Scope, power of government under constant review
Published 12:00 am Sunday, April 4, 2010
People who can’t name a single justice of the U.S. Supreme Court can tell you about Roe vs. Wade.
It was the abortion decision.
Most don’t remember the details, which, in light of the times, are worth remembering.
The case started when a Texas woman who was pregnant objected in federal court to a state law that made terminating any pregnancy a crime. Mississippi had a similar law, as did all other states.
Roe vs. Wade made it to the nation’s top judicial panel in 1972. The majority opinion by the late Justice Harry Blackmun, issued in 1973, measured the validity of the Texas law against one question: “What public interest is served by the Texas law against abortion?”
Charlie Mitchell is executive editor of The Vicksburg Post. Write to him at Box 821668, Vicksburg, MS 39182, or e-mail.
There’s more to the decision, but Blackmun concluded that a developing child for at least 90 days after conception is not “viable.” He ruled that such a developing child, one who could not live independently of its mother’s body, is not “alive” in legal terms. Not being a “person,” the developing child had no legal rights for Texas to protect with its anti-abortion law.
However the plaintiff, Norma McCorvey, did have rights. Specifically, six of the justices agreed with Blackmun in the 7-2 decision that the general constitutional freedom that people are promised from government interference would be paramount.
In other words, “big brother” couldn’t tell McCorvey what she could or couldn’t do in this specific situation.
Whatever else anyone thinks about it, Roe vs. Wade was a victory for the individual against the power of government.
Fast forward to 2010.
The power of government is being pitted against the rights of the individual.
Congress has passed and President Barack Obama has signed a bevy of health care laws.
Among them is a requirement that almost all people obtain health insurance coverage of some type.
The Internal Revenue Service will monitor compliance. In addition to the 1040 and other forms people send in every year, a new form will be required showing who provides insurance for the people named in the tax return.
Now some people have said this requirement is no different than laws requiring drivers to have liability insurance in case they damage someone else’s property. But there’s an option with the car insurance law, an “out.” People can choose not to drive. Millions of people don’t even own cars.
There is no such choice in the health care legislation.
Legal challenges have already been filed, but note what’s going on. Government can’t tell a woman what she must do when pregnant. The “right to be left alone” and personal choice win in that context. But government can compel everyone to enroll in some form of health insurance plan? Privacy doesn’t include a right to remain uninsured?
It’s an interesting twist.
Generally, people who think Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision also oppose the health care reforms. That means they are for big government in the former situation, but against big government in the latter.
Generally, people who think Roe vs. Wade was a correct decision also think the health care reforms are great. That means they are against big government in the former situation, but against big government in the latter.
Of course, the hardest stance to figure out might be that of the private insurance companies themselves.
In essence, they become like Section 8 landlords. Under that housing program and many others created in the same mold, private owners of apartments and homes are guaranteed rents will be paid. Tenants pay a portion, based on their income, and taxpayers pay the rest.
With the insurance exchanges in the reform packages, private insurance companies will millions of new customers. According to what has been written, individuals will pay premiums based on their incomes and the balance due will be picked up by the federal treasury. People who now struggle to pay premiums will get a boost, too. If, according to rate tables, insured people are paying too large a share of their income for coverage, part of the expense may be picked up by taxpayers.
Overall, this means President Barack Obama, who vilified health insurance companies in the days before the legislation was passed, has guaranteed them more customers and, perhaps, more profits.
Some provisions of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights grant the government power. Others limit government power.
The resulting pushing and pulling and tugging and shoving regarding specific situations have been part of the American story for a long time. That’s as true today as it ever was.
Correction: Ole Miss students voted to help select a new school mascot. The vote was not on removing Colonel Reb as last week’s column indicated.