Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

Finally, A Serious Deficit Hawk Emerges for the Campaign of 2012, Vowing to be "Absolute Tyrant" on Spending | Main | Ann Althouse Is Dumb
November 13, 2009

Idiocy: Law Professor Argues Stupak Amendment Is Unconstitutional Because, Wait For It, Religious Groups Support It And Some Other Goofy Reasons

You can read a lot of dumb things on the internet (hell, I've written some of them) but this is surely Hall of Fame level idiocy.

According to law professor Marci Hamilton, the Stupak Amendment banning abortion funding in the health care bill, is unconstitutional on several grounds.

First, the Amendment violates the Constitution's separation of church and state. The anti-abortion movement is plainly religious in motivation, and its lobbyists and spokespersons represent religious groups, as is illustrated by the fact that the most visible lobbyists in the Stupak Amendment's favor have been the Catholic Bishops. This is a brazen and frank attempt to impose a minority's religious worldview on the entirety of American healthcare.

As I've pointed out several times, I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that argument would have been laughed out of an undergraduate ConLaw class.

Its always amusing and a little sad when liberals are more vested in protecting fake, made up rights than they are with real ones. For the record the words "separation of church and state" don't actually appear in the Constitution.

The words that do appear in the 1st Amendment are,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Holding a law unconstitutional for no reason other than it is supported by people of religious faith would seem to run afoul of those bolded clauses.

Do they not teach those parts at Cardozo School of Law?

The professor surely does not think that one forfeits one's rights to "free speech" or "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" simply because they elect to exercise their right to worship.

Or does she?

As John Pitney Jr. points out at The Corner, where I found this article, this argument (such as it is) would mean that the Civil Rights legislation of the 60's was unconstitutional on the same grounds.

Not satisfied with that excursion into the strange, Hamilton doubles down by arguing the Stupak Amendment violates the equal protection clause.

The Stupak Amendment also discriminates on the basis of gender. Only women have to deal with the difficult question of abortion. Conspicuously missing are parallel exemptions barring funding for Viagra, or for, say, prostate surgery treatments, which can leave a man sterile and therefore operate as a birth control measure.

I don't want to really go into a whole birds and the bees thing here but let me just point out one small fact...only women can have babies.

The left always wants to make this connection between male ailments and abortion. Here's the thing, pregnancy, in and of itself, is not a disease that needs to be treated or cured, such as say Erectile Dysfunction or Prostate Cancer.

In fact, pregnancy is quite the natural condition , even a necessary one for the continued existence of the human race. That's not to say there aren't pregnancy related ailments and conditions which need treatment, there are. Stupak does not outlaw insurance coverage for them.

This is an apples to orange argument and a pretty disingenuous one at that.

Hamilton's final argument is that Supak violates "Substantive Due Process and Privacy Rights".

Finally, the Stupak Amendment attempts to curtail -- across the board the privacy rights that Roe v. Wade and its progeny secured for women. While other restrictions on abortion (including the Hyde Amendment) have been upheld by the Supreme Court, this is a far more expansive and repressive move against women, and it surely institutes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion in consultation with her doctor. Although it is not clear precisely where the boundary line lies, it is very clear that this move transgresses any reasonable interpretation of the line the Court's cases draw.

Just because something is constitutionally protected, as abortion is at the moment, doesn't mean the federal government has to subsidize an individual's exercise of that right.

There are numerous procedures which are constitutionally protected but won't be covered by insurance (public or private) when they are strictly elective. Rhinoplasty comes to mind.

No one denies that there are times when an abortion is a therapeutic and necessary procedure. Guess what? Those cases are not impacted by the Stupak Amendment (read it here)

Arguments can and have been made for abortion on demand but there's no reason, certainly no constitutional reason, to treat it differently from any other elective procedure (as far as insurance goes, moral arguments are obviously a different matter).

The professor does make one good point.

The Stupak Amendment is also a harbinger of future constitutional violations, for it erects a slippery slope of top-down control of the spectrum of healthcare options. Abortion is surely just the first foray of the religious lobbyists' battle to take away Americans' right to choose among the full panoply of healthcare options.

Replace "religious lobbyists" with government bureaucrats and pandering politicians of all sorts and you see the danger government health care reform. While she only seems to be worried about abortion, Pelosi Care will open up every aspect of our lives to government regulation and interference.

Don't eat the right things? The government could step in.

Don't exercise enough or take part in activities that lead to injury and cost too much in health care? The government could step in.

And on and on and on.

Still though, If objection to restrictions on abortions gets more people against Pelosi Care, I say welcome aboard.

digg this
posted by DrewM. at 02:40 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
JackStraw: ">>Doesn’t matter. Lots of AWFLs were mad tha ..."

screaming in digital: "Looking back, I have eaten an impressive number of ..."

Grateful: "667 Looking back, I have eaten an impressive numbe ..."

hart: "Gretzky is the most dominant pro athlete without q ..."

haffhowershower: "667 Looking back, I have eaten an impressive numbe ..."

[/i][/s][/b][/u]Oddbob: "[i]Lots of AWFLs were mad that Obama stole Hillary ..."

Auspex: " Again, GODDAMNIT, when has the moment presented ..."

Notorious BFD: "A travelling drag queen? Ah, the Amerikan dream. ..."

haffhowershower: "647 My new slogan to appeal to hesitant votes " Y ..."

Grumpy and Recalcitrant: "[i]{541} Message? In The Sum of All Fears, The ..."

Alberta Oil Peon: "The antisemitism in the Democrat Party is WILD. P ..."

Biden is Finished (Now What): " The Democrat Party is a collection of broken toy ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64