Forced Health-Care Crusaders take Aim at First Amendment

Religious freedom and alternative medicine have been placed in the cross hairs of the Federal government, and weapon of choice is so-called health-care reform.  This most recent plot to criminalize people who mind their own business floated to the surface earlier this month with a bill proposed by Senator Max Baucus which would include a $3800 fine for those who refused to purchase health insurance. 

My first thought was that Bacchus had a bit too much wine and the plan would sink.  For one thing, Obama had opposed such fines.  Without presidential support or enough support in Congress such a bill would be dead in the water.  But no!  In a true-to-form flip-flop our President has decided that fining people who have previously been law-abiding citizens is OK.

This is wrong on so many levels, that it is hard to know where to begin.  Fines are customarily imposed to punish people for actions, not inactions.  Even the "inaction" of not stopping at a stop sign is a type of action.  I am actively driving a deadly machine.  By choosing a course of action that has intrinsic hazards, I am accepting the responsibility to do it in a manner that does not endanger others.  One can call "failure to stop" an inaction, but driving through an intersection and endangering my neighbors is an action.  This stands in stark contrast to the action of existing.  Simply being alive without buying health insurance is to be an infraction.

The precedence of this abomination is profound.  The only equivalent, in my memory, was when involuntary servitude was sanctioned by the Federal Government in the form of the draft.  Now we slip down the slippery slope into a realm where civilians can be penalized for not obeying specific orders from their commander-in-chief.  At least the advocates of the draft could claim an exception on the basis that the Congress had the right to raise an army (an argument that I find insufficient), but no Constitutional sanction is sought after here.  After ignoring the Tenth and Ninth Amendments for decades, the politicians arrogantly think the public will comply when they say BOHICA, and I fear they may be right.

In addition to fining people who would rather mind their own business than follow orders, this law would force people to become customers of an industry, rather than have that industry reach out to them in the free market.  Soon every industry will have it's lobbyists on Capital Hill asking that people be required to purchase their over-priced products, or face penalties.  Never before has our government forced people to buy an expensive product as a requirement for existing.  In a sense we are to be fined for the crime of being born.  Our sentence is to buy an insurance policy or pay a fine.  I have not yet read about the penalty for rejecting both options.  If the fine is taken by force, it will violate the Constitutional prohibition on confiscating personal property without reasonable compensation.

Obama has made a fallacious comparison of coerced health insurance purchases to the requirement that drivers buy auto insurance.  First of all, auto insurance is imposed by the states, not by the Federal government so there are no ninth or tenth amendment issues so long as the feds stay out of it.  Second of all, states have consistently enforced a number of controls on drivers (including the requirement that one carries a license) under the claim that driving is a privilege rather than a right.  There are reasonable objections to this claim, but so long as it stands, one cannot use it as precedence for coerced health insurance purchases.  So far, existence has been regarded as a right rather than a privilege; perhaps the plan will change that distinction as well.  Finally, I could discontinue my auto insurance immediately, and I would never get a fine for being without it, that is until I got caught driving without it (which would be an action not an inaction).

This idea is also offensive on the level of common decency.  Many people want to be insured but can't afford it, or are simply rejected by the insurance companies regardless of ability to pay.  I suspect this is where the "public option" comes in. The idea of prodding people into it, with the threat of a fine, smacks of blaming and punishing the victim.

Others may be able to afford the health care that works for them, but not be able to afford buying insurance that doesn't cover what they need.  A poor person who has been helped by chiropractory, homeopathic-medicine, herbology or acupuncture may be forced to chose between becoming sick and buying insurance he or she doesn't use, or becoming a fugitive.

Of all the reasons this is a bad idea, one lights the fire in my belly more than any other.  What about people who reject health insurance for religious reasons?  I know it may seem rather cute to bring up that desecrated piece of parchment again, but there is supposedly such a thing as freedom of religion in this country.  While I have no religious objection to modern medicine, I respect the rights of those who do.  The key word being "rights."  This is right up there with other rights like freedom of the speech and freedom of the press.  Members of many religious denominations and sects reject the type of medical treatments that this law would require them to purchase.  Forcing them to purchase a product, that is against their religion to use, is a violation of their religious freedom.  It would be like forcing traditional Muslims and Jews to purchase thousands of dollars worth of pork.  This outrageous idea would never see the light of day, yet statist politicians have no problem forcing members of The Body, Bible Readers Fellowship, Bible Believers' Fellowship, Christ Assembly, Christ Church, Christ Miracle Healing Center, Christian Science, Church of God Chapel, Church of God of the Union Assembly, Church of the First Born, End Time Ministries, Faith Assembly, Faith Tabernacle Congregation, Followers of Christ, Full Gospel Deliverance Church:

General Assembly, Holiness Church, Jehovah's Witnesses (only objection today is to blood transfusions), Jesus through Jon and Judy, "No Name" fellowship, Northeast Kingdom Community Church, and The Source to purchase insurance.  Perhaps it is because many of them are not involved in the political process: Another right I respect.

Some may argue that these people will benefit from forced health-care.  That misses the point.  Consenting adults have a right to make decisions about their own bodies because it is THEIR bodies, not somebody else's.  Perhaps this simple self-evident point now falls on deaf ears because so many people have tolerated the plethora of laws that have told people what they can eat, drink, eat, smoke, or inject.  They have tolerated laws that have told them what times they can do these things.  They have tolerated laws that tell consenting adults who they can have sex with, what positions are allowed and whom they can marry.  Ironically, many people have used religion to justify such laws.  A few people who thought religious freedom only applied to their particular belief, set the stage for many innocents who will see religious freedom disappear completely.

What will happen when people reject forced health-care for religious reasons?  What will the czars in DC decide must be done when they refuse to pay the fines?  I know they will wish those people would just go away.  Will they try to make their wish come true?

How far must this go?  When average citizens are fined for rejecting random rectal exams, will they finally say, "Enough is enough! Get your laws off my body!"

?

AddThis - Sharing http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=25561

A Message from Campaign For Liberty on Actions Necessary to Ad... - Ron Paul's MySpace Blog | United States Congressman, Ron Paul

This week President Obama met with Mexican President Filipe Calderon.  Last month Secretary of State Clinton also met with Mexican officials.  In both cases, Mexican officials blamed our gun rights for drug cartel related violence near our shared boarder.

 <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />....

The Mexican government considers our liberties a threat, and our own administration seems inclined to concur (Though Obama has backed off, thanks to the political vigilance of patriots).  So, for now, his solution is to expand the enforcement of substance prohibition.

 ....

Conservatives are sure to complain that Obama has not been standing up for gun rights and improved boarder security, but they will also applaud his efforts to escalate the drug war.  In this way conservatives are as wrong-headed as Calderon, Obama, and Clinton; conservatives will trade in their right to keep and bare arms just to stop their neighbors from getting high.  Put another way, they are willing to let the liberals burn the second amendment, before they will allow their neighbor to burn a fatty.

 ....

Libertarians have no desire to control the personal behavior of others, so long as it does not threaten the rights of others.  Put another way, we believe in locking people up because we fear them, not because we are mad at them.

 ....

Drug prohibition is the cause of drug violence.  The profits made by the cartels, and the thousands of bodies left in their wake, are the result of US laws, but not the second amendment.  This is just one example of how the two sides of the statist coin fuel tyranny.

 ....

Unfortunately, the mainstream media likes it that way, so as the conservatives cry about us losing our second amendment rights, the gun grabbers will point out the growing death toll in Mexico.  As conservatives say, “build a fence,” the drug smugglers and criminal gangs will find more innovative ways to bypass it, or even exploit it.

 ....

But for the few who care to look a little deeper…

I say freedom is the answer.  Don’t let a foreign leader talk us into surrendering our rights.  End the unconstitutional and intrusive drug laws that caused this crisis.  Then we will have a boarder that is much more manageable, and lives will be saved.

 ....This isn’t the first time a foreign leader objected to American guns.   Many people will be celebrating Patriots Day.  This would be an excellent time to remind our neighbors what led up to the "shot heard around the world" and what those before us had to give up, to manifest the vision of liberty that so many Americans have taken for granted or forgotten.

On the eve of the United States Senate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act vote, patriots who value their privacy and liberty are hoping for the best.  Meanwhile my Republican rival, Jack Hoogendyk has publicly exposed himself to be an enemy of liberty and privacy.

On his "issues" page under "National Security" he writes: " FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is one of America's most important tools in the war against terror. I support strengthening it. Carl Levin does not."

For once I hope he's right about Senator Levin (though his voting record is mixed), but Representative Hoogendyk's position is clear.  He will not only vote to continue FISA, he wants to make it worse!  He is not only for it; he calls it, "…one of America's most important tools in the war against terror."  I suppose he considers it more important than your natural right to privacy, or Constitutional restrictions on the reach of federal power.

http://www.jackformichigan.org/issues.htm

FISA grants vast new warrant less eavesdropping powers to the executive branch. The USA Patriot Act, passed by Congress in 2001 and re-authorized in 2006, expanded FISA to allow the government to obtain the personal records of ordinary Americans from libraries and Internet Service Providers, even when they have no connection to terrorism.  That means anyone (not just suspected terrorists) could fall victim to this law.

Last month, the House of Representatives passed an the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 6304) an unconstitutional surveillance bill that not only sanctions warrant less wiretapping and allows for the wide, sweeping collection of Americans' communications, but also grants immunity to telecommunications companies for their role in domestic spying.

Now it is up to the Senate.  There are probably a few readers who think FISA won't affect them because they have done nothing wrong, but this thought brings with it the assumption that you are innocent until proven guilty.  If Jack Hoogendyk had his way, you would be presumed guilty until proven innocent.  Can you prove you didn't do it?

On Hoogendyk's issues page (Right above his comments on FISA), he writes, "I strongly oppose the Supreme Court's decision to grant terrorists the same rights as American citizens. Carl Levin praised this decision as 'an important victory.' I believe it was a victory for terrorists."

Here I presume Hoogendyk is referring to the case of Boumediene v. Bush in which the Supreme Court decided prisoners ACUSED of terrorism had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

His comment, "I believe it was a victory for terrorists." Demonstrates a frightening ignorance of the United States Constitution, and the pre-constitutional concept of habeas corpus.  So I will provide a quick tutorial on the topic for the benefit of Mr. Hoogendyk and those who agree with him.

Habeas Corpus is a 300-year-old type of legal action.  This action, or writ, is the means by which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of another person or him or herself. It has historically been an important instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

The United States Constitution refers to it in Article 1.   There it says, " The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

This was not a case of judicial activism.  The court actually ruled as the Constitution said they should.  Please note that this is not a right granted to "terrorists" (as Hoogendyk contends) this is a right granted to the accused to deal with "unlawful" detention.  Furthermore the Supreme Court did not "grant" this right, they simply recognized its existence.

Bottom line Jack:  There were no rights granted to terrorists here, and the Constitution only affords them the rights found in the eighth amendment, which reads: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

http://boman08.com

Less than a year ago one of my rivals, incumbent Democratic Senator Carl Levin, proved himself to be anti-choice and anti-life when he voted to allow federal funding for providers and advocates of FORCED abortions and sterilizations.  Yes.  You read that correctly.  This was not about simply subsidizing abortions and sterilizations.  This was about forcing them on people.

Your reaction may be denial and disbelief.  That was my reaction when I came upon this item on the "Project Vote Smart" page:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=15683&can_id=53307

As I followed the links, it became clear that this was no hoax.  He clearly voted "No" on S Amdt 2707 to HR 2764.  This was a vote against an amendment that would prohibit Federal funds from being distributed to organizations that support, or participates in the management of, a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Forcing any kind of surgery on an unwilling victim is clearly an act of violence and is (to the best of my knowledge) illegal in every state.  The idea of forcing someone into something as controversial as an abortion is all the more unthinkable, but this is what our Senator has voted to allow funding for.

I have yet to have a single person (until now) suggest that they condone forcing abortions and sterilizations on people; people who call themselves "pro-choice," and those who call themselves "pro-life" are unified in their revulsion to this idea.  Certainly people have a right to express opinions that may offend the vast majority of people, but that doesn't entitle them to use federal funding for that purpose.

So how is it that this man gets away with such a vote, without facing public criticism?  The media could have run with this one.  They chose not to.  The Republicans could have done likewise.  They failed to do so.  Some politicians are so entrenched that they can get away with anything.  That is why another party is needed.  That is why someone from outside the establishment needs to oppose such abominable policies as a matter of principal.

I have pledged, from the beginning of my campaign, to oppose all federal spending that is not authorized by the Constitution.  By no stretch of the imagination can I see the promotion or imposition of forced abortions and sterilizations as something Congress is authorized to fund.  Libertarians are unified in their opposition to government-funded abortions and the initiation of force.

Modern liberals and neo-conservatives in the Democratic and Republican parties seem unified in their adherence to the doctrine that what isn't required should be prohibited, and what isn't prohibited should be required.

This is the perfect example of what can happen when the people allow the federal government to have the power to set policies on matters that should be left to the states and the people.  As your Senator I will vote against funding any organization that forces abortions on people, and I will vote for legislation that specifically prohibits such funding.  I will vote against using your tax money to pay others to promote ideas you find reprehensible. I will vote for your freedom to promote your values with your own money. I will vote against federal funding of abortions, and I will vote against any federal laws that force any kind of surgery on anyone.

PS:  After linking to the "Project Vote Smart" page, some readers may search for my candidate profile, but fail to find it.  The "Project Vote Smart" staff have told me that I will not have such a profile until after the primary (Even though Hoogendyk and Levin are running unopposed in said primaries).  "Project Vote Smart" is a private quasi-partisan organization.  If they wish to give Democrats and Republicans a head start, that is their natural right (so long as they don't use my tax dollars). I will just need to run faster when I get my turn.

Dear libertarian minded readers:

The Libertarian Party has it's own money clock.  Let's use it.  Here is my plan:  A 4^th of July money bomb. My reason for choosing this date are:

1. The historical significance.  I hope I don't need to explain that part.
2. It is soon enough to help ballot access, and late enough to give us time to put the word out.

This only works if most of the people getting this message pass the concept on to the next person, and so on.  Those with skills should make it fun.  Use graphics, music, videos.  Get this on youtube, myspace and facebook.

Write articles and comments on blogs.  Post it with all things Ron Paul , Bob Barr etc.

While the Barr campaign has it's own money clock, I think this bomb would be most effective if it targets the

http://lp.org

page.  That way we can emphasize the opportunity to vote for a full slate of candidates who support liberty.  This will also help unite the LP around the ballot access cause; both Barr supporters and Barr critics can support the lp.org money bomb. 

This isn't just about a presidential candidate, this is about giving voters a choice at ALL levels of office in ALL 50 states.

Let's see those numbers skyrocket on independence day.

Let's see the blood pressure of Republocrats skyrocket too.

Create some mass media fireworks.

Start another American Revolution.

Remember, remember the 4^th of November.

We have nothing to loose but our REAL ID's!

In Liberty,

Scotty