PDA

View Full Version : "Right to Privacy" will overturn health care reform - George F. Will


Beerina
20th November 2009, 10:37 AM
Among other things, the right to privacy between doctor and patient that justifies abortion, can be applied to general medical decisions.

Unlawful health reform? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111802697.html)


Other choice chunks...

This year, the Congressional Research Service delicately said "it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the [commerce] Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service." Congress has the constitutional power to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states." But a Federalist Society study by Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith judges it perverse to exercise coercion under the commerce clause "on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) says, there is "a fundamental difference between regulating activities in which individuals choose to engage" -- e.g., drivers can be required to buy auto insurance -- "and requiring such activities" just because an individual exists.



Supporters...must...rationalize...these...things.. .away...without...affecting...other...decisions... we...like...

Beerina
20th November 2009, 10:41 AM
Here's a crazy idea: Get a constitutional amendment to authorize this for Congress. That's why the amendment process is there! Then you don't have to weasel-word your way around it, something that doesn't work to well historically, when politicians are involved.

Dave Rogers
20th November 2009, 10:46 AM
Alternatively, stop pussyfooting around with half-measures and set up a proper national health system. That way, the right of the individual to buy private healthcare wouldn't be infringed.

Dave

J. Wellington Wimpy
20th November 2009, 11:02 AM
One of the commenters on the WP site, in response to Will's article, whinnies that any/all opposition to the prospect of Obamacare is inherently "neo-cessenionist" [sic] in nature.

You just have to giggle, really. :D

theprestige
20th November 2009, 11:29 AM
Among other things, the right to privacy between doctor and patient that justifies abortion, can be applied to general medical decisions.
Wait, what? I thought it was the legal assumption that the fetus (below an arbitrary, court-defined age) was not a human being with a right to life is what justified abortion.

I'm pretty sure the right to privacy between doctor and patient doesn't really justify much of anything, except of course doctors not divulging medical information about their patients (and even then only up to a certain point).

Are you sure you're saying what you meant to say?

MikeMangum
20th November 2009, 11:59 AM
Wait, what? I thought it was the legal assumption that the fetus (below an arbitrary, court-defined age) was not a human being with a right to life is what justified abortion.

I'm pretty sure the right to privacy between doctor and patient doesn't really justify much of anything, except of course doctors not divulging medical information about their patients (and even then only up to a certain point).

Are you sure you're saying what you meant to say?

From Justice Blackmun's opinion on Roe v Wade:

Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions. She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. By an amendment to her complaint Roe purported to sue "on behalf of herself and all other women" similarly situated.

James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted leave to intervene in Roe's action. In his complaint he alleged that he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion statutes and that two such prosecutions were pending against him. He described conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions, and he claimed that for many cases he, as a physician, was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception recognized by Article 1196. He alleged that, as a consequence, the statutes were vague and uncertain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that they violated his own and his patients' rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his own right to practice medicine, rights he claimed were guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.


...

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

In other words, they had to come up with some rationalization and the "right to privacy" was the best they could do. Of course, that logic very quickly falls apart if someone wants to claim a right to privacy for actions between themselves and their drug dealer. Whatever your opinions about abortion, the reasoning behind the decision in Roe v Wade was a joke.

Peephole
20th November 2009, 12:51 PM
Isn't George Will the global warming denier? Just saying, maybe his legal advice is just as terrible as his knowledge of science.

J. Wellington Wimpy
20th November 2009, 01:04 PM
Isn't George Will the global warming denier? Just saying, maybe his legal advice is just as terrible as his knowledge of science.

Well, sure. For the real, true hard science tip, you definitely want someone like... oh, say... the guy who finally blew the lid off this little known geological "fun fact," (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/gore-has-no-clue-a-few-million-degrees-here-and-there-and-pretty-soon-were-talking-about-real-temperature/) by golly. :rolleyes:

Darth Rotor
20th November 2009, 01:15 PM
From Justice Blackmun's opinion on Roe v Wade:
In other words, they had to come up with some rationalization and the "right to privacy" was the best they could do. Of course, that logic very quickly falls apart if someone wants to claim a right to privacy for actions between themselves and their drug dealer. Whatever your opinions about abortion, the reasoning behind the decision in Roe v Wade was a joke.
and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions.
Should I presume that all of her legal representation in that case was pro bono?

DR

Unabogie
20th November 2009, 01:41 PM
Well, sure. For the real, true hard science tip, you definitely want someone like... oh, say... the guy who finally blew the lid off this little known geological "fun fact," (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/gore-has-no-clue-a-few-million-degrees-here-and-there-and-pretty-soon-were-talking-about-real-temperature/) by golly. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't take legal advice from either of them, since neither of them are lawyers. The difference of course is that Will put his "facts" into writing, and then when informed he'd gotten them wrong, refused to correct anything.

That goes from ignorance to willful deceit.

I don't think Will has any inkling about the constitutionality of this bill.

Maybe Erwin Chemirinsky (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28620.html) can explain?

Congress clearly could do this under its power pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce among the states. The Supreme Court has held that this includes authority to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In the area of economic activities, “substantial effect” can be found based on the cumulative impact of the activity across the country. For example, a few years ago, the Supreme Court held that Congress could use its commerce clause authority to prohibit individuals from cultivating and possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal medicinal use because marijuana is bought and sold in interstate commerce.

quixotecoyote
20th November 2009, 01:46 PM
Yeah, the commerce clause translates to "we can do whatever we want, so bend over."

It's too bad that a lot of the good civil rights legislation had to get shoved through that way.

J. Wellington Wimpy
20th November 2009, 01:48 PM
The difference of course is that Will put his "facts" into writing, and then when informed he'd gotten them wrong, refused to correct anything.

That goes from ignorance to willful deceit.


So you're saying that -- since Gore hasn't actually written out his belief (so far as we know, at any rate) that the earth's mantle is "several million degrees" hot -- he's merely a blithering ignoramus, rather than out-and-out deceitful?

Fine. Have it your own way, then. :D

Unabogie
20th November 2009, 01:51 PM
So you're saying that -- since Gore hasn't actually written out his belief (so far as we know, at any rate) that the earth's mantle is "several million degrees" hot -- he's merely a blithering ignoramus, rather than out-and-out deceitful?

Fine. Have it your own way, then. :D

I'm saying that if VP Gore got something wrong while talking on TV, and let's face it, everyone does (see Palin, Sarah confusing Iraq with Iran), then that's fundamentally different than writing something false and then refusing to correct it, yes.

ETA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702334.html):

Will's Feb. 15 column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021302514.html), headlined "Dark Green Doomsayers," ridiculed "eco-pessimists" and cited a string of "predicted planetary calamities" that Will said have never come to pass.



A key paragraph, aimed at those who believe in man-made global warming, asserted: "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."



....


It said that while global sea ice areas are "near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979," sea ice area in the Northern Hemisphere is "almost one million sq. km below" the levels of late 1979. That's roughly the size of Texas and California combined. In my mind, it should have triggered a call for clarification to the center.



But according to Bill Chapman, a climate scientist with the center, there was no call from Will or Post editors before the column appeared. He added that it wasn't until last Tuesday -- nine days after The Post began receiving demands for a correction -- that he heard from an editor at the newspaper. It was Brewington who finally e-mailed, offering Chapman the opportunity to write something that might help clear the air.

ZirconBlue
20th November 2009, 02:19 PM
Should I presume that all of her legal representation in that case was pro bono?

I'm not aware of any lawyers in the case expressing an opinion for or against the U2 vocalist.

MikeMangum
20th November 2009, 02:50 PM
I'm saying that if VP Gore got something wrong while talking on TV, and let's face it, everyone does (see Palin, Sarah confusing Iraq with Iran), then that's fundamentally different than writing something false and then refusing to correct it, yes.

ETA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702334.html):

G.F Will actually wasn't wrong when he wrote his article. He stated that global sea ice levels were the same as they were in 1979 based on a graph around this (http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg) timeframe published at The Cryosphere Today (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/). He checked the data before he wrote the story (it was in fact what prompted the story, IIRC), THEN wrote the story, which was THEN published, at which point the Artice Research Center at U of I published more recent data and disingenuously said “We don’t know where he got his information,” without admitting that 2 weeks before publish date for the article, George Will's assertion was indeed correct. January of 1979 and January of 2009 had almost the same global sea ice extent. That was no longer true by mid February after they published new data.

It may have been a crappy argument in support of his position, but it was not actually wrong when he wrote it based on the data that was publicly available.

Here (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg) is the current version of the anomaly chart.

Peephole
20th November 2009, 02:57 PM
Well, sure. For the real, true hard science tip, you definitely want someone like... oh, say... the guy who finally blew the lid off this little known geological "fun fact," (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/gore-has-no-clue-a-few-million-degrees-here-and-there-and-pretty-soon-were-talking-about-real-temperature/) by golly. :rolleyes:
Is this supposed to mean something? Did Al Gore ever claim he was a scientist?

Dr Adequate
20th November 2009, 03:08 PM
Michael Moore is fat!

Unabogie
20th November 2009, 03:17 PM
G.F Will actually wasn't wrong when he wrote his article. He stated that global sea ice levels were the same as they were in 1979 based on a graph around this (http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg) timeframe published at The Cryosphere Today (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/). He checked the data before he wrote the story (it was in fact what prompted the story, IIRC), THEN wrote the story, which was THEN published, at which point the Artice Research Center at U of I published more recent data and disingenuously said “We don’t know where he got his information,” without admitting that 2 weeks before publish date for the article, George Will's assertion was indeed correct. January of 1979 and January of 2009 had almost the same global sea ice extent. That was no longer true by mid February after they published new data.

It may have been a crappy argument in support of his position, but it was not actually wrong when he wrote it based on the data that was publicly available.

Here (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg) is the current version of the anomaly chart.

I thought that he was relying on this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7329799.stm) which Will took out of context. A good rundown of his errors are here (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/where_theres_a_george_will_theres_a_way_to_deny_gl .php). So can you point me to his correction, based on the clarifications since put forth by the people he cited? His own Ombudsman called his article false. I'm sure any honest writer would address the issue.

J. Wellington Wimpy
20th November 2009, 03:20 PM
Did Al Gore ever claim he was a scientist?

Did George Will?

Your failed initial comparison (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5330562&postcount=7); not mine.

Pffffft. FAIL. :rolleyes:

MikeMangum
20th November 2009, 03:34 PM
I thought that he was relying on this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7329799.stm) which Will took out of context. A good rundown of his errors are here (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/where_theres_a_george_will_theres_a_way_to_deny_gl .php). So can you point me to his correction, based on the clarifications since put forth by the people he cited? His own Ombudsman called his article false. I'm sure any honest writer would address the issue.

I guess you didn't actually read what you posted in post #13:
A key paragraph, aimed at those who believe in man-made global warming, asserted: "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."

ETA: I looked at the link of his "errors" and find 2; the error about global sea ice extent, which wasn't actually an error, and one about Will stating that there had been no global warming for a decade (written in 2008)...well, he was basically right (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend), although any time you do trend comparisons you have to be careful with endpoint selection, as can be shown by comparing using 1999 (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/plot/rss/from:1999/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend) as the endpoint instead of 1998. But then again, he was writing an op-ed, not a paper for peer review.

Darth Rotor
20th November 2009, 03:53 PM
I'm not aware of any lawyers in the case expressing an opinion for or against the U2 vocalist.

I deserved that ...

Tricky
20th November 2009, 06:06 PM
Folks, let us try to keep this on topic and not branch into (yet another) global warming debate. Some of the posts here have both topics, so I am not going to split anything to AAH at this time, but if you must discuss the commerce clause, please discuss it as it applies to the health care issue, not to other issues.

Beerina
21st November 2009, 07:31 PM
Wait, what? I thought it was the legal assumption that the fetus (below an arbitrary, court-defined age) was not a human being with a right to life is what justified abortion.

I'm pretty sure the right to privacy between doctor and patient doesn't really justify much of anything, except of course doctors not divulging medical information about their patients (and even then only up to a certain point).

Are you sure you're saying what you meant to say?

Yes I am. I will check.

Here's a YouTube video of "Closer" by Nine Inch Nails to entertain you while I check.

cVgBuwM9zcQ




Ok, done checking. Why yes, yes. I am sure. While, of course, the fetus must not be a person with respect to constitutional protections, the ruling was that the government could not invade the right to privacy of the woman, and, specifically, between her and her doctor.


The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.




So a government getting involved in medical decisions just as, or even more intimate than that, would indeed violate this principle that, legally, is what upholds abortion rights currently. Which, by the way, I support.

Beerina
21st November 2009, 07:40 PM
Isn't George Will the global warming denier? Just saying, maybe his legal advice is just as terrible as his knowledge of science.

No. He does, however, love to poke fun at the certainty of things, a man after my own heart.

For example, he pointed out how, since the awful, many-hurricaned year with Katrina and friends, that climatologists have been predicting many hurricanes each year, and have been wrong.

I, myself, recall one such prediction of a large number of hurricanes the year after Katrina, and pointed out, here, how this was almost certainly wrong because of regression to the mean. I was right. The innumerate climatologist was wrong.


Of course, people will quickly shift goalposts and say that this or that guy is or is not this or that, but that's not the point.

The point is all the stuff that floats to the surface of the news is chicken little stuff that doesn't happen.

And that most certainly deserves to be mocked.


And further, that this is all used to buttress massive power grabs well out of any justified likelihood of problems (leading to problems from the "solution" that are grotesquely in excess of the original problems to be solved) also needs to be pointed out and mocked.

Al Gore, a guy who went to a worse school than W. and got worse grades while there, isn't in this because he's a caring guy who even understands the science. He's in it for the power grab. (Although, at this point, I suspect he's given up on the presidency and is trying to secure a key point in history on saving the Earth. I heartily encourage future historians to ensure he becomes a key point in history on the silliness of the entire political response, as well as the climate scientists going way beyond their fields of expertise in predicting, incorrectly, massive human disaster.)

Clear enough?

Beerina
21st November 2009, 07:47 PM
Folks, let us try to keep this on topic and not branch into (yet another) global warming debate. Some of the posts here have both topics, so I am not going to split anything to AAH at this time, but if you must discuss the commerce clause, please discuss it as it applies to the health care issue, not to other issues.


Thank you! I don't like having to remove special-purpose clubs from my golf bag to swat at a tern that has strayed onto the course.



So, to sum up to continue the conversation:

1. The Right to Privacy, with which I agree, and which justifies abortion according to the US Supreme Court, applies to everything between a patient and doctor, not just getting an abortion.

2. I predict people who support abortion rights but who also want massive government health care, including, specifically, laws requiring the purchase of it, to therefore have to come up with a narrative, a set of weasel words, to knock down that right, but just hard enough to allow this law to not get thrown out, but not so hard as to knock down the protections for abortion rights.



So: What is this narrative? I will give you a few more days for your talking heads to come up with something so it can be regurgitated here, and you can relax and sit back, content in your mind that you've "mission accomplished!", like a creationist who hears "bacterial flagellum!"