Rationalizing rationed health care

a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562948992235831.html"David Rivkin and Lee Casey:/abr /br /blockquote...br /br /pThe Supreme Court created the right to privacy in the 1960s and used it to strike down a series of state and federal regulations of personal (mostly sexual) conduct. This line of cases began with emGriswold v. Connecticut/em in 1965 (involving marital birth control), and includes the 1973 emRoe v. Wade/em decision legalizing abortion./p pThe court's underlying rationale was not abortion-specific. Rather, the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances. As the court explained in emPlanned Parenthood v. Casey /em(1992), "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."/p pIt is, of course, difficult to imagine choices more "central to personal dignity and autonomy" than measures to be taken for the prevention and treatment of disease -- measures that may be essential to preserve or extend life itself. Indeed, when the overwhelming moral issues that surround the abortion question are stripped away, what is left is a medical procedure determined to be "necessary" by an expectant mother and her physician./p pIf the government cannot proscribe -- or even "unduly burden," to use another of the Supreme Court's analytical frameworks -- access to abortion, how can it proscribe access to other medical procedures, including transplants, corrective or restorative surgeries, chemotherapy treatments, or a myriad of other health services that individuals may need or desire?/pp...br //pbr //blockquoteThis is a clever argument, but I doubt the court would restrain rationed health care on the basis of a right to privacy even if it flies in the face of its Roe decision. Roe was bad law, and rationed health care is bad legislation but I don't think the court will follow the logic of Roe to overturn rationed health care.div class="blogger-post-footer"img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5051247-6621552398682813023?l=prairiepundit.blogspot.com'//div

technorati tags:
political news | news | world news
More at: News 2 Cromley