Proposal to stop abortion expanding govt. HC

A proposed argument, to stop abortion-expanding government "healthcare" legislation.

A couple months ago, Ann Coulter told an audience (on CSPAN) that the only way to teach a Liberal (Progressive), is to use their own dirty tricks against them. That comment got me thinking about how to use the Liberal death-grip on abortion, to stop their own agenda on "healthcare" and, so, stop an explosion in the number of abortions, both at-will ('convenience') and in the future, those due to government mandated (culling of genetically 'imperfect' human beings.)

My belief is: those who pushed the pro-abortion ("Pro-choice") agenda, long ago painted themselves into a legally binding corner. This is not a 'dirty trick', but mearly the shining of a spotlight on an existing and unintended consequence of actions which have cost an estimated 40-50 million human lives in the USA.

Thank you to those who assisted, in any way, to the construction of this two step argument.

This argument necessarily uses the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Roe v Wade (1973) to expose a logical deadlock the promoters of Pro-choice built into their own, self-imposed trap.

The result is quite short - simplicity is desirable! (Note: verbiage may not be good legal-eze, then, neither is the 1990 pages of Pelosi's latest HR3962, nor the expected additional 800 pages!)

Baby at 8-weeks

The slaughter of millions of innocents,

puts food on their own tables; meat for the kettle.

It's murder for profit! It's virtual cannibalism...

Step One:

"Do you agree with the following statement?"

"By opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, there is a 'constitutional right to privacy^[1]' , which is now the 'settled law of the land'^[2]; thus individual sovereignty^[3] over one's body provides basis for the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy, until the age of 'viability'."

Do not proceed, without receiving the obvious "pro-choice" response:

"I agree." (or similar)

^[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

^[2]or settled as a precedent of the Court http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/John_Roberts_Abortion.htm

^[3]or Self-ownership, or individual autonomy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_sovereignty

^[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jurisdiction

^[5] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56351

http://micahpeak.org/Proposal103109.aspx

(verbiage updated Nov.4,2009jb)

Step Two:

"You agree...

So then, what is the jurisdiction^[4] for Federally mandated intrusion of individual sovereignty regarding medical decisions and access to medical care, or to interfere with those same decision making rights of a parent or legal guardian?"

There should be no valid answer (except 'none')... as individual right to privacy prevents (government) intrusion, when not invited, by the individual. The Federal Govt. gives futher proof of this right, by stating that illegal aliens have the 'right to privacy'^[5]

Additionally, IF there is determined to be Federal jurisdiction for the latter (govt. healthcare), then the former (abortion) cannot be covered by 'constitutional right to privacy', as the Federal govt. grants itself the authority to meddle in our privacy.

Micah Peak

He who has ears to hear, let him hear!