Roe v. Obamacare

National Review Online ^ | June 15, 2010 | Adam Freedman

[alwaysconservative]

In April, a group of Mississippi citizens, including Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant, filed the first private class-action suit to challenge the Obama health-care law. The complaint cites all the legal precedents one would expect, but there is one big surprise: Roe v. Wade.

That’s right: The 1973 Supreme Court decision declaring a woman’s right to an abortion could be a key weapon against Obamacare. The Mississippi lawsuit (Bryant et al. v. Holder) is the first to highlight the inherent contradiction between the new law’s individual mandate and the “zone of privacy” first introduced in Roe.

-snip-

[alwaysconservative]

This is a very interesting perspective on the Constitutional challenges to Obamacare. As the heading says: "If the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy, as Roe v. Wade told us it does, how can Obamacare’s individual mandate pass constitutional muster?" Does anyone else smell "unintended consequences?"

[alwaysconservative]

Oops! Here is the link for the “rest of the story”:

http://article.nationalreview.com/436321/iroei-v-obamacare/adam-freedman

[SnakeDoctor]

I wondered aloud why so many feminists were on board with Obamacare ... they fight to their dying breath to keep government out of a supposedly “private medical decision”, and then jump on the bandwagon to get the government involved in ALL private medical decisions.

SnakeDoc

[nascarnation]

well said
the ultimate in hypocrisy

[murron]

I have been saying that since Obamacare first was proposed. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on this. On one hand, if they say there is no zone of privacy, then that would make Roe v Wade unconstitutional, which it is. But if they uphold this premise, then Obamacare would be out the window. But knowing how judges usually rule, they will probably find a way to get around it and keep Roe viable.

[Don Corleone]

"unintended consequences?" ???

I understand that in their rush to pass this monstrosity they forgot to include a certain clause so now basically the WHOLE BILL becomes unconstitutional if any part of it is declared so. Any of you legal eagles out there know about this one?

[chris_bdba]

This would be very beautiful thing to beat them with. You can’t have it both ways folks decide on which you want. The left have always been the ultimate hypocrites so this would be like the big red cherry on top! LOL

[alwaysconservative]

I meant the rather delicious idea that they can be foiled in Obamacare by their zealous, almost religious, devotion to Roe v. Wade.

And yes, the omission of the savings clause may also doom the law, because it is an “all or nothing” proposition.

[Jacquerie]

Good post.

It illustrates what an incoherent mess the little minds of the supreme court have made of our Constitution these past 80 years.

[Monorprise]

“But knowing how judges usually rule, they will probably find a way to get around it and keep Roe viable.”

Your probably right in that there is no constitutional legitimacy to the Federal Government anymore and we should stop telling each other or teaching our children that the Federal government is anything but an oligarchy of 9 Federal appointed men on a bench who have between them overthrown and replaced with themselves our constitution.

Maybe if we can’t have a revolution to free ourselves from this tyranny, one day they can. Until that glorious day comes, look upon the usurpers of our rights with the same contempt as a slave has looking upon his master.

Because until that day comes we are slaves to their apparently boundless dictates.