An Approved Abortion Alternative

The people debating the abortion issue falsely assume that there are only two possibilities for ending a pregnancy.  Wait for the baby to be born or kill it and remove it.

There is a third option which would be acceptable under Roe v. Wade.   When the baby is sufficiently developed to survive outside the mother with appropriate medical care  any doctor attempting to end the pregnancy could  be required  to attempt to remove the baby alive.   The baby would become a ward of the government which would pay  for the operation and subsequent medical care until  the baby is  adopted.   The government would also pay for follow up care for the mother including treating mental health problems such as postpartum depression.

Abortion supporters  could not claim  cost would prevent women from ending pregnancies early because government would pay all  costs.

There are numerous complications from abortions that can adversely affect a woman's physical and  mental health, including fatal bleeding that can be caused by an extremely primitive procedure which  involves pulling the baby out a piece at a time.  The baby's blood can prevent the abortionist from seeing if the mother is bleeding  

Removing the baby using a cesarean section allows the doctor to easily monitor the situation and catch any source of bleeding.  Requiring use of this procedure for premature ending of a pregnancy  would have the benefit  of the child being removed alive.  This approach to ending a late term pregnancy  should  give both sides what they want.  The woman would be allowed to end her pregnancy early and the child would be born alive.  

Roe v. Wade allows "In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger."

A baby shouldn't have to die because the mother doesn't want it.  A right to end a pregnancy prematurely shouldn't include a right to end the life of a helpless baby .

Protesting Obamacare 60's Style

No, I'm not suggesting anyone should burn a draft card or stage a sit-in in the  office of Secretary Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius.  Those who feel Obamacare will adversely affect them should conduct a "sue-in".   They should file individual lawsuits challenging the law on grounds it will  harm them as individuals.

The class action lawsuits various states filed against the law didn't force the courts to deal with the hardships the law would create for some individuals.    Individual  cases can present the courts with actual evidence of individuals who would be adversely affected  being forced to purchase insurance.  General government  guidelines may not allow for the financial situations of everyone. Some individuals will lose their ability to obtain the health care they need if they have to purchase insurance that won't cover their treatment.

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court stated that health care decisions involve the right to privacy.   Requiring people to pay for health treatment by purchasing insurance could be portrayed as being inconsistent with the right of the individual to control personal health care decisions.

Some young adults have huge education debts that would be difficult to pay off it they have to pay for health insurance.  In some families the oldest child may want to help younger siblings pay for college. Some are willing to take the risk of not having insurance so they can save money for the down payment on a house or realize the dream of starting a business.    What right has the government to tell them they must forget their dreams?   Don't "the Blessings of Liberty" the Constitution is supposed to guarantee include a right to take personal risks to obtain those blessings?

Those who claim a financial hardship could offer the judge a choice of eliminating the requirement they purchase insurance or changing the guidelines that determine who receives government assistance to purchase insurance.  

Insurance companies don't cover all potential treatments for medical problems.   Often they rationalize not paying for the treatment by calling it "experimental".  A law that requires individuals to purchase health care through insurance companies in effect may make it illegal for people to seek some types of  potentially life saving medical treatment.  Such a law would be inconsistent with Roe v. Wade.

Recent scientific research confirms the claims of some transsexuals that they feel they are trapped in the body of the opposite sex.   Brain studies indicate some people do have a brain of one sex and the body of the other.  Thus surgery to make the body of the same sex as the brain is corrective surgery rather than elective surgery.  Transsexuals shouldn't be prevented from seeking such surgery because they have to use their health care money to purchase insurance that won't correct the birth defect that causes their Gender Identity Disorder.  

In cases such as those involving experimental treatment or sexual correction surgery, plaintiffs should ask the courts to either exempt them from having to purchase insurance that won't help them or require insurance
companies to cover the treatment these people need.   Attorneys  might want to point out to Supreme Court Justices that if government or insurance companies can decide insurance doesn't have to cover some procedures then coverage for abortions could be eliminated.

Perhaps non-profit organizations opposed to Obamacare could help finance these lawsuits.  Another possibility would be for the states that filed class action lawsuits to represent individuals filing their own lawsuits,  Assistance by non-profit groups and governments could encourage a sufficient number of individuals to file lawsuits to convince the courts there is a problem with  the law. 

Best Option to Repeal Obamacare

If House Republicans are serious about wanting to repeal Obamacare, they should pass a Resolution stating that some, or all, portions of the Obamacare law are unconstitutional. A House Resolution doesn't require Senate approval and cannot be vetoed as would be the case with a bill eliminating Obamacare.

The Resolution should include a statement reminding the courts that the only justification Chief John Marshall could cite for ruling on the constitutionality of an Act of Congress in Marbury v. Madison was the oath the justices took to support the Constitution. Members of Congress take the same oath and thus have the same authority to express opinions of the Constitution.

The voters provide the ultimate check on government. If one Congress acts contrary to what voters think is correct, they have the option of electing new members to correct the improper action. The House of Representatives is the closest to the people because each district is approximately equal in population and all are subject to replacement every two years.

Those challenging Obamacare in court could use such a Resolution to support their claims that the law is unconstitutional.

House members should consult with those challenging Obamacare for suggestions about what the Resolution should include. The following indicate some of the substantial constitutional problems with Obamacare.

Regulating individual behavior using the Interstate Commerce Clause sounds like a violation of the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery. Congress could regulate the behavior of humans as elements of commerce when those humans were commodities to be bought and sold as slaves. Free citizens have the freedom to engage in interstate commerce or not engage in interstate commerce.

Requiring people to pay for health care by purchasing insurance violates their right to privacy in making health care decisions. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and other cases has held that government cannot interfere in a person's right to make personal health care decisions. Requiring people to purchase insurance can force them to turn over health care decisions to an insurance company. Forcing them to turn money over to an insurance company instead of using it to pay for the type of health care they desire can deprive them of their right to choose health care options the insurance company doesn't support, such as plastic surgery, a sex change operation or treatment insurance companies considers "experimental".

Abortion supporters don't understand that Obamacare could eliminate abortion funding if health insurance companies considered late term or other abortions too costly or "risky". If the Interstate Commerce Clause can override the right to privacy on health insurance, then it can override the right to privacy on other health care decisions. This possibility may not be important for Obamacare opponents, but it is important to many Supreme Court justices.

Requiring people to purchase private health insurance violates the freedom of religion guarantees of the First Amendment. Some religions such as the Amish religion and Islam consider purchasing private insurance wrong. The Christian Science religion questions the use of medical doctors. Requiring members of these religions to purchase private health insurance deprives them of their right to practice their religion.

Exempting them from the requirement, creates a special benefit that amounts to a subsidy of their beliefs because they are allowed to keep more of their money for their own use, including donating it to their organization, than those who belong to other religious groups or don't belong to any religious group. Allowing members of some religions to spend money that members of other religions don't have to spend has the same impact as providing a direct government subsidy of the privileged religious groups. The First Amendment refers to government subsidy of a religion(s) as an "establishment of religion".

I have heard that the act creating Obamacare contains a provision that in effect states that if the Supreme Court finds any part of the act unconstitutional than the entire act would be invalid. Such a provision in and of itself would render the act unconstitutional because the provision would alter the powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison invalidated an Act of Congress for a less significant attempt to alter the Court's power.

Such a provision would drastically alter the Court's Article 3 powers both expanding and restricting them. The provision would in effect grant the Court a stronger veto power than the President has because Congress could not override the Court's "veto". On the other hand the provision would dictate to the Court by removing the option of invalidating or modifying only those provisions in legislation that in the opinion of a majority of the Court violate some portion of the Constitution. The Constitution established the judicial branch to limit the ability of the government to control the lives of its citizens by limiting the circumstances under which the government could impose punishment. The judicial branch is not supposed to function as a super legislature.

The requirement that individuals purchase health insurance from private companies at rates set by those companies involves the transfer of the government's taxing authority to private companies which deprives voters of the ability to elect those who determine their taxes.

The Resolution should remind the Court that forcing people to purchase private health insurance is unnecessary to provide people with access to health care. Government can raise revenue to pay for health care with its taxation powers and then use that money to directly pay health care costs as it already does with Medicare and Medicaid.

The comparison of Obamacare to requirements for purchasing auto liability insurance is invalid. The auto liability insurance requirement is a requirement that those who engage in the dangerous activity of driving a motor vehicle prove they can compensate anyone who suffers a loss because of their mistakes while operating a motor vehicle. Many states allow motorists to fulfill this liability requirement by posting a bond rather than purchasing insurance.