This is from an article I wrote at AC.
As the drama over government-managed health-care continues to unfold, much of the finger pointing revolves around the issue of tax-funded abortion. A close second is the matter of tax-funding for embryonic fetal experimentation; aka “embryonic stem-cell research.” Of course, these discussions serve the politicians well, because they want nothing more than to deflect a truly meaningful conversation (such as answering the question of “why is more government is the answer to government-created mess?”) So why is the question of abortion in government-managed health-care not a meaningful conversation? Because the State, as an institution, is not pro-life in any way. It’s a mistake to allow it more power in the hopes that it will defend life. A look at a few points within the U.S. Federal State will help bring this fact more clearly to home. The first most important thing to realise is that the Federal State has no obligation to defend YOU.
I know what many of you are thinking. What about the Constitution? What about promises of the campaigning politicians? Despite what we would like to believe — that the Constitution actually means something to the Political Class, that politicians keep their word — we know that the politicians don’t have convictions, only platforms. (More about that in a moment.)
The reality is this, the Constitution doesn’t actually contain anything about Government having a duty to protect and defend We The People. The Supreme Court has actually said so, again and again — Government isn’t required to protect YOU. One of the fist of such cases was in 1856, South v Maryland, where the Supreme Court said “…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” A recent case is a statement handed down by the Supreme Court on June 27th 2005, in Castle Rock v Gonzales, kindly informing Jessica Gonzales that she did not have a constitutional right to police protection for herself, nor for her children. This, despite the fact that she had obtained a court order against her husband (who murdered her children).
Knowing this, it’s foolish to believe politicians when they tell us we don’t need to protect ourselves when we have government. And we can stop thinking that if only the Federal State were somehow used properly, it would “do its job” and defend the lives of the unborn. No it wouldn’t — that’s not its job.
The State is a system that only serves to protect the Political Class. George Washington once warned that government is force, and nothing more. Marx said the same thing, and he wanted as much of it as possible. We need to help people realise that to grant the Federal Government more power in the hopes that it will realise it’s (non-existent) duty to defend human life is in vain. The U.S. Military serves at the exclusive pleasure of the Federal State, regardless of the intentions of those joining the military. And doctors operating within a state-managed medical system will also serve at the pleasure of the Federal State, regardless of the best intentions of the doctors.
A recent, and horrible, example of this was seen in the UK’s state-managed health-care system. A child was born prematurely, and could well have been fine had he received proper medical care. Despite the demand from the mother that the doctors do their job, the baby was left by the doctors without medical attention to die. Why did this happen? Because in the UK, the State defines a person to be a person at 22 weeks. The baby was born 21 weeks, and 5 days into the pregnancy. Apparently, the baby was only 2 days from the almighty State bestowing the sacrament of person-hood upon him. The doctors were, in fact, doing their job.
As we can see already in the UK, a state-run health-care system the doctors work for the blessed institution of the State. Don’t be fooled; the State operates to serve the Political Class, and not We The People. Politicians don’t see themselves as working for us, regardless of what they say. They are the ruling class, and we are the ruled — when politicians say otherwise, it’s because they want your money, your vote, your submission.
The second thing to realise is that the politicians do not have convictions. They only have platforms. They know that we very badly want them to have convictions. That’s why they find it so easy to convince the half of us who vote and pay taxes. (The other half have, apparently, seen the light enough to know better. ) Emotional issues like abortion are perfect for the politicians to hold the attention of the voter right where they want it, and to pander for votes and money from people on both sides of the issue. READ THE REST of the article at AC.
