Obamacare and Abortion

In his latest column Ron Paul criticizes the Obama administration’s unwillingness to provide straight answers to questions regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan.
He also argues that a mandatory nationalized healthcare system would harm medical charity and volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes, red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.

The Immorality of Taxpayer Funded Abortion

by Ron Paul

Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of legislation.

One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions. The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding abortions.

Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I have introduced the Taxpayer’s Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.

The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at the time, at the expense of the rights of others.

Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues altogether.

Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class warfare with wealth redistribution programs.

Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from patients who can’t pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes, red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.

The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither constitutional, moral, nor in the American people’s best interest.

  • squirrel

    The problem with government-run health care is that anyone can paste any moral agenda into this argument:

    “Forcing [anti-smoking] taxpayers to subsidize [lung cancer treatment] is evil and tyrannical. I have introduced the Taxpayer’s Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for [lung cancer treatment], both here and overseas.

    The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights. ”

    Similarly to the abortion issue, the person in question made a choice, and then is punished for that choice. Fill in with whatever moral muscling you wish to do to your fellow man.

    Oh, and by the way, who do you think will be using government-run health care? The poor? Would they perhaps be in need of abortions? Oh, you’d rather pay the hospital bills for the pregnancy and birth, edge the parents out of their education because they have to care for an unwanted child, and get and keep them all on welfare. Which you will also pay for. But at least you prioritized the life within a small set of dependent cells over the life of an already-independent, developed, conscious, thinking, feeling human. You do love to protect life.

    Socialized medicine, no. Protect rights of adults to their own bodies and abortions, yes.

    »crosslinked«

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  • Nick

    What you call “obamacare” has been working in Scandinavia for several decades. Why wouldn’t it work in the USA?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • VR

    Movie Night

    ‘Fatal Contact: Bird Flu In America’
    (90 min.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • VR
    • Christine

      Yup, No. is a complete sentence.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Mike

    After reading articles on Mises.org for over a year now, and they continuously tear apart Paul Krugman’s support for Keynes, I was forwarded this URL to a gem of a clip on Youtube.

    Krugman gets p3wned on Canadian Health Care:

    As a Canadian citizen, I can fully endorse the crappy quality of care we receive. The long lines are ridiculous, many months just for a basic appointment. They don’t take Emergencies until after 2pm!! lol omg. The shortage of doctors as mentioned above… wow. To get urgent care, ones who can afford it or have insurance go to the USA.

    For the love of God, don’t follow our model!!!

    =)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Coacha Quintero

    Presently, the United States uses the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles set by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to create the financial statements for investors

    to base their investment decisions on. The International Accounting Standards Board wants to implement the International Financial Reporting Standards for 2013. When it

    does–IF it does, chaos will most likely ensue. They will further confound investors with a principles (rather than rules) based accounting system.

    Detractors of the principles/objectives based approach argue the absence of detailed rules opens the door to even more abuse. The Financial Accounting Standards Board is

    considering whether to move towards the objectives-oriented standard setting.

    The FASB’s Standard Setting Process:
    1. ID the problem: A measurement/reporting issue is identified by the Emerging Issues Task Force and placed on the FASB’s agenda.
    2. The Task Force: about 15 knowledgeable people appointed to advise the board on various matters.
    3. Research and analysis: FASB’s technical staff investigates the issue.
    4. Discussion Memorandum: The DM is prepared and disseminated to interested parties.
    5. Public response: Public hearings are held to discuss the issue and letters of response are sent to the FASB which then analyzes this feedback.
    6. Exposure draft (ED): It details the proposed treatment for the problem.
    7. Public response: Written responses to the ED are accepted and analyzed. The ED is revised, if necessary, depending on the board’s analysis.
    8. Statement issued: An SFAS is issued if four of the seven FASB members support the revised ED.

    It makes me wonder who is sitting on the Board and whose interests they have at heart.

    Still, 5. And 7. Involve public response. We should all get involved in THIS if they don’t want to audit the FED! They should be stopped before they put the last nail in America’s (and our) coffin!!!

    http://www.fasb.org/home

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Lancelot

    Well im moving out of this country if this bill is passed. Screw any American who supports this bill in the slightest way.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • codemonkey

      lancelot,

      i agree with you about not being in support of this bill. only problem is… what country can you move to that isn’t already further along the socialist-path? if you find one, let me know so i can move too :)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • longshotlouie

    Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill–Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them

    http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610&print=on

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0