The influence that the United Auto Workers hold over the Obama administration is no secret, but the brazenness of the president’s decision-making on their behalf is startling. Despite having “no interest” in running GM, the Obama administration…

1. essentially began running GM

2. saved it from real bankruptcy

3. forced out its CEO, Rick Wagoner

4. screwed shareholders in favor of the United Auto Workers Union

5. started Cash-for-Clunkers (which was itself a clunker)

Unfortunately for our friends from Chicago, 1-5 above were not enough to stop the multi-decade bleeding in Detroit. We are now supposed to believe, then, that the Obama administrations only interest in sticking it to Toyota is to protect US consumers from an alleged defect that has yet to be fully proven? Even after the UAW donated millions to The One’s campaign? Even though the government has a major stake in GM? Even when the president’s Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, brags about how they went to Toyota’s headquarters in Japan to “wake them up?” Even after Lahood smears Toyota as “safety deaf” and threatens that they’re “not done with Toyota?”

Are we really supposed to believe this is all a coincidence?

I fear that our liberal brothers are in danger of becoming hypocrites. For decades any arguments against abortion-on-demand have elicited howls about ANYONE coming between a doctor and a woman’s “right to privacy.” Now, as I watch liberals gleefully ram the federal government in between physicians and patients, a motto from Obama’s Chicago has crept into my mind: “Ubi Est Mea–Where’s mine?” Surely I have a right to privacy too, right?

Regardless of what you think about the constitutionality of Roe v Wade in the first place, the majority opinion delivered by Justice Blackmun was quite clear regarding the right to privacy:

“T]he Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.  … This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.“

This “right,” though not explicitly stated in the constitution, was first established in Griswold v. Connecticut (though it pertained to marital privacy in that case). It also was important in Lawrence v. Texas regarding laws against sodomy.

Maybe I’m not following liberal thought correctly, but isn’t Obamacare an enormous constitutional violation of this “right to privacy” that they profess to hold dearly? Am I to understand that if a woman wants to abort her child it’s a choice between her and her doctor alone, but if my grandmother needs an operation it’s okay for Dr. Obama from the federal government to just give her pain pills instead? Am I to understand that if I need a medical treatment, rather than making that decision with my physician in privacy I have to appeal to a government bureaucracy to see what their comparative effectiveness research thinks about the quality of my life? Why is it that liberals who have spent decades screaming about the government potentially jumping between a woman and her physician are now so eager to interfere with medical decisions for everyone else?

There are numerous constitutional issues that need to be addressed regarding this Obamacare government takeover, and I’ll be extremely disappointed if the right to privacy isn’t one of them. Liberals can’t have it both ways on the right to privacy.