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

[dalereed]

Professor=dumb bastard!

[Brugmansian]

I agree with youe post ! and, to the person who asked if I read it all the way through, no, I didn’t but I did read enough.

I, as others, didn't get it at first. But we're not dunces. The burden is on the writer to be clear. The technique he uses is good--draw readers in by saying the opposite in the headline of what he really believes But he doesn't execute properly. He does start to reverse what he says in the title in the proper place--the third paragraph--but he does so indirectly. Professional writers know people skim. And they know the most avid and knowledgable readers skim the most and the fastest. All it takes is a simple declarative sentence in the third of fourth paragraph to yank them to the real point of an essay. This writer didn't do it as we can see from the comments.

[GBA]

I was tempted, after reading the first few lines, to write off the writer as another anti-Palin and respond accordingly. After reading his editorial, it's clear to me he understands.

[Always Right]

lol...the first 5 posts are 0-5 in getting past the first sentence before posting.

[bigjoesaddle]

Like a fox... and just she is one. Brains, looks, and political acumen.

Don't forget she shoots guns!

[lonestar]

Read the article....to the end.

[Cold Heat]

Be nice if more people would read the article to it's conclusion before posting comments. Several posters failed to read the piece. The professor was quite supportive of Palin but I guess he needs to do a condensed version for short attention spans.

[Kimberly GG]

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

Of course it doesn’t...but they’ve convinced a few Americans that removal of the end-of-life counseling provision was the end to the death panels. One never had anything to do with the other. Now, when the panel decides to ration your care, there won’t be any free end-of-life counseling.

[Cold Heat]

It comes from the American Thinker. I have never criticized one of their pieces.

[dcwusmc]

Reread. Go to the end, It’s not as it might appear to you!!!

[dcwusmc]

Reread. Go to the end, It’s not as it might appear to you!!!

[Deagle]

Hey, too many pluses to remember them all...heh. Wish I could dress a moose like her also...

[Scythian]

At this point, I would like to see all democrats rounded up and given 24 hours to choose the country they’ll spend the rest of their lives in and ship them the hell out.

[Marysecretary]

Uh oh...well, we all do that from time to time, LOL.

[dcwusmc]

The issue here is FRAUD, not morality. The unwitting test subjects were TOLD they were being treated when they were not. Fraud is actionable and since the government was involved, IIRC, it should be held to account by the heirs of those who were so misused. There is no MORALITY involved; MORALITY is what you do when you’re alone. ETHICS are what’re involved, as ethics are how you deal with others. And ethics CAN on occasion be legislated. This would appear to be such a case.

[Finny]

lol...the first 5 posts are 0-5 in getting past the first sentence before posting.

There was a FReeper, I forget who, and who I hope is still around, whose tagline read something like: "Proudly posting without reading the article since 1998." [^))

[Always Right]

lol, it wasn’t me, but it could have been. Somehow I did manage to read this before posting.

[dcwusmc]

If you still think the author is AGAINST Sarah’s position, you did NOT read far enough. Trust me on that and finish the article.

[TexasFreeper2009]

crazy like a fox.

[Cold Heat]

Every single person who uses Medicare, VA, or Medicaid services should understand that all the so called savings they need to make this work, will come from the quality and quantity of their future medical care. Every damn bit of it, and all they need to do is to look at Europe or Canada to see the example care they will receive.

It's a no brainer!!!!

A totally bankrupt American insurance company will provide faster, better and higher quality care than a fully funded government boondoggle.

The biggest juicy target for cuts will most certainly be the elderly, as they are no longer productive. It is what Europe and Canada have limited and why their people come here!!! Next on the list is testing and procedures to test. Better to have a idea of what the problem is before you spend taxpayer funds. The go home a wait list will grow like crab grass during rainy season.

All you need to do is look at what they have accomplished in socialist countries to which they now compare our current system to and call it lacking and shameful..........

If O decides to ram this through, which I believe he will, all hell is going to bust loose.