Roe v. Obamacare

This AmSpec article has been making the rounds, claiming that Obama’s health care plan is incompatible with Roe v. Wade.

It makes some interesting points, but makes no sense to me.  Roe is a little legally retarded, and its only healthcare-related statement is that “the gov’t” can’t prevent a woman from aborting her fetus until the point where the fetus is viable.  Roe doesn’t guarantee abortions as a matter of right; it merely precludes government intervention up to a certain point.

Of course everything will be much more difficult under socialized health care — there’s a reason Americans aren’t absconding en masse to Cuba or, for that matter, Canada.  Taking away an individual’s right to choose health care providers will clearly affect our right to choose other things.  But focusing on this dubious case is a little far-fetched.

Let’s just go forward with our strongest arguments in this area, based on economics and fact rather than Al Gore statistics and legal “penumbras.”  Especially when abortion is so heavily subsidized.  Yes, Obama’s health care proposition violates Roe‘s penumbras.  But first Obamacare violates every decision-making dignity and basic human decency affiliated with medicine.  This Roe stuff is tenuous and far-fetched and unnecessary when the sins of socialized health care are so perilously close to home.


Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s