Diary

Keep your laws off my body

Proponents of a woman’s reproductive rights emphatically state a woman has the sacred right to choose to carry a baby to term or to terminate the life of her own child. Ironically, those claiming reproductive rights for women that also support government run health care willingly sacrifice all health care decisions to the federal government under the proposed health care legislation. This creates a serious dilemma for the pro-abortion, pro-government run health care crowd.

Will government bureaucrats impose regulations or make decisions that impact a woman’s right to an abortion, or will government bureaucrats simply approve abortions on demand? If an abortion is paid for and covered under government run health care then an abortion is subject to regulations just like any medical procedure. The proposed health care legislation establishes the Secretary of Health & Human Services as the person responsible for health care regulation. Since abortion is just another medical procedure to the pro-abortion crowd, one can reasonably expect regulations would govern access to that medical procedure.

Undoubtedly, the mere mention of health care regulations creates a dilemma for reproductive rights proponents as health care regulations could violate the so-called sacred right to choose. Supporters of government run health care acquiesce to government bureaucrats on a far-away hill rationing care and deciding who gets access to medical facilities, treatments, doctors, and prescriptions. Therefore, a woman seeking an abortion must fully expect equal application of the law and regulation when it comes to abortion procedures. To reproductive rights proponents an abortion is just another medical procedure not unlike heart bypass surgery or a hip replacement.

Today, the President and the HHS Secretary are pro-abortion, pro-government run health care Democrats and most likely will not impose regulations impeding abortion. However, in the future, a pro-life President may appoint a HHS Secretary that will modify those regulations. It is highly probable abortions will be severely restricted or eliminated altogether under a pro-life administration. Imagine the outrage from the pro-abortion crowd. How can a government bureaucrat violate the pro-abortion crowds so-called reproductive rights; the right to decide whether to have an abortion or not?

You can foresee the reaction. Accusations of government run amok. A bureaucrat encroaches upon their individual rights and liberties. How unfair and unjust! How could this have happened? It can happen because the health care legislation grants nearly unlimited power to the HHS Secretary to regulate health care in the United States. And, the power to regulate health care cuts both ways depending on which Party is in power.

When government, by coercion, encroaches upon individual rights and liberties a violent clash occurs. The needs of the nation-state are elevated above individual rights. Individual rights and liberties are subjected to the whims of elected officials. The founding fathers understood human nature and wished not to create a democracy where majority rules and laws change for transient reasons. Instead the founding fathers created a Constitutional Republic to ensure elected officials were constrained and could not violate our rights and liberties irrespective of the Party in power. Government run health care elevates the government to master over the people making the individual the servant. George Washington once said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Make no mistake about it. Toying around with health care legislation is as dangerous as playing with fire.

Opponents of government run health care desire to retain the right to make personal health care choices. Proponents of a woman’s reproductive rights desire to retain the right to make a personal health care choice in regards to abortion. Government run health care is contradictory to individual choice, rights, and liberty. Does the pro-abortion crowd genuinely believe that government regulation will never restrict or prohibit abortion? If so, the pro-abortion crowd is naïve as that crowd does not understand human nature or the nature of government.

Naturally, the argument against my assertion is the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Roe v. Wade that the right to an abortion (medical procedure) is protected under the Constitution.

In summary, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy. The critical factor is the right to privacy. In general terms and in context of all health care decisions I read this as: A person, with their doctor can choose a medical procedure based on the right to privacy.

If the general interpretation is indeed valid, then a citizen’s individual right to make personal health care decisions is constitutional and cannot be impeded by the government rationing care or deciding whether someone can or cannot have a medical procedure. If the Supreme Court protects a women’s right to a medical procedure based upon the right to privacy, then the Court must protect all citizens’ rights to medical procedures as all medical decisions are private.

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court were to rule a citizen has no right to make personal health care choices and the government can indeed regulate health care and deny medical procedures, then the Supreme Court has set the stage to overturn Roe v. Wade by allowing the federal government to regulate abortion as a result of the health care legislation.

Supporters of a woman’s right to choose may be playing with the fire George Washington cautioned us about. Indeed, government interference often has unintended consequences; one of which may be abortion is regulated into obscurity. Likewise, another unintended consequence may be the Supreme Court rules a citizen’s right to privacy in choosing a medical procedure cannot be interfered with by the government as decided by the Court in the Roe v. Wade decision.