ObamaCare and No Funding For Abortion: two slippery slopes

2011/02/01

In January, House Republican Chris Smith introduced HR 3, the so-called No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act. And yesterday, a Florida federal judge ruled that the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional.

Both are examples of the unintended consequences of well-meaning legislation.

Yesterday’s ruling against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare” or the health reform law) was the second to cite the individual mandate as the chief sticking point. Simply put, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t grant Congress the authority to require Americans to buy a private product or service. (Most state constitutions do, which is why we have to have auto insurance if we drive.)

Proponents of Obamacare either scoff at A) these rulings as mere “judicial activism” or B) the idea that someone would want to refuse to buy health insurance. Or both.

But they haven’t considered the implications of this law, if these judges’ ruling are overturned. It would mean that Congress can require private citizens to buy ANYTHING.

Do you like the idea of a future Congress beholden to Big Oil pushing a law requiring we buy a certain amount of fuel? It’s not outside the realm of possibility if Obamacare’s individual mandate stands.

Lawmakers don’t do this nearly enough, but they really ought to slow down, look at the logical end of their bill(s) and consider this question: “If my bitterest political enemy got ahold of this legislation — or the precedent it sets — what harm could he do with it?”

________________________________________

EXHIBIT 2:

Chris Smith’s a pro-life, anti-abortion congressman, and his bill is an attempt to squeeze the funding for this practice that’s wiped out over 50 million young Americans (at the behest of their own mothers).

I’m not against that. I frankly find it offensive at best that some of my tax dollars are funneled into abortions, a medical procedure that is almost never, EVER medically necessary. So any legislation that starves this grisly industry of public money is a good thing in my book.

However, just like Obamacare, there’s some nasty unintended consequences in this bill.

See, federal funding for abortion has long been restricted only to cases of rape and incest. Smith’s bill would narrow that restriction to include only “forcible rape” as defined by the FBI — that is, rape that occurs under the use or threat of physical harm.

The bill doesn’t actually legally redefine rape as some fear it does. But come on! Rape is rape because it’s forced! Regardless of how it happens!

This is a bad bill. Just as the health insurance mandate sets a dangerous precedent for unwanted government intrusion down the line, so too does this well-meaning attempt to constrict the holocaust of abortion have a negative effect on the equally horrible epidemic of sexual assault.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: