The Right to Life Rammed Down Our Throats

Timothy Birdnow

World Net Daily is reporting on the court hearings for Obamacare at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=297445

From the piece:

"The acting solicitor general for the United States today claimed in a federal appeals court hearing that Congress has the absolute power to order citizens to purchase consumer goods if lawmakers believe there is a national problem the purchases would address."

[...]

(Acting Solicitor General) Katyal said that Congress isn't regulating an "inactivity," such as the plaintiffs argued exists when a person is penalized for not participating in interstate commerce.

"I would reject the characterization that what Congress is doing is regulating an inactivity. I know that my friend's argument has some rhetorical force and maybe even some legal force."

But he said Congress is just regulating the way to pay for a good – health insurance – that all people "otherwise buy."

Katyal also rejected suggestions from the court that this was a case of "Big Brother" taking over peoples' lives."

End excerpt.

Now, this is an astonishing argument; because most people receive some sort of health care it is no longer a case of regulating an inactivity, Katyal argues. But what are we speaking about? Health care is a broad-brushed term; when a person buys an aspirin or a bandage he is technically engaging in health care commerce. A mother caring for her sick child is technically engaged in health care. That is not what is meant - at least by most Americans - when discussing health care.

What is meant is PROFESSIONAL health care as in a doctor or hospital. Many people don't go to the doctor or to a hospital, and often they pay their own way when they do. Bear in mind that there are people who provide health services (or who used to, at any rate) outside of the traditional monopoly of the medical profession who are or will be banned from such practices BY LAW. This has reduced the number of health care provider outlets considerably, driving prices up, yet there are still quite a few people who manage to avoid visiting the approved, socialized medical professionals (socialized because they operate by the grace of and in a manner approved by the government right now).

And so, by Katyal's theory, if anyone ever for any reason receives some sort of PROFESSIONAL medical care he is de-facto a perpetual consumer and subject to regulation by government and penalized for not providing such care by government.

Imagine, if you will, that government deems the manufacture of, say, pliars a vital national interest. What does government do? Anyone who has ever purchased a pair of pliars is now required to purchase them on a monthly basis or face stiff penalties. But, the poor 90 year old widow complains, I haven't used a pliars in decades and have no need for a new pair every month. Tough luck, old girl! We REQUIRE you to buy pliars the rest of your life because we have decided it's good for the country. If you don't want the pliars, fine, but you will pay anyway.

And, of course, the price of pliars will skyrocket as the hardware stores won't be able to keep them in stock because of the government mandate. So, what will happen after that? Government will start providing them directly, much as they mint currency. First other businesses not in the pliars manufacturing market will be co-opted to make pliars, then government will convert, say, GM into the pliars making business. Eventually We have a tyranny of pliars, with government inspectors spying on the citizenry to make sure they are taking their quota of pliars per month.

What Katyal is arguing is rather like a tax on breathing, something supremely despotic and totally ridiculous.

Oh, wait! That's part of the EPA's determination that carbon dioxide is a pollutant! Interesting how health care is a duty under Obama and breathing is a priviledge. His stand on abortion furthers this bizarre disconnect; health care is a right and duty, but the life of a baby is a priviledge and, well, a pain in the neck.

If he's not going to force you to save your life he's going to force you to extinguish it!

That's not as silly a comment as it first appears; the goal is to establish the right of the State to your body and your existence. The One giveth, and the One taketh away! Control over life and death is the ultimate goal, a usurpation of the authority of God. Liberals have always had a God complex, believing that they are the Most High, and seek absolute power over life. I made this case when the Democrat Party zealously fought for the starving/dehydration death of Terri Schiavo, and the point is still salient here.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/03/its_a_brave_new_world_after_te.html

But let us get back to the matter at immediate hand; the personal mandate violates innumerable American principles. The Declaration of Independence, while not a legally binding document, articulated what the Founding Fathers envisioned. All men are endowed with the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. If one has a right to life, one has a right to decide on how to deal with that right - not the state. That means a right to not pay for medical care one does not want. Liberty is a no-brainer; where is the liberty in being forced to purchase a product? Pursuit of Happiness? Only some sort of very twisted masochist would derive happiness by being forced to obey government.

And then there is the Constitution. Proponents of this legislation focus on two things - the interstate commerce clause and the powers of taxation, with the Necessary and Proper clause (the good and plenty clause according to John Conyers) being kept in reserve, since it's a real stretch.

The Preamble of the Constitution includes the words "and secure the Blessings of Liberty" Yet this tramples all over liberty.

Among the enumerated powers of Congress:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Now, what does AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES mean? It does not say among individual citizens, but among the several states. That insurance companies operate in more than one state hardly grants this power to Congress, yet it has been torturously stretched to that effect. I don't care if the Supreme Court has overruled this clause; they themselves granted the power of judicial review over the Constitution - it is to be found nowhere in the original document.

Also in Section 8;

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Now note the term VESTED. That means granted by this document. In point of fact, there is an amendment in the Bill of Rights that specifically states;

"Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And another which says:

"Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yet that is precisely what Congress has done with Obamacare; denied or disparaged other rights retained by the People, and delegated power to Congress that are never mentioned in the Constitution and reserved to the States and People. We have the right to BE LEFT ALONE! If we wish to have no contact with our dear friends and benefactors in Washington we are supposed to have that right. Obamacare denies this most fundamental of American rights.

It was on the basis of these amendments that Roe v. Wade was decided, deeming abortion a fundamental right; SCOTUS found an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution (while ignoring the fundamental right to life of the unborn child) and ordered any and all laws against ripping a baby out of the womb recinded. Liberals love to argue this case, and feminists are always saying "keep your hands off my body" yet they eagerly place their grubby paws all over the bodies of all Americans. Which is it? Do we have this right to privacy or not? If so, Congress has no right whatsoever to force us to buy health insurance. If yes, then both Congress and the individual states have every right to ban abortion. (They do anyway, because abortion involves injury to another person.) To argue that government can compel good health is to argue that they can ignore your right to privacy, your right to your own body.

This has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and everything to do with fundamental liberty. The Founding Fathers would have been aghast.

If the courts should find this Constitutional, it will be time to remove the Constitution. I leave you with these words:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

If Obamacare is allowed to stand we should think long and hard on that.