Posted on 09/11/2009 12:46:40 PM PDT by mbarker12474
From the American Family Association:
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147486722
ObamaCare and Planned Parenthood Date: 9/11/2009 10:38:41 AM
by Bryan Fischer, AFA Director of Issue Analysis
Here at the American Family Association, we have received many inquiries in response to our Action Alert and press release warning Americans that under ObamaCare, Planned Parenthood will be authorized to run health clinics that are based inside public schools.
Here’s how. In Section 2511 (pages 993-1001) of H.R. 3200, the House version of health care reform legislation, provision is made for “School-Based Health Clinics” (SBHCs for short). Under the provisions of this section, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is directed to “establish a school-based health clinic program” which will locate clinics “in, or...adjacent to a school facility” a clinic which is “administered by a sponsoring facility.”
Who can qualify as a “sponsoring facility?” A “sponsoring facility” can be “a hospital, a public health department, a community health center,” or – and this is where Planned Parenthood comes in – “a nonprofit health care agency.”
A quick visit to Planned Parenthood’s website (www.plannedparenthood.org) reveals that Planned Parenthood is in fact a “not-for-profit” 501(c)(3) organization which proudly boasts of operating “850 health centers” throughout the United States.
Under H.R. 3200, each one of these “health centers” is eligible to become a “sponsoring facility” of a school-based health clinic.
Given the pro-abortion inclinations of President Obama and the promises he has made to Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby, and the radically pro-abortion convictions of current Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, a fervent supporter of notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller, we can soon expect to see “school-based health clinics” on school grounds operated at taxpayer expense by Planned Parenthood.
Yes, these will operate at taxpayer expense, as the bill expressly says that “funds awarded under a grant under this section” may be used for “the payment of salaries for health professionals and other appropriate SBHC personnel.”
Worse, although the bulk of H.R. 3200 is not scheduled to go into effect until 2013, the Secretary of HHS is directed to “begin awarding grants” for these SBHCs “not later than July 1, 2010.”
In other words, by this time next year, your child’s school may well be hosting a clinic run by the nation’s largest abortion provider and leading purveyor of the “safe sex” message that has compromised the sexual innocence of countless thousands of America’s youth, and left them with unwanted pregnancies and bodies riddled with sexually-transmitted diseases.
Because each SBHC is directed to follow all laws governing “patient privacy and student records,” parents will never know what kind of counsel and medical treatment their child has received by the time he gets home from school.
(It’s true that the bill directs SBHCs to follow laws governing “obtaining parental or guardian consent,” but the undercover investigations of Lila Rose and others have revealed that Planned Parenthood staff routinely evade their legal obligation to follow parental consent laws and to report suspected cases of statutory rape. Planned Parenthood simply cannot be trusted to follow parental involvement laws.)
Since the “sponsoring facility” – e.g. Planned Parenthood – “assumes all responsibility for the SBHC administration, operations and oversight,” there will be no accountability to the school principal, school boards or to parents. Their only accountability will be to local Planned Parenthood staff and ultimately to a government bureaucrat – the Secretary of Health & Human Services – who believes it’s okay to stick a fork in an unborn baby’s head and suck out its brains before crushing its skull with forceps.
Putting Planned Parenthood in charge of a school’s health clinic is like putting ACORN in charge of the Electoral College or putting Rod Blagojevich in charge of the Federal Reserve. Not a good idea now or ever. Once again we say it is time for America’s families to rise up as one and say a flat “No” to the president’s plan to take over all of America’s health care.
Section 2511 (pages 993-1001) of H.R. 3200, the House version of health care reform
Have people become so ignorant of the Constitution they fail to realize the more important issue is that Federal health care is unconstitutional since it is not expressly written as a power granted to Congress in Article 1 Section 8 or have we become so apathetic to the Constitution that individual provisions in HR3200 are more important? What am I missing?
Sadly, I would say that far too many have become ignorant and apathetic.
Surely both general constitutional issues and specific health-care provisions are relevant?
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; [...]"
The “Principle of Subsidiarity” is founded in both Church theory as well as the the U.S. Constitution:
“Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. The concept is applicable in the fields of government, political science, cybernetics, management, military (Mission Command) and, metaphorically, in the distribution of software module responsibilities in object-oriented programming (according to the Information expert design guideline). Subsidiarity is, ideally or in principle, one of the features of federalism.
The word subsidiarity is derived from the Latin word subsidiarius and has its origins in Catholic social teaching. The concept or principle is found in several constitutions around the world (see for example the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution).”
(from wikipedia)
In short, as Madison argued, Congress derives no power from the general welfare clause, which merely serves to limit Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes. Congress can only do so for purposes of common defense or general welfare, in the service of the powers granted to it elsewhere in Article I.Second, “Necessary and Proper” gives Congress the power “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.” Like the general welfare clause, this clause was not a stand-alone grant of power to Congress. Rather, it authorizes Congress to make laws that are necessary (and also proper) to make the other grants of authority in Article I effectual.
In other words, the necessary and proper clause cannot itself authorize national public health insurance. One would have to show that national public health insurance is necessary and proper to execute some other power granted in the Constitution. This puts the proponents of nationalized healthcare back where they started.
Lastly, proponents might argue that national health insurance is part of Congress power “to regulate commerce…among the several states.” While progressives have often used this clause to expand the federal government, it does not apply especially to the creation of a national health insurance, because to create and engage in commerce is not the same thing as regulating commerce among the several states.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/09/23/hr_3200_will_collapse_global_medicine_97423.html
Even more global reasons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.