled from me to pay for Sebilius's abortions for all mandates - regardless of my religion or my needs.
Gun control? Several (democrat-controlled) governments are already mandating that doctors ask children "Are there are any guns in the house?" when they see young children. And, under the existing government rules, EVERYTHING in those medical records goes (without Roe's "privacy rights" protection or restriction directly to the government's records.
And once there? We are not allowed to know.
For your consideration.
They are cornfused about keeping their laws off our bodies.
Same thing when it comes to keeping the govt out of the bedroom: if that is so important, then why would it be a federal govt concern if I “discriminated” against people who like homesxual sex?
This is a great post. I have made the same point, and I am glad to see that this idea might have some legal and intellectual truck. This legislation has SO many constituionality problems that it will be bogged down for years. But the dimwits won’t care, because by they time it is overturned it will be too late...unless we overturn it immediately after 2010, if only by refusing to fund it (since that won’t need Obama’s signature unless HE wants to threaten a govt shutdown by refusing to sign a budget that defunds his healthcare scam) if we don’t have a veto override majority.
The US government is confused about why butts are sacred.
This could be nuclear.
P4L
Not if an early injunction can be obtained.
I know this is hard for a majority of congressmen to understand, but this bill would institute a warrantless seizure of every citizen’s private medical documents. The fourth amendment might have something to say about that.
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.