Roe v. Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al.

Have you ever noticed the way certain people selectively apply what they claim as "constitutional rights"? This question occurred to me as I thought about the actions of the Congress and president last week. But before I get to that, a little background is in order.

Back in 1973, a Supreme Court at the height of its activist history wrestled with a constitutional justification for allowing the indiscriminate slaughter of unborn babies in the infamous Roe v Wade case.

"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the majority decision.

Search the Constitution as you might for the word privacy or any synonym and you will come up empty. But seven justices were determined to overturn duly enacted abortion laws throughout the United States, so they located this right in the due process clause. Ironically, it is the due process clause that forbids the taking of life, liberty or property without an impartial hearing. Yet, this decision ensured tens of millions of lives would be snuffed out with no due process. But the court found support for this "privacy" argument in the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights.

In case you are unfamiliar with the term "penumbra," perhaps a dictionary definition will help you:

1. "The partial or imperfect shadow outside the complete shadow of an opaque body, as a planet, where the light from the source of illumination is only partly cut off."

2. "The grayish marginal portion of a sunspot."

3. "A shadowy, indefinite, or marginal area."

Does that help? In other words, the court understood it was dealing in the realm of shadowy, indefinite and marginal areas of the law — but it was still, on this admittedly shaky basis, willing to pronounce death sentences on millions.

I present this history to you not to scoff at the idea of "privacy rights." I believe I have a right to privacy. It just may not be constitutionally protected. It may not be the business of the federal government to protect it.

It certainly isn't clearly enumerated.

Given that the federal government demands every year all the fine details of my most personal and private financial business so that it can determine its fair share of my earnings, I would have to say the government represents the biggest threat to my privacy rights, not my benefactor or guardian.

However, I will point out that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are among America's most ardent defenders of the unconscionable, abominable Roe v Wade decision. So, we should assume they, like Blackmun and his six black-robed cohorts, believe the Constitution absolutely protects individual privacy — especially in what they would call "medical procedures." Would that be a safe assumption? Would that be a fair statement of their position?

More precisely, as supporters of Roe v Wade, they believe the state had no compelling interest to involve itself in the purely "medical" decision a woman makes when she decides to terminate her pregnancy. They further believe the state has no role involving itself between doctor and patient on the basis of "privacy rights."

That was the legal cornerstone of Roe v Wade. Are you with me so far?

Last week, Obama, Pelosi and Reid conspired to railroad through Congress legislation that places the state directly between every doctor and every patient in the country — not just for abortions, but also for every medical procedure and consultation that takes place in America henceforth.

Do you see a slight contradiction in logic here? Or does this suggest to you Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al. were never so concerned about privacy as they were in striking down all legal restrictions against abortion?

Where is the right to privacy when the government gets to mandate what kind of insurance you buy and, thus, what kind of medical care you receive? What kind of bodily integrity do we have when the government forces us to pay for something that directly relates to our bodies and their care and maintenance? In other words, what business is it of the government's?

If the government had no business protecting the life of an unborn child because it would violate the mother's right to privacy, how can the government justify its intrusion into the most personal and private medical decisions of every American?

To find out more about Joseph Farah and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM