Hear me out on this, I am probably not the only one that’s mentioned it. I was thinking to myself, if Roe v. Wade read into the constitution the right to privacy of a woman and her doctor in regards to abortion doesn’t the same apply to all medical procedures and to all people.
From what I understand part of the universal health care thing is to make patient records more readily available on the public domain. That would mean that the treatment discussions that my doctor has for me will be public domain records for any body who can access that data, and allows the govenment to make decisions on my treatment based on that. Maybe I am stupid, but isn’t that the same as the govenment making a medical procedure illegal and violating the right to privacy.
I would think that a court challenge could and should if this passes be brought up on this very point. Make the “stare decis” democrat idiots argue against the right to privacy for say a 35 year old male diabetic doesn’t exist, but the right of privacy of an 18 year old college woman out on a bender and who had to do the walk of shame 2 months earlier does exist and is sacrosanct thanks to Roe v. Wade. I would think that this would bring up that little inconvience called equal protection under the law. Hence universal health care, unconstitutional based on their own playing boggle with the constitution. (Granted the whole thing is unconsititutional anyway without the Roe v. Wade strawman).