Is Sarah Palin crazy?

American Thinker ^ | 9-6-09 | Howard Lurie

[smoothsailing]

Return to the Article

September 06, 2009

Is Sarah Palin crazy?

By Howard Lurie

Is Sarah Palin crazy?  Was she out of her mind when she implied that the Obama health care bill was going to create a "death panel" that would encourage the elderly to check out early if their illness or infirmity was draining too many dollars from the system?

Sure, there is a provision in the bill for end-of-life counseling by doctors, but it does not establish "death panels."  And yes, it does call for explanations of orders regarding life sustaining treatments, and why such orders might be beneficial to the individual and the individual's family, but there is no language in the bill mandating the individual's death.

Of course, as we have learned, the absence of specific language in the Constitution or a statute doesn't mean that something isn't there.  There is no language in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to abortion, but that didn't stop the Supreme Court from concluding that such a right exists.  The right to an abortion arose out of the right of privacy that also lacks any textual support in the Constitution.

A corollary concept is that specific language in the Constitution prohibiting something doesn't mean that it is actually prohibited.  The Constitution clearly and specifically declares that no Senator can be appointed to an office in the United States if the salary for that office was increased during the term for which the Senator was elected.  The salary of the Secretary of State was increased during the term of Senator Hillary Clinton.  Nonetheless, she was appointed and confirmed by the Senate to that office.

We have also seen that despite the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law, a compelling state interest can exist that renders unequal treatment permissible.  An elite state law school's desire for a racially diverse student body was held by the Supreme Court to permit the law school to treat white applicants less favorably than non-white applicants.  The Court deferred to the law school's judgment that diversity was a compelling state interest.

If the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is subordinate to "a compelling state interest," one could reasonably fear that the Amendment's guarantee that no person should be deprived "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law is likewise subordinate to "a compelling state interest."  Arguably, the preservation of dwindling government health care dollars is "a compelling state interest."

Before dismissing the above argument as ludicrous, I hasten to remind the reader that it was not too long ago that, in the interest of the greater good, states were forcibly sterilizing the mentally retarded.  "It is better for all the world" said the eminent jurist Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. speaking for the Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell (1927), if "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.  The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.  Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

In 1932, the Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began a study of untreated syphilis in black males.  The study began with 399 black men with syphilis.  The men were falsely told that they were going to be treated, but they were never given the proper treatment to cure their illness.  Even in 1947 when penicillin became the drug of choice for syphilis, it was not offered to the men.  The study went on for 40 years, but the men were never given adequate treatment for their disease.  Despite the Hippocratic Oath that doctors supposedly take to "do no harm," a number of doctors participated in the study in the interest of medical research. 

Today, over one million abortions a year are performed.  This deliberate killing takes place with the sanction of the highest court of our land, and with the approval of our President.  These abortions are to prevent the birth of unwanted children who might become a financial burden for their mothers, families, or society.  Many of these abortions are paid for by taxpayers through agencies of our federal and state governments.

If the burden of the unwanted justifies their extermination prior to birth, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the burden of the unwanted ill and infirm elderly would constitute a justification for their early exit from this world.  Will some number of ill and infirm aged be "enough"?

There are but a few steps between government mandated end-of-life counseling, and the "better for all the world" ending of life by government mandates. 

Sarah Palin is not crazy.

Howard Lurie is emeritus professor, School of Law, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania. Contact him at hlurie1@inbox.com. 

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/is_sarah_palin_crazy.html at September 06, 2009 - 09:22:48 PM EDT

[SAJ]

That would be the 'Hippocratic' oath, after Hippocrates, who, with Galen, were the founders of the study of medicine.

Interesting that you, a phlebotomist, misspell the name of the oath twice, and in two different ways, dontchathink?

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE!!

SINCE WHEN are Freepers unable to read a very well written article!
Yeesh...its cleverly done and very sophisticated way to present the whole thing.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

sorry I yelled at you...i now see this post.

Now, I’m eating crow for yelling at you..ha. Guess with the times the way they are...

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

you read “enough?” Go back to “See Spot run.”
guess this is above your pay grade.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Good writing is not for “skimmers”...go back to “See Spot run.” or the NYT..that you can skim.

[tioga]

IF Sarah Palin is crazy, then I am a raving lunatic.

[Kimberly GG]

He’s definitely going to shove through some kind of public option...whether he names it co-ops or trigger legislation, same difference...the left will settle for nothing less. And when he does it without Republican votes...yes, all hell will bust loose!

[Brugmansian]

Good writing is not for “skimmers”...go back to “See Spot run.” or the NYT..that you can skim.

I was in the bidness. The writing is fair. When many readers do not get the point, the writer failed. It is not the fault of the reader.

Far as "skimmers" is concerned, knowing how to skim is a very useful ability and should not be disparaged. Many professionals skim reading text which is upside down (very useful and somewhat intimidating ability for an editor..or was before computers when copy would lie on a desk).

[Cold Heat]

Lookin forward to it....:-)

There is a chance he will continue to walk down the fence. Spouting some red meat for his crews, and trying to insult conservatives as the problem. More of the same.....We shall see...I think this latest round with his commie buddy has pissed him off, and he does crazy crap when that happens. The last time he dumped that CIA document because of the TeaBaggers!.

I'm curious to see what he does this time and if he has another tantrum.

[Pallas]

Sarah Palin’s enthusiastic and impassioned and ill-willed liberals, who are almost all liberals, call her crazy.

[The_Reader_David]

The two reasonable answers to the question are

a) no

or

b) like a fox

take your pick.

[A'elian' nation]

You’re right and you include Joe Scarborough in the mix.

If Joe Scarborough didn’t just sit on his fat a— slurpin 1000 calorie Starbuck lattes and actually did some real research like Beck instead of mocking him, he might not feel like the idiot he is going to be come this Tuesday morning.

I hear the Republican party is wooing him. They can have him. Idiot that I am, I used to like this guy; but his mocking of Beck and Palin (”death panels”) really brings out his thin-skinned elitism.

HEY JOE - remember Obama saying this: “WE are partners with God in matters of life and death.” How is that NOT a “death panel.” ?

[EternalVigilance]

She defeated the bill only using facebook.

This claim is an insult to the millions of Americans who are standing up in the effort to save our country.

They are the hope of this country, not Sarah Palin.

[21twelve]

I don’t know. I “got it” at the sixth sentence:

“There is no language in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to abortion, but that didn’t stop the Supreme Court from concluding that such a right exists.”

[Erasmus]

Many professionals skim reading text which is upside down (very useful and somewhat intimidating ability for an editor..or was before computers when copy would lie on a desk).

And it can be an invaluable career skill, when you're in your boss's office.

[new cruelty]

Subject matter of the article aside for the moment-

While I agree this isn't prize winning writing at its best, within the first four sentences the reader/skimmer should be able to detect the writer is about to switch positions from 'yes, she's crazy' to 'no, she's not crazy and here's why'. This switch is evident by the fifth sentence where the writer reveals his support of Palin, and then dedicates the remainder of the article in support of her stance.

Ignoring the body of the article, even by just skimming the article one can easily read that the writer concludes with "Sarah Palin is not crazy".

[JaguarXKE]

She's not God either.

Right! That would be Obama! (Just ask Evan Thomas of Newsweek).

[Pallas]

Scarborough’s a sad case. He was a solid class of ‘94 conservative congressman; really went after Clinton. I bet his change is largely cynical; in my experience very few people sincerely change core convictions at his age. Go along to get along at BSNBC, I bet. I wouldn’t worry too much about him rising up the ranks in the GOP, though. I doubt rank-and-file Republicans are eager to promote a BSNBC performer. If the GOP needs a TV personality, let them recruit Megyn Kelly, sez I.

[B-Cause]

Thank you Jeff. Your graphics are always great, and your text is right on. Thank you for what you do Jeff.