Posted on 03/15/2012 10:07:40 AM PDT by Nachum
Let’s take a trip via the wayback machine to the hallowed classrooms of the University of Chicago Law School. The year is 1996, and a young lecturer named Barack Obama is teaching constitutional law to a group of students. His first final exam question is about whether homosexuals can be barred from receiving state health care coverage for their infertility treatments.
The question deals with a hypothetical lesbian couple that wants to have a baby. Their state prevents health providers from providing infertility treatments for unwed couples; the couple’s state-provided healthcare therefore refuses them coverage for such procedures
Obama then presented an analysis of this question. That’s the way it works on law school constitutional law exams: you spot the issues, then offer an analysis of them. They never come down on one side or another. But they can give you important clues as to the way the student (or in this case, the lecturer) thinks.
Instead of wading through the legal thicket presented by any law school exam, let’s analyze Lecturer Obama’s main take. He makes the following points:
“The fundamental right at stake … goes well beyond issues of bodily integrity, but instead involves the broader principle that the government cannot be in the business of deciding who should bear children and who should not – at least without offering up some pretty compelling reasons for doing so.” Obama even compares a state law banning infertility treatment for unwed couples to active sterilization.
In a particularly noteworthy comment, Obama writes: “the connection between restricting infertility services to married couples and ‘preserving the integrity of marriage’ is so tenuous that it cannot be considered a narrowly tailored means of serving that interest.” This is arguable at best –
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Øbama = POS
with all due respect to pieces of excrement.
Just because two lesbians are not able to produce a baby, it doesn’t mean that either are infirtle.
Also, just because the taxpayers are not required to pay for someone’s treatment, it’s misleading to use the term “barred from receiving” when referring to the hopeful recipients of tax-paid services.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Also:
There is only *one* who decides who should bear children and who should not - and I don't expect Obama to understand that.
The really interesting part of Obama's "reasoning" here is that he argues the government - which is really the people - has no right to determine that a infertile lesbian couple remain childless via lack of treatment, yet he has no problem with the government forcing the people to pay to murder the innocent child in a fertile woman's womb.
Thanks for that, I have put the links up on my site.
I’m still stuck in the late 80’s. Exactly how do you determine that somebody can be considered legally gay or lesbian? Do you have to sign an affidavit and produce witnesses that you’ve had gay or lesbian sex?
Can gay brothers or lesbian sisters marry each other?
Can a heterosexual couple have a dna test performed on their unborn child and abort it if it has a gay or lesbian gene?
Is a transgendered male to female, considered infertile and it mandated by healthcare laws that they receive infertility treatments?
——Can gay brothers or lesbian sisters marry each other?——
Lolz
And how are homo marriages consummated?
Or maybe I don’t want to know.
this language reappeared in the recent birth control debate, MSM talking point
As far as his use of 'professor', he's not a true tenure track prof, although students usually called adjuncts 'professor' anyway. Some get offended with that. I don't.
Most of the law exam questions are relatively normal as they take grey areas. Even the model answers really didn't show anything outside of subtle biases not uncommon by any professor that leans left. The Cass Sunstein reference however really caught my eye, trying to stop associating a widely maligned case like Lochner to Substantive Due Process.
Oh, wait! You meant siblings. My bad. Never mind. {;^)
Okay, that was funny.
Indeed. he wants the law to steer outcomes that are contrary to all precedent. To overturn existing laws that block the outcomes he desires. Pure radicalism.
Indeed. What prevents two sisters/brothers from marrying? No off-spring can result from their union.
The questions that you pose here are directly to the point. What we will have if these National Socialists have their was is a return to the days of the Unholy Roman Empire when brother married sister and so on....
What I find most interesting, is why we have not EVER heard from any of Prof. Obama’s students.....
Hmmmm.....you’d think SOMEONE would speak up....whether for him or against him...someone? Anyone?
Buehler? Buehler??
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.