Is Sarah Palin crazy?

American Thinker ^ | 9-6-09 | Howard Lurie

[smoothsailing]

Return to the Article

September 06, 2009

Is Sarah Palin crazy?

By Howard Lurie

Is Sarah Palin crazy?  Was she out of her mind when she implied that the Obama health care bill was going to create a "death panel" that would encourage the elderly to check out early if their illness or infirmity was draining too many dollars from the system?

Sure, there is a provision in the bill for end-of-life counseling by doctors, but it does not establish "death panels."  And yes, it does call for explanations of orders regarding life sustaining treatments, and why such orders might be beneficial to the individual and the individual's family, but there is no language in the bill mandating the individual's death.

Of course, as we have learned, the absence of specific language in the Constitution or a statute doesn't mean that something isn't there.  There is no language in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to abortion, but that didn't stop the Supreme Court from concluding that such a right exists.  The right to an abortion arose out of the right of privacy that also lacks any textual support in the Constitution.

A corollary concept is that specific language in the Constitution prohibiting something doesn't mean that it is actually prohibited.  The Constitution clearly and specifically declares that no Senator can be appointed to an office in the United States if the salary for that office was increased during the term for which the Senator was elected.  The salary of the Secretary of State was increased during the term of Senator Hillary Clinton.  Nonetheless, she was appointed and confirmed by the Senate to that office.

We have also seen that despite the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law, a compelling state interest can exist that renders unequal treatment permissible.  An elite state law school's desire for a racially diverse student body was held by the Supreme Court to permit the law school to treat white applicants less favorably than non-white applicants.  The Court deferred to the law school's judgment that diversity was a compelling state interest.

If the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is subordinate to "a compelling state interest," one could reasonably fear that the Amendment's guarantee that no person should be deprived "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law is likewise subordinate to "a compelling state interest."  Arguably, the preservation of dwindling government health care dollars is "a compelling state interest."

Before dismissing the above argument as ludicrous, I hasten to remind the reader that it was not too long ago that, in the interest of the greater good, states were forcibly sterilizing the mentally retarded.  "It is better for all the world" said the eminent jurist Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. speaking for the Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell (1927), if "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.  The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.  Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

In 1932, the Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began a study of untreated syphilis in black males.  The study began with 399 black men with syphilis.  The men were falsely told that they were going to be treated, but they were never given the proper treatment to cure their illness.  Even in 1947 when penicillin became the drug of choice for syphilis, it was not offered to the men.  The study went on for 40 years, but the men were never given adequate treatment for their disease.  Despite the Hippocratic Oath that doctors supposedly take to "do no harm," a number of doctors participated in the study in the interest of medical research. 

Today, over one million abortions a year are performed.  This deliberate killing takes place with the sanction of the highest court of our land, and with the approval of our President.  These abortions are to prevent the birth of unwanted children who might become a financial burden for their mothers, families, or society.  Many of these abortions are paid for by taxpayers through agencies of our federal and state governments.

If the burden of the unwanted justifies their extermination prior to birth, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the burden of the unwanted ill and infirm elderly would constitute a justification for their early exit from this world.  Will some number of ill and infirm aged be "enough"?

There are but a few steps between government mandated end-of-life counseling, and the "better for all the world" ending of life by government mandates. 

Sarah Palin is not crazy.

Howard Lurie is emeritus professor, School of Law, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania. Contact him at hlurie1@inbox.com. 

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/is_sarah_palin_crazy.html at September 06, 2009 - 09:22:48 PM EDT

[HiTech RedNeck]

What most people mean by “you can’t legislate morality” is that legislation can only go a very short distance in influencing moral beliefs. It cannot be the mainstay of morality. This isn’t just a libertarian theme; the noted Christian apologist C. S. Lewis made this point as well.

[HiTech RedNeck]

She shoots WITH guns

[JaguarXKE]

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people in the conservative movement who view Sarah the same way many libs view Obama - as a Messiah.

I know a lot of folks who view her as a strong conservative, with strong conservative principles - period.

[no dems]

Sarah Palin is my girl. See my tagline.

[Northern Yankee]

Yep... ya have to read the whole article.

He does get it. In spades!

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

sorry for my post..that was not needed.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

You put that so much more eloquently than my rant post.
thanks.

I have to watch my rants. ha.

[new cruelty]

Too many articles, too little time to waste.

Just for reference sake, the article reveals some interesting facts about government abuse- facts which support Palin's assertion that death panels are not unlikely. You probably are already aware of these instances, but I figured I'd just point them out again.

[new cruelty]

I agree.

There are but a few steps between government mandated end-of-life counseling, and the “better for all the world” ending of life by government mandates.

Sarah Palin is not crazy.

[WVKayaker]

See Spot run...

[AdaGray]

This poor writer just can’t come to terms with the fact that Sarah Palin dealt a death blow to Obama’s plan with two simple words.

[WVKayaker]

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people in the conservative movement who view Sarah the same way many libs view Obama - as a Messiah.

She's a hell of a lot closer, imho. But, she makes no claims of being special. She is a fisherwoman with a family. Her family is just like so many of ours, messy!

messiah:

also Mes·si·as ) The anticipated savior of the Jews.
also Messias Christianity. Jesus.
One who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a savior or liberator.

I am a Christian. I know in Whom I have been guaranteed an eternal life with Him. Jesus is THE Messiah. I worship Him. I support Sarah Palin as a leader of many conservatives. I am one of those.

Moses led the people through the desert. He was a messiah for the Jews. Sarah may not run for President, but I'm going to wander around with her right now! I'll continue to ask God to let her get into the promised land!

Click for SarahPac

847,033 Sarah Palin Facebook supporters -as of 11:55 am 9/1...

[WVKayaker]

847,033 Sarah Palin Facebook supporters -as of 11:55 am 9/1...

857,416 supporters this morning...

[AFPhys]

I think the author did a GREAT job. He sucked everyone in by writing an article with a headline a liberal would read, and then essentially follows the threads as to how the House bill WOULD lead to death panels. Then he concludes, “Sarah Palin is NOT crazy.”

He agrees with her, and defends her with this essay.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

LOL!
Great!

[new cruelty]

After reading the article I am confident that the writer is in support of Palin. Yet certain folks are equally confident that the writer is out to bash Palin. The differences in comprehension is comical. So I think you have a point- if this writer just stuck to “See Spot Run” style of writing maybe we’d all find ourselves in agreement. Then again, someone would insist Spot did not run or what we saw was not Spot but Rover, Spot’s neighbor.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Spot will be seen as an agent provoceteur ! Spot is defintely a conservative as this was WAY before the dumbing down of American education. Oh my gosh, if we had said, "See Jane Run!" that might have been politically incorrect.

[freedumb2003]

>>Read my post 24.

Read the article again, this time for content.

[Terpfen]

Read my posts again, this time for content.

[I got the rope]

LOL. Right on the money!