Liberals have successfully promoted the fallacy that the right to privacy is in the Bill of Rights. Although, not literally mentioned in the Constitution, prominent cases likeGriswold vs. Connecticut (1965) and Roe vs. Wade (1973) laid a foundation, which leads many Americans to falsely believe privacy is a Constitutionally cosseted right.
If privacy furthers abortion rights, liberals champion it. Yet, if privacy restrictions hinder government access into other areas of our lives, liberals overwhelmingly dismiss it. Presently, Washington DC, under the tutelage of a liberal, left wing president, is attempting to grant regulated access into American citizen’s lives and mandating that entry on the back of a health care bill stunningly devoid of confidentiality.
For years, liberals have been shooing parents away from the door of abortion clinics, where underage children are violated by invasive procedures. Liberals are proficient at setting forth privacy as foundational when defending the sacrament of choice. However, when proposing legislation outside the bedroom or the abortion clinic, the left desires government be permitted access to information and into situations that should remain undisclosed.
Sodomy laws have been systematically overturned state after state by courts that cite right to privacy, “We cannot think of any other activity that reasonable persons would rank as more private and more deserving of protection from governmental interference than consensual, private, adult sexual activity.” Yet, the same politicians that herald-overthrowing laws that inhibit private sexual behavior contradict themselves by supporting health care legislation that is poised to legalize governmental prostate exams be administered on the National Mall.
To name just a few privacy routing proposals on the health care docket there are National ID cards, Home Visitation Programs where government oversees parenting, mandating vaccines in the name of Preventative Services. In addition the bill includes the acquisition and distribution of every iota of privileged information from medical records to investments and financial history. Not forgetting bureaucratic intrusion into sensitive end of life decisions.
Barack Obama and his Democratic cohorts in the Congress and Senate exercise the highest form of hypocrisy. The left morally appropriates secrecy as a shield for the right to choose. However, according to the text of HR 3200, that obligation flies out the window and is non-applicable if Barney Frank decides he wants real-time accessinto private citizen’s bank accounts.
According to the President, Supreme Court nominees will be chosen based on measures that demand they agree the Constitution includes privacy as a right,
And so my criteria, for example, would be– if a Justice tells me that they only believe the strict letter of the Constitution– that means that they possibly don’t mean– believe in– a right to privacy that may not be perfectly enumerated in the Constitution but, you know, that I think is there.
Based on Obama’s pick-and-choose record, right to privacy legislation is decided purely upon political convenience and personal interpretation and not strict, literal adherence to the Constitution. In light of that fact, it is likely that Obama, along with his radical liberal contingency will continue to fashion policy according to whim and therein lays the problem with the selective nature of liberal relativism.
The left persistently chooses invalid privacies to defend. Human dignity demands birth and death be revered as the most exquisite of private moments. Yet Barack Obama together with HR 3200 legitimizes governmental rubber necking making bureaucratic involvement in denying care to the elderly and infirm the new spectator sport. In Obama-world, setting up and administering Phillip Nitschke’s Death Machine in the public square does not contradict the privacy right he claims to espouse.
Americans desirous of retaining a modicum of personal confidentiality are overwhelmingly rejecting the bill and demanding government stay out of finances; family business, medical care and at least 500 feet from the critical care unit. In return for the request the supposed guardians of privacy are dubbing those decrying government intrusion an unruly mob.
In the name of providing health reform, liberals would not hesitate to strip Americans naked in a line up on Capitol Hill. Yet, if the crowd included a sufferer of an unwanted pregnancy, the left would gladly cloak that individual in a legal afghan to shield privacy and promptly escort them, undercover, to the nearest abortion facility.
Barack Obama and his band of gatecrashers have decided rights end or begin according to which direction they desire liberal initiatives to go. As a result, the proprietors of privacy have been reduced to a horde of clamoring voyeurs, balancing on each other’s shoulders, peering through the window of our lives.
While abortion and homosexual rights continue to be protected under the mantle of privacy, as far as HR 3200 is concerned, common citizen’s private affairs appear to be the first causality scheduled to be dealt a fatal blow by Obama’s open-air, publicly exposed, government-ordained death panel.
If signed into legislation Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama will gain approved governmental access into every corner of our lives. The left will gain unrestricted gawking rights to stand over the deathbeds of American citizens who will be forced to leave this world without the type of privacy liberals are willing to endorse.