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

[vaudine]

The words death panel do not exist in 3200, but the steps from a committee consultation and a true death panel are few and short.

In pointing out all the made up rights such as abortion, things done in the name of research, things done "for the govt. good", this author is clearly and cleverly proving that Sarah is not crazy and so states in the last line. Good article--READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE!

vaudine

[Vision]

I’m talking in the national dialog sense. It’s not an insult at all to each citizen who stood up and had their finger bitten off.

She was the one who coined the term Death Panels which the WH couldn’t defend and rilled everyone up. And she is right.

[EveningStar]

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

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people in the conservative movement who view Sarah the same way many libs view Obama - as a Messiah.

[calex59]

Why no barf alert?

[Billthedrill]

A rather disturbing article, actually. I had no recollection that Holmes had supported involuntary sterilization. "The Supreme Court says it's OK, so it's OK." Uh...Dred Scott.

And the author is correct - when immersed in these murky Constitutional waters, night can become day. For example, asset forfeiture is so blatantly and specifically against the Fourth Amendment that it is mind-boggling that it passed scrutiny by the SC. The latter, for all its virtues, is a historically poor guardian in the matter.

One notes the Parthian shot "It was only voluntary end-of-life counseling!" uttered over the shoulders of the rapidly retreating Obots as they quickly spiked the offending clause. In fact, it was, but not from the point of view of the patient. It was at the doctor's, and the panel's volition. "Death Panel" isn't much of a stretch at all in the bill as it was written; if the author is correct what it would have become was no stretch at all.

[dusttoyou]

Replace democrats with liberals and I'm with you 100%. All dems can not be nutty socialist commie libs. Never had any big trouble with political disagreement with democrats until the lib “progressives” took over and threw out decency, decorum and respect for liberty.

[smoothsailing]

Why no barf alert?

Because none is called for.

[A message]

I’m already guilty once today of not reading all the way through. :-)

Learned my lesson did I.

[ansel12]

“Unfortunately, there are plenty of people in the conservative movement who view Sarah the same way many libs view Obama - as a Messiah.”

---

Says the Rudy Guiliani/Mitt Romney girl. If you are a fan of Meg Whitman also which I assume that you are, then here is a video of her promoting Van Jones that you may enjoy, she is very moderate and is not one of those icky conservatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSn37TMXZO8&feature=player_embedded

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

That is necessarily the case. 99% of doctors can be highly ethical, but the other 1% can bring a nightmare of horrific proportions. And while it is that 1% that need to be controlled, the other 99% have shown an unwillingness to do it.

The 1% effectively shield themselves with a combination of scientific adventurism, professional courtesy, and the pretense that efforts to control their ethical abuses are corrupt and ignorant. Galileo was persecuted, and so am I, is hardly an excuse for Frankenstinian horrors inflicted on the helpless and unwilling.

[EveningStar]

That’s the ticket. Call me names. BTW, I’m a heterosexual male.

[calex59]

Sorry, but one is called for. The way I read the article is that he is pretending to take her side(finally)but he is really trashing her. Barf alert was required.

[DejaJude]

At this point, I would like to see all democrats rounded up and given 24 hours to choose the country they’ll spend the rest of their lives in and ship them the hell out.

I wouldn't give them a choice. I'd dump them in Mexico.

[DCPatriot]

This author needs to read more and write less.

Ahh...the irony! ;^)

[smoothsailing]

Neither required nor called for.

However, it is your privilge of course to repost the article later with the alert if you so choose.

[calex59]

Yep, it is required and called for, and no I won’t repost your propaganda post, once is enough, I puked my guts out on this one.

[NeoCaveman]

Crazy like a fox

[smoothsailing]

LOL!

[carolina71]

Good Grief y’all ! I read what I needed to read so that’s that !

And I read past the first sentence.

There are much better articles to read than suffering over someone who starts with a false premise only to think it’s professional, or cute, to then debunk it. Too many articles, too little time to waste.

I also read Sarah Palin’s Facebook post(s). She’s direct and to the point which sits well with me !

[Jeff Head]

Thank you...for those kind words. They are too kind. We all must pull together and educate others and find and support good loyal American candidates like Sarah who will be true servants of our Republic, the Constitituion and the people.

AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY

A PETITION ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RESTORATION