Yesterday I filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, a coalition of 30 female state legislators from across the country, Concerned Women for America, and Susan B. Anthony List. The brief asks the Court to review a recent decision by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which struck down an Arizona law that banned abortion after 20 weeks, except where the mother's life or health is in danger.
The elected representatives of Arizona passed this law after receiving credible, unrefuted scientific and medical evidence revealing two things: that babies in the womb feel pain after 20 weeks, and that abortions performed after this same point carry much higher health risks to the mother. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit has interpreted the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence to mean that states can never ban abortion before the point at which the baby can survive outside the womb (generally 23 weeks). Nevermind that what we are doing is torturing a living human being; nevermind that the woman faces a significantly greater chance of suffering serious complications or death when she waits this late to exercise her "right."
The Supreme Court recently acknowledged that “a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb.” Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. at 147. Science now reveals that, far from being an impersonal blob of tissue for whom the descriptor of “living” is little more than a technical, biological fact, the post-20-week human being within the womb is so fully developed as to be wholly capable of feeling pain as his or her body is literally ripped apart and removed from the womb, piece by piece. This, of course, is how abortion is most often accomplished at this stage in pregnancy.
A humane, civilized society cannot retain its identity as such if its courts preclude lawmakers from imposing reasonable limitations on such brutality. Even animals—which most people would agree are not possessed of the same degree of individual value and dignity as humans—are entitled to and receive legal protections against cruelty and barbarism.
And what of "women's health," for which those who champion abortion rights express such concern? When confronted with credible scientific data demonstrating that abortions performed beyond the 20-week point are significantly less safe for women than those performed prior to that point, it is surely appropriate for legislators to protect women’s health by requiring physicians to perform the procedure at the earlier, far safer stage.
The recent tragedies of the Kermit Gosnell clinic in Philadelphia serve as a poignant reminder of how easily both individual women and the sensibilities of a humane society can become the casualty of an ideological battle.
We have become a society that worships "choice" itself; we say no one should consider what value is ultimately gained or what is lost by my choice, provided I am uninhibited and unconstrained as I choose. That, my friends, is scary stuff.
Please join me in praying that the Supreme Court will hear this case and correct this great humanitarian injustice.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Lessons from Lewis - Part 1 - Saying it Doesn't Make it So
C.S. Lewis had me on his fan list at The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and I required no further evidence of his brilliance. But I was absolutely captivated when I picked up The Abolition of Man a couple of weeks ago.
Lewis wrote the book (actually a series of lectures) in response to an English textbook, a complimentary copy of which was sent to Lewis for a review. [Note to self: Think twice before sending something I have written to a world-class writer, scholar, philosopher and theologian in hopes of a kind literary review.]
In The Green Book, as Lewis refers to it out of compassion for its pitiable authors, the second chapter quotes a story about Coleridge at a waterfall. Two tourists were present. One called the waterfall “sublime,” and the other called it “pretty.” Coleridge agreed with the first pronouncement but disgustedly rejected the second. The Green Book authors comment: “When the man said This is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall… Actually .. he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings…” The authors conclude, “This confusion is continually present in language as we use it. We appear to be saying something very important about something: and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings.”
The rest of The Abolition of Man consists of Lewis’ response to The Green Book’s authors’ misguided effort to dismiss the concept of objective value or truth. I now consider this a must-read for anyone involved in contemporary public policy discussions.
In one of my favorite portions of the book, Lewis explains that “emotional states can be in harmony with reason (when we feel liking for what ought to be approved) or out of harmony with reason (when we perceive that liking is due but cannot feel it). … The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should obey it.” He points out that what is common to the major world religion and philosophies is “the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.”
Of course, this contrasts sharply with the prevailing beliefs in many spheres of our culture today.
But today’s unconscious philosophies exhibit an even more troubling characteristic: Rather than merely denying that “good,” “bad,” or “truth” can be found, many go so far as to apply false value labels to positions they disdain. Where The Green Book authors said, in effect, “nothing is objectively good or true” today’s philosophers say, “I determine what is good or true based upon my feelings about it.” Today’s philosophers find it unnecessary to explain or prove their conclusions. For them, the heart has "taken the place of the head."
A ready example of this phenomenon is the knee-jerk labeling of those who oppose same-sex “marriage” as “homophobes” or “bigots.” This labeling is as unjust as labeling those who support it “atheists.” Both labels may, in fact, fit a small subset of the universe in question, but it by no means can define the whole. In light of the fact that there are other substantial reasons for people to oppose a dramatic re-definition of the oldest social institution on the planet, the attempt to win popular support for efforts to do so by applying a dreaded label to those who don’t deserve it is nothing short of cheating.
I will examine this particular argument (on the issue of marriage) carefully in an upcoming article, but it is really one of many examples of the larger, deeply disturbing trend. The same phenomenon rears its ugly head in most of the controversial public policy issues our society faces today: abortion, immigration, welfare, and the list goes on.
In fact, I have become accustomed to being labeled a “hater” after anything I write is published, no matter how devoid of hate my words or my actual attitude may be.
For instance, after my guest column “Social Issues and the Economy” (scroll down if you missed it) was published in the Richmond Times Dispatch, one gentleman sent me a nasty e-mail which included this statement: “Jesus must be wondering how people can take his teachings of love and turn them into words of hate.” I took some time to draft a kind response to him, encouraging him to explain which of the words in my article he considered to be “words of hate.” No reply.
And herein lies the harm of what I will call “feeling-based value labeling.” It not only results in the end of real conversation about issues; it seems purposefully designed to do so. It blindly attacks the character of the speaker rather than the merit of the idea. And in doing so, it assaults the integrity of the language we use to describe those attitudes that are “true” and “false” to the “kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things that we are.”
Lewis is certainly right: there is “good” and “bad,” “truth” and “untruth.” But just saying it doesn’t make it so.
Lewis wrote the book (actually a series of lectures) in response to an English textbook, a complimentary copy of which was sent to Lewis for a review. [Note to self: Think twice before sending something I have written to a world-class writer, scholar, philosopher and theologian in hopes of a kind literary review.]
In The Green Book, as Lewis refers to it out of compassion for its pitiable authors, the second chapter quotes a story about Coleridge at a waterfall. Two tourists were present. One called the waterfall “sublime,” and the other called it “pretty.” Coleridge agreed with the first pronouncement but disgustedly rejected the second. The Green Book authors comment: “When the man said This is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall… Actually .. he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings…” The authors conclude, “This confusion is continually present in language as we use it. We appear to be saying something very important about something: and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings.”
The rest of The Abolition of Man consists of Lewis’ response to The Green Book’s authors’ misguided effort to dismiss the concept of objective value or truth. I now consider this a must-read for anyone involved in contemporary public policy discussions.
In one of my favorite portions of the book, Lewis explains that “emotional states can be in harmony with reason (when we feel liking for what ought to be approved) or out of harmony with reason (when we perceive that liking is due but cannot feel it). … The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should obey it.” He points out that what is common to the major world religion and philosophies is “the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.”
Of course, this contrasts sharply with the prevailing beliefs in many spheres of our culture today.
But today’s unconscious philosophies exhibit an even more troubling characteristic: Rather than merely denying that “good,” “bad,” or “truth” can be found, many go so far as to apply false value labels to positions they disdain. Where The Green Book authors said, in effect, “nothing is objectively good or true” today’s philosophers say, “I determine what is good or true based upon my feelings about it.” Today’s philosophers find it unnecessary to explain or prove their conclusions. For them, the heart has "taken the place of the head."
A ready example of this phenomenon is the knee-jerk labeling of those who oppose same-sex “marriage” as “homophobes” or “bigots.” This labeling is as unjust as labeling those who support it “atheists.” Both labels may, in fact, fit a small subset of the universe in question, but it by no means can define the whole. In light of the fact that there are other substantial reasons for people to oppose a dramatic re-definition of the oldest social institution on the planet, the attempt to win popular support for efforts to do so by applying a dreaded label to those who don’t deserve it is nothing short of cheating.
I will examine this particular argument (on the issue of marriage) carefully in an upcoming article, but it is really one of many examples of the larger, deeply disturbing trend. The same phenomenon rears its ugly head in most of the controversial public policy issues our society faces today: abortion, immigration, welfare, and the list goes on.
In fact, I have become accustomed to being labeled a “hater” after anything I write is published, no matter how devoid of hate my words or my actual attitude may be.
For instance, after my guest column “Social Issues and the Economy” (scroll down if you missed it) was published in the Richmond Times Dispatch, one gentleman sent me a nasty e-mail which included this statement: “Jesus must be wondering how people can take his teachings of love and turn them into words of hate.” I took some time to draft a kind response to him, encouraging him to explain which of the words in my article he considered to be “words of hate.” No reply.
And herein lies the harm of what I will call “feeling-based value labeling.” It not only results in the end of real conversation about issues; it seems purposefully designed to do so. It blindly attacks the character of the speaker rather than the merit of the idea. And in doing so, it assaults the integrity of the language we use to describe those attitudes that are “true” and “false” to the “kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things that we are.”
Lewis is certainly right: there is “good” and “bad,” “truth” and “untruth.” But just saying it doesn’t make it so.
Monday, October 7, 2013
"Social Issues" and "The Economy"
Conventional political wisdom suggests that candidates must avoid, at all costs, the appearance of being focused on “divisive social issues” and instead focus exclusively on the economy. This is a false dichotomy of issues.
When politicians show us their positions on today’s social issues, they show us their philosophies of government. Ultimately, these—their conception of the proper role between government and the governed—will determine our success at restoring national prosperity.
Candidates who favor restriction of abortion recognize that the protection of human life is one of the primary purposes of government, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. But also inherent in this worldview is the conviction that every single person is endowed with distinct worth and potential; that any given child could be the next Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, or Bill Gates. Thus, the public policies advanced by these candidates will reflect the core belief that no human being is a dispensable dependent, but each holds unique potential to contribute to our collective flourishing.
According to this worldview, a strong marriage culture enhances our human potential. Thus marriage—that permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman which is proven to be the best possible environment for child-rearing—should be encouraged, protected and revered.
In this framework, the purpose of civil marriage is not to provide individuals with personal affirmation of their lifestyle choices or emotional bonds (a post-modern American desire), but rather to stabilize, regulate and incentivize the particular kind of union which confers irreplaceable benefits upon society as a whole.
A candidate’s position on marriage—what it is, why the state regulates it, whether it is amenable to revision and when the state should permit its dissolution—carries broad implications for how her election would affect the economy. For when families thrive, they foster citizens (both the spouses and, ultimately, the children they nurture) who are contributors to the economy.
On the other hand, study upon study has shown us that when families falter, prosperity dwindles. Women and children are hit hardest, often driven to poverty. The state is typically left to pick up the pieces in the form of financial and housing assistance, mental and physical health care, and, in the worst cases, child protective services and the criminal justice system.
The sheer dollars-and-cents cost of family fragmentation to individuals and U.S. taxpayers (an estimated $112 billion every year) cannot be ignored. This is why to focus on marriage is to focus on the economy.
Of course, even in a strong marriage culture, there will be human needs for which a compassionate citizenry must provide. Politicians who value the role of religion in both private and public life favor an environment where robust faith communities are empowered to meet needs that government is ill-equipped to meet well—caring for the poor, the sick, the orphans and the elderly. Neighbors (not government) helping neighbors is good for the economy and for our moral fiber.
Our early republic was an unprecedented success because the people viewed government as the protector rather than provider of fundamental rights, and they did not depend on it as the guarantor of financial well-being. Families, churches and communities were the central component of America, and government stood back and let them prosper.
We looked to each other for help rather than to an impersonal bureaucracy. The latter may be capable of distributing financial resources, but it cannot enhance them with the caring personal networks which graciously spur us on toward the industriousness befitting our human dignity.
When a candidate tells us he counts every human life an asset, supports a healthy marriage culture, and wants to encourage people to take care of people, he is telling us that he ascribes to our Founding Fathers’ vision of government. In that revolutionary vision, government was not the colossal beast it is today, but rather the servant of a moral, hard-working people and a protector of their God-given rights.
This was the vision that birthed a healthy, prosperous America, and it is a formula that can work again if we will collectively insist upon a return to it.
Plans for applying the machinery of a behemoth government to solve human problems seem enticingly simple. But to grow this machinery atop an America devoid of its original social values is to invite implosion. Critics may scoff at difficult discussions of messy social issues, but these are the issues that reveal the secret of our prosperous past and hold the key to a brilliant future.
When politicians show us their positions on today’s social issues, they show us their philosophies of government. Ultimately, these—their conception of the proper role between government and the governed—will determine our success at restoring national prosperity.
Candidates who favor restriction of abortion recognize that the protection of human life is one of the primary purposes of government, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. But also inherent in this worldview is the conviction that every single person is endowed with distinct worth and potential; that any given child could be the next Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, or Bill Gates. Thus, the public policies advanced by these candidates will reflect the core belief that no human being is a dispensable dependent, but each holds unique potential to contribute to our collective flourishing.
According to this worldview, a strong marriage culture enhances our human potential. Thus marriage—that permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman which is proven to be the best possible environment for child-rearing—should be encouraged, protected and revered.
In this framework, the purpose of civil marriage is not to provide individuals with personal affirmation of their lifestyle choices or emotional bonds (a post-modern American desire), but rather to stabilize, regulate and incentivize the particular kind of union which confers irreplaceable benefits upon society as a whole.
A candidate’s position on marriage—what it is, why the state regulates it, whether it is amenable to revision and when the state should permit its dissolution—carries broad implications for how her election would affect the economy. For when families thrive, they foster citizens (both the spouses and, ultimately, the children they nurture) who are contributors to the economy.
On the other hand, study upon study has shown us that when families falter, prosperity dwindles. Women and children are hit hardest, often driven to poverty. The state is typically left to pick up the pieces in the form of financial and housing assistance, mental and physical health care, and, in the worst cases, child protective services and the criminal justice system.
The sheer dollars-and-cents cost of family fragmentation to individuals and U.S. taxpayers (an estimated $112 billion every year) cannot be ignored. This is why to focus on marriage is to focus on the economy.
Of course, even in a strong marriage culture, there will be human needs for which a compassionate citizenry must provide. Politicians who value the role of religion in both private and public life favor an environment where robust faith communities are empowered to meet needs that government is ill-equipped to meet well—caring for the poor, the sick, the orphans and the elderly. Neighbors (not government) helping neighbors is good for the economy and for our moral fiber.
Our early republic was an unprecedented success because the people viewed government as the protector rather than provider of fundamental rights, and they did not depend on it as the guarantor of financial well-being. Families, churches and communities were the central component of America, and government stood back and let them prosper.
We looked to each other for help rather than to an impersonal bureaucracy. The latter may be capable of distributing financial resources, but it cannot enhance them with the caring personal networks which graciously spur us on toward the industriousness befitting our human dignity.
When a candidate tells us he counts every human life an asset, supports a healthy marriage culture, and wants to encourage people to take care of people, he is telling us that he ascribes to our Founding Fathers’ vision of government. In that revolutionary vision, government was not the colossal beast it is today, but rather the servant of a moral, hard-working people and a protector of their God-given rights.
This was the vision that birthed a healthy, prosperous America, and it is a formula that can work again if we will collectively insist upon a return to it.
Plans for applying the machinery of a behemoth government to solve human problems seem enticingly simple. But to grow this machinery atop an America devoid of its original social values is to invite implosion. Critics may scoff at difficult discussions of messy social issues, but these are the issues that reveal the secret of our prosperous past and hold the key to a brilliant future.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
An Unheeded Plea for Journalistic Truth-Telling
Frankly, I am weary of hearing about “media bias.” It has become too obvious and widespread to remain interesting. And yet, when a news reporter is caught telling an outright falsehood to countless unsuspecting consumers, there is something much more fundamental than media “neutrality” which hangs upon his willingness to make the necessary correction; what is at stake here is basic integrity.
I submit that the reporter’s duty to be truthful is heightened (if such a thing is possible) when he reports facts in the context of election season about legislation which one candidate has supported and the other opposed.
While the average news media consumer can be expected to be skeptical about the possibility of a journalist ever being truly objective about the news he reports, particularly where it concerns controversial policy issues, the same consumer does not generally question the basic veracity of statements of fact which are easily verifiable. But maybe she should.
Last week, in reporting on a debate between the two candidates for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, political reporter Bob Lewis stated that a certain pro-life bill (supported by the Republican candidate and opposed by the Democrat) would “outlaw almost all forms of abortion.” Lewis’ article did not state this as anyone’s opinion or speculation, but as an item of factual background. (You can read the article here:
Now I know this claim to be false, because I have been the chief advocate for the legislation in question for the past four years. Moreover, I can prove, and have proven the claim to be false, on a number of grounds, to the satisfaction of countless legislators and public policy organizations. But if my own testimony is not enough, I offer any Doubting Thomas the collective judgment of the United States Supreme Court, which dismissed a legal challenge to the identical language in Missouri over 25 years ago. In short, the falsity of Lewis’ claim is so glaring that it is not even open to serious debate.
After I read the story, I immediately contacted Lewis to request a correction. I laid out my evidence for the falsity of the statement, and offered to provide more if he remained doubtful. In his response to me, Lewis justified his statement this way:
“I don't know whether Jackson has read Marshall's bill, but I have. Were I writing on Bob's bill, I would concede your point. This story is about a debate and views expressed in it. Nothing more.”
To this, I responded:
“I appreciate your response. However, my issue here is with the statements you made in your article; not with the candidates’ expression of their respective positions. Your article states: ‘[Northam] was discussing so called “personhood” legislation supported by Jackson among other Republicans, which would outlaw almost all forms of abortion by conferring the full rights of personhood to an embryo from the instant of conception. Destroying such an embryo, under such a law, could be construed as homicide.’ The bolded portions are statements presented as fact by you, the reporter. And they are false. You might have said that Northam believes or that some people predict that the law would have the stated effect. But you did not.”
To this, Lewis simply replied, “Story stands.”
My appeal to Lewis’ editor at the Richmond Bureau of the Associated Press was met with an equally unjustified, flat denial.
Associated Press policy states that it “abhor[s] inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions” and that “When we're wrong, we must say so as soon as possible.” With respect to the Richmond Bureau, however, this policy appears to be defunct.
If the story’s false statements had been damaging to a particular person, the reporter and publisher could be held accountable through a libel lawsuit. Shouldn’t there be a way of holding them accountable for misleading the public about important public policy concerns?
I submit that the reporter’s duty to be truthful is heightened (if such a thing is possible) when he reports facts in the context of election season about legislation which one candidate has supported and the other opposed.
While the average news media consumer can be expected to be skeptical about the possibility of a journalist ever being truly objective about the news he reports, particularly where it concerns controversial policy issues, the same consumer does not generally question the basic veracity of statements of fact which are easily verifiable. But maybe she should.
Last week, in reporting on a debate between the two candidates for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, political reporter Bob Lewis stated that a certain pro-life bill (supported by the Republican candidate and opposed by the Democrat) would “outlaw almost all forms of abortion.” Lewis’ article did not state this as anyone’s opinion or speculation, but as an item of factual background. (You can read the article here:
Now I know this claim to be false, because I have been the chief advocate for the legislation in question for the past four years. Moreover, I can prove, and have proven the claim to be false, on a number of grounds, to the satisfaction of countless legislators and public policy organizations. But if my own testimony is not enough, I offer any Doubting Thomas the collective judgment of the United States Supreme Court, which dismissed a legal challenge to the identical language in Missouri over 25 years ago. In short, the falsity of Lewis’ claim is so glaring that it is not even open to serious debate.
After I read the story, I immediately contacted Lewis to request a correction. I laid out my evidence for the falsity of the statement, and offered to provide more if he remained doubtful. In his response to me, Lewis justified his statement this way:
“I don't know whether Jackson has read Marshall's bill, but I have. Were I writing on Bob's bill, I would concede your point. This story is about a debate and views expressed in it. Nothing more.”
To this, I responded:
“I appreciate your response. However, my issue here is with the statements you made in your article; not with the candidates’ expression of their respective positions. Your article states: ‘[Northam] was discussing so called “personhood” legislation supported by Jackson among other Republicans, which would outlaw almost all forms of abortion by conferring the full rights of personhood to an embryo from the instant of conception. Destroying such an embryo, under such a law, could be construed as homicide.’ The bolded portions are statements presented as fact by you, the reporter. And they are false. You might have said that Northam believes or that some people predict that the law would have the stated effect. But you did not.”
To this, Lewis simply replied, “Story stands.”
My appeal to Lewis’ editor at the Richmond Bureau of the Associated Press was met with an equally unjustified, flat denial.
Associated Press policy states that it “abhor[s] inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions” and that “When we're wrong, we must say so as soon as possible.” With respect to the Richmond Bureau, however, this policy appears to be defunct.
If the story’s false statements had been damaging to a particular person, the reporter and publisher could be held accountable through a libel lawsuit. Shouldn’t there be a way of holding them accountable for misleading the public about important public policy concerns?
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Affordable Care Act - The Good, The Bad, and The Revolutionary
Last night I attended an informational meeting at which national health care law expert Tim Jost explained some features of the Affordable Care Act and answered audience questions. Jost is a law professor at my alma mater, Washington & Lee University School of Law, and he has been actively involved in the creation of the ACA. In other words, he knows his stuff.
I found the session informative and helpful, although I still don't pretend to have an understanding of all of the workings of the behemoth legislation. While I don't typically like to discuss issues that I don't thoroughly understand, I am resigned to the fact that holding myself to this principle, in the case of this particular issue, would mean forever dismissing the opportunity of commenting.
And so, with that disclaimer, here are some of my thoughts on the beleaguered legislation.
First, the GOOD:
-It is good, noble, and right that we, as a society, demonstrate a concern for the poor, sick, and elderly among us. Therefore, it is also fitting for us to explore ways of ensuring that those who cannot care for themselves receive the tangible help that they need.
-From what I learned last night, there are elements of the law that make good sense. For instance, it seems wise to offer tax credits for those who are struggling financially, yet take responsibility for their future health care needs by purchasing health insurance. Giving them a tax break to help them pay for their premiums is likely to inure to everyone's benefit by allowing them to obtain preventive care and reducing the incidence of "uncompensated care" (which increases the costs of health care for everyone).
-Building upon the second point, it seems appropriate for the ACA to forbid some of the sharp practices by wealthy insurance companies that devastate individuals and cost taxpayers dearly. As I learned last night, the ACA precludes insurers from dropping an insured's coverage once he or she becomes seriously ill. Apparently companies will sometimes go back and identify a misstatement in the application or loophole in the contract once the insured starts to incur serious expenses. This is unjust and should be stopped.
But there is plenty of BAD in the Affordable Care Act as well:
-The law is over 900 pages. Need I say more? We are an overregulated people already, and legislation that approaches the length of War and Peace should raise serious concerns in anyone who has a genuine desire to know, understand, and abide by the law. In the middle of a hectic day, I am sometimes seized by the fear that some government bureaucrat will come knocking on my door to inform me that in the process of carrying on some industrious activity in good faith, I have violated the fine print of an obscure regulation. Am I neurotic? Maybe. But such a scenario is increasingly possible in America's contemporary legal climate. It shouldn't be. (If you think I am exaggerating here, ask me about the lady in Arizona who was ticketed for giving away bottled water).
-The law is hard on big businesses that have great influence on our economy. Would it be nice for these businesses to provide health insurance benefits for their employees? Of course. But penalizing them with crippling taxes for not doing so will just provide them with incentives to locate elsewhere, taking their jobs and other types of tax revenues to countries that will appreciate them. Right?
-If the federal government can force me, under threat of financial penalty (call it a "tax" if you must), to buy a product like health insurance, what can't it force me to do? This is my most fundamental concern with the law. The federal government was designed to be one of specific, enumerated powers ONLY. The ACA's passage, and the Supreme Court's upholding of it, are evidence that the prevailing interpretation of those specific powers stretches them beyond recognition.
-The law tramples rights of conscience, in all sorts of ways. Business owners have taken to the courts--with mixed results so far--to protest requirements that they provide coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion services that violate their consciences or religious beliefs. Now some are also saying that taxpayer dollars will be used to provide abortion coverage in the new exchanges, in contravention of the federal Hyde Amendment.
So are you ready for the REVOLUTIONARY?:
While I think most of us will concede that we must collectively care for the needy, many of us are convinced that federal mandates are not the best way to do that. I believe that we must admit that we have long permitted the federal government to overstep its bounds and take steps to reform it to the blueprint set out in the Constitution. We must insist that the enumerated powers vested in the federal government--its ONLY powers--be interpreted in accordance with the Founders' intentions of reserving such matters as providing health care for the poor to the sound discretion of the people and the states.
How might we do that, you ask? One idea that I believe has merit involves calling for a Convention of States (under Article V of the Constitution) for the purpose of amending the Constitution to provide more specific limits on the authority of the federal government. To learn more about this plan, visit www.conventionofstates.com.
I found the session informative and helpful, although I still don't pretend to have an understanding of all of the workings of the behemoth legislation. While I don't typically like to discuss issues that I don't thoroughly understand, I am resigned to the fact that holding myself to this principle, in the case of this particular issue, would mean forever dismissing the opportunity of commenting.
And so, with that disclaimer, here are some of my thoughts on the beleaguered legislation.
First, the GOOD:
-It is good, noble, and right that we, as a society, demonstrate a concern for the poor, sick, and elderly among us. Therefore, it is also fitting for us to explore ways of ensuring that those who cannot care for themselves receive the tangible help that they need.
-From what I learned last night, there are elements of the law that make good sense. For instance, it seems wise to offer tax credits for those who are struggling financially, yet take responsibility for their future health care needs by purchasing health insurance. Giving them a tax break to help them pay for their premiums is likely to inure to everyone's benefit by allowing them to obtain preventive care and reducing the incidence of "uncompensated care" (which increases the costs of health care for everyone).
-Building upon the second point, it seems appropriate for the ACA to forbid some of the sharp practices by wealthy insurance companies that devastate individuals and cost taxpayers dearly. As I learned last night, the ACA precludes insurers from dropping an insured's coverage once he or she becomes seriously ill. Apparently companies will sometimes go back and identify a misstatement in the application or loophole in the contract once the insured starts to incur serious expenses. This is unjust and should be stopped.
But there is plenty of BAD in the Affordable Care Act as well:
-The law is over 900 pages. Need I say more? We are an overregulated people already, and legislation that approaches the length of War and Peace should raise serious concerns in anyone who has a genuine desire to know, understand, and abide by the law. In the middle of a hectic day, I am sometimes seized by the fear that some government bureaucrat will come knocking on my door to inform me that in the process of carrying on some industrious activity in good faith, I have violated the fine print of an obscure regulation. Am I neurotic? Maybe. But such a scenario is increasingly possible in America's contemporary legal climate. It shouldn't be. (If you think I am exaggerating here, ask me about the lady in Arizona who was ticketed for giving away bottled water).
-The law is hard on big businesses that have great influence on our economy. Would it be nice for these businesses to provide health insurance benefits for their employees? Of course. But penalizing them with crippling taxes for not doing so will just provide them with incentives to locate elsewhere, taking their jobs and other types of tax revenues to countries that will appreciate them. Right?
-If the federal government can force me, under threat of financial penalty (call it a "tax" if you must), to buy a product like health insurance, what can't it force me to do? This is my most fundamental concern with the law. The federal government was designed to be one of specific, enumerated powers ONLY. The ACA's passage, and the Supreme Court's upholding of it, are evidence that the prevailing interpretation of those specific powers stretches them beyond recognition.
-The law tramples rights of conscience, in all sorts of ways. Business owners have taken to the courts--with mixed results so far--to protest requirements that they provide coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion services that violate their consciences or religious beliefs. Now some are also saying that taxpayer dollars will be used to provide abortion coverage in the new exchanges, in contravention of the federal Hyde Amendment.
So are you ready for the REVOLUTIONARY?:
While I think most of us will concede that we must collectively care for the needy, many of us are convinced that federal mandates are not the best way to do that. I believe that we must admit that we have long permitted the federal government to overstep its bounds and take steps to reform it to the blueprint set out in the Constitution. We must insist that the enumerated powers vested in the federal government--its ONLY powers--be interpreted in accordance with the Founders' intentions of reserving such matters as providing health care for the poor to the sound discretion of the people and the states.
How might we do that, you ask? One idea that I believe has merit involves calling for a Convention of States (under Article V of the Constitution) for the purpose of amending the Constitution to provide more specific limits on the authority of the federal government. To learn more about this plan, visit www.conventionofstates.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)