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

[WVKayaker]

Spot is defintely a conservative ...

[freedumb2003]

>>Read my posts again, this time for content.

I did — you complete missed the point of the article. Your indignation is misplaced.

[Terpfen]

The point of the article is that Palin is wrong but there could eventually be death panels anyway. The author is misinformed on this topic.

[freedumb2003]

The article notes:

“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.”

That is all true and is what the bill says. Palin’s point has been that it is clear this counseling, combined with specific decisions to withhold life-sustaining health care to the elderly, constitutes death panels, which is what she meant.

The author agrees with Palin.

[Terpfen]

The article also notes:

Sure, there is a provision in the bill for end-of-life counseling by doctors, but it does not establish "death panels."

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.

The article is stating that Palin's supporting reasoning for believing there are death panels in the bill is incorrect, flat-out stating "it does not establish death panels." Unfortunately, it does, as does the Porkulus. So, the author is wrong.

[freedumb2003]

No, it doesn’t. Show me the words “death panel” anywhere in any proposed bill.

It is an accurate conclusion, perhaps, but it is still a conclusion.

[Terpfen]

The bill also states that a tax levied in one of its sections is not a tax. So according to your “logic,” it’s not a tax, even though it it is a tax.

The phrase “death panel” does not need to appear in order for any panel or group created for the purposes of deciding 1) health benefits given to each person, and 2) whether or not to treat a person for a given disease actually is a death panel.

Let me just get this straight: according to you, if the bill doesn’t call something a death panel then it’s not a death panel, but the author of this piece can write that Palin is wrong but in your mind it means that the author is agreeing with Palin.

Yeah, I’m done with you.

[freedumb2003]

>>Let me just get this straight: according to you, if the bill doesn’t call something a death panel then it’s not a death panel, but the author of this piece can write that Palin is wrong but in your mind it means that the author is agreeing with Palin.<<

You still refuse to read the article. He says she is right. Hey, its a free country. Don’t read it if you don’t want to and post ignorant comments until the cows come home.

>>Yeah, I’m done with you

As I am I with you. I prefer to talk to people who actually read and comprehend.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Is this your pupster?

he is darling! Spot has Dick Cheney’s look in that picture of Obozo and Bush and Cheney on the side with his big black Fedora!

[jla]

Unlike you Mrs. Palin doesn’t advocate pro-life issues because it makes her *look good* in the eyes of others. And, in one terse post at Facebook she has done more than the irrelevant AIP has done since its uneventful inception.

[new cruelty]

Great picture. Is that your dog?

[new cruelty]

I prefer to talk to people who actually read and comprehend

It is a wonder. The point of the article seemed pretty cut and dry to me. But it is clear that we all see things differently.

[new cruelty]

The phrase “death panel” does not need to appear in order for any panel or group created for the purposes of deciding 1) health benefits given to each person, and 2) whether or not to treat a person for a given disease actually is a death panel.

Well said, Terpfen. I agree with you. So does Freedumb2003, I think. And as much as you may hate to admit it, the author of this article agrees with you and Palin OR you agree with Palin and the author, which ever make you feel better.

[SuziQ]

She's not God either.

I've never seen ANY of Sarah's supporters suggest that she is.