Simple question---I heard this discussed on a local talk show, and thought I'd ask here, as we have some actual lawyers here.
In the rush to pass National health Care, has anyone asked if there are Supreme Court decisions that would prohibit it?
From what I heard, Roe v Wade and other SC decisions prevent the government getting between a patient and the patient's doctor.
Is there truth to this?
Is the entire HC debate a moot point?
Or is this simply obstructionists grasping at straws?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Straws.

If a case can be made, it will wind it’s way to the SC.

R v W is not an impediment to the process

What he said. The government can pay for health care for a person, and even refuse to pay for abortions, and still not be in between a person seeking an abortion and a doctor willing to perform it.

__________________
1984 300TD

Roe V Wade has been used in right to privacy cases - it would be an even greater stretch for it to be used to combat health care reform.

__________________
1984 300TD

The right to privacy from government intrusion can be waived.

Bear in mind, we tell the government all kinds of things about ourselves as it is.

Physician/Patient privacy is presently waived when private health insurance is involved; and is certainly waived when personal injury lawsuits raise the issues of medical treatment for injuries. Attorneys and their staff spend a lot of time going over those records, sometimes all the way to back to the delivery room.

If any proposed or enacted legislation has a legal issue, someone has to bring a lawsuit to get the ball rolling, then it would have to work its way up the chain to the SC. If legislation is blatantly violating previous rulings, the process goes quicker since there is less debate. It doesn't take the SC to shut something down, injunctions can be issued at various levels in the chain of courts.

Usually the big stinks occur when there is no agreement on whether something violates prior rulings.

__________________
MB-less

As an aside, there is irony that conservatives – the majority of whom make up the anti-reform contingent – would be counting on the hated Roe decision to come to their rescue.

Roe v. Wade says that a woman's right to privacy gives her a Constitutional right to have an abortion under certain circumstances. Is there anything in the current healthcare reform proposals that would either require people to have certain medical procedures or prohibit them from having certain medical procedures? If not, then I don't see what Roe v Wade has to do with national healthcare.

Now if we had a system that included the "death panels" conjured by Sarah Palin, then Roe v. Wade would probably become relevant. That girl has really gone around the bend.

Thank you all for your input.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags