Did Obamacare Ruling Overturn Roe v. Wade?

LJWorld.com weblogs Science Becoming Religion

Posted by Reasonmclucus August 23, 2012 at 3:05 a.m.

Those arguing over the constitutionality of Obamacare have consistently ignored the fact that Obamacare conflicts with the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. The Court's decision to uphold Obamacare may provide statements that could be used to justify regulating and possibly even prohibiting abortion.

The Court wouldn't need to refer to Roe v. Wade to in effect overturn it. The justices could inadvertently overturn Roe v. Wade by making statements that conflict with it. Attorneys could use such conflicts to argue that Roe v. Wade is no longer consistent with the Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

I'm going to leave the tedious process of examining specific comments by the Justices to those who get paid to do such things. I'm more interested in the general theory involved.

There is a certain absurdity to the Roe v. Wade ruling. The ruling is based on a philosophy of limited government that is closer to the normal views of those called "conservatives" than to the views of those called "liberals". However, the conservatives have traditionally opposed the decision and the liberals have supported it.

The two groups also reverse their normal positions on regulation of abortion providers. Conservatives, who normally try to limit government regulations, favor strict regulation of abortion providers. Liberals, who normally favor strict regulation of health care providers, believe women who seek abortions don't deserve the same protective regulations of health care providers that protect those who visit facilities that treat both men and women.

The philosophy of Roe v. Wade is that health care decisions like abortion are a private matter and government has only limited authority to intervene in private health care decisions. Obamacare is based on a philosophy that there is no right to privacy in health care. Government can control what health care people can obtain by forcing them to purchase insurance that may not cover the type of health care they want or need.

For example, consider the case of a young transsexual who wants to save money he budgets for health care until he has enough money to pay for surgery to transform him into a woman. He might be unable to save his money for the operation if he had to first pay for insurance that would not cover the cost of the operation. Or, consider the case of a young woman who wants to fix what she considers flaws in her appearance, including paying for breast enhancement. Insurance companies wouldn't cover such procedures.

Congress can require people to purchase insurance that only covers conventional treatments that don't help them.. If they benefit from "experimental" treatments instead they must first pay for the type treatment that doesn't help them before they pay for the treatment that works.

Under Obamacare, wealthy members of Congress decide whether or not individuals can afford health insurance regardless of the needs and priorities of specific individuals. Under Obamacare there is no right to privacy in determining spending priorities. Government dictates what they must spend on the health care the government decides they can have.

The people who voted in Obamacare ignore the fact that a Republican president and Congress could make different decisions about health care than a Democratic president and Congress. For example, a Republican president might be able to sharply limit the medical procedures associated with abortion.

Delicious
Digg
Tumblr
Wordpress
Reddit
Copy and paste the link:

jhawkinsf 9 months ago

Well, right away I see one area that I disagree with. I don't believe Roe passed Supreme Court muster on the theory of limited government. It passed on the philosophy of a right to privacy. Whether or not Obamacare speaks to the issue of limited government would be irrelevant as it regards a woman's right to privacy.

Anyway, that's my understanding, but like you, will defer to those who get paid to interpret the Constitution.

Liberty275 9 months ago

"It passed on the philosophy of a right to privacy."

Yes. But if the government is paying for your health care, they are going to well know what they are paying for. Privacy can be made void. Can it not also void other things protected under the court's rulings based on privacy?

laurennoel 9 months ago

***"The two groups also reverse their normal positions on regulation of abortion providers. Conservatives, who normally try to limit government regulations, favor strict regulation of abortion providers. Liberals, who normally favor strict regulation of health care providers, believe women who seek abortions don't deserve the same protective regulations of health care providers that protect those who visit facilities that treat both men and women."

This comment is confusing and I think slightly false. As a so called "Liberal" (I hate that blanket term) I think most people in my party would agree that abortion shouldn't be treated any differently than any other medical procedure. Women deserve the right to choose and in that light, deserve to be treated equally as in any other medical situation.

I know this is only one portion of your argument, but I think it needs to be highlighted and possibly revised.

I also don't understand why the focus is on abortion when AHA addresses more than women's health issues. Like Autie said, the overall premis was to streamline the system, to make it equally available to all citizens, and to alleviate some of the pressure on medicare and medicaid. So, in my humble opinion, abortion should be a footnote at the bottom of the page.

Also... if the government (correct me if I'm wrong here) penalizes you for not having car insurance, then what's the big deal about having to get health insurance?

***"The people who voted in Obamacare ignore the fact that a Republican president and Congress could make different decisions about health care than a Democratic president and Congress. For example, a Republican president might be able to sharply limit the medical procedures associated with abortion."

This will not happen. There have been numerous "ceremonial" attempts to overturn it, but it always gets slammed down before it can be taken seriously. One president cannot overturn such a huge bill without a whole lot of work and most likely more than one term. Sorry. Also, if this whole Todd Aiken thing hasn't taught you anything, the general public supports the women's right to choose. I dare a president to try and make changes to that right. I'm starting to feel like I'm living in the dark ages again.

Also, I thought we were dealing with a huge unemployment rate, droughts, removing troops from overseas, dealing with an unstable Euro (which does affect our economy), and an upcoming fiscal cliff, etc. Why are we so stuck on abortion. Maybe we should try and focus on implimenting AHA and preventing a second recession. Just saying.

royp 8 months, 4 weeks ago

You must admit the author raises a fascinating point. For instance think about this. Let’s say Romney is elected and Obama care stands. Next he appoints governor Brownwback as head of HHS just as Obama appointed governor Sebelius. Do you think the HHS’s current view of national health insurance covered abortions would change?

laurennoel 8 months, 3 weeks ago

No. Brownback may be delusional (he's my second cousin, I can say that), but there's no way the Secretary of HHS has that kind of sway. Plus, and I know you're just making an example, but Brownback most likely would not get that appointment. I miss Sebelius...

Commenting has been disabled for this item.