For the left, the individual’s right to choose an abortion is sacrosanct.
But what about the individual’s right to choose in other matters? What if a Jew only wants to rent his apartment to a Jew? What if an employer only wants to hire his racial or religious group? Should the individual have the right to choose then?
What if a parent wants his nine year old child to get a job? If the child consents, then is that OK?
What about the individual’s right to choose to own a gun? To carry a loaded gun?
What about the individual’s right to choose to drive without a seatbelt? What about the individual’s right to choose to keep more of his money rather than paying it out in high taxes?
What about a woman’s right to choose to sell her body in prostitution or pornography?
Anyway, it is clear from my questions that the left does not believe in the right to choose, except in certain sex-related areas.
The right to choose seems to be at the center of the Virginia judge’s decision that much of Obamacare is unconstitutional.
A federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first court in the country to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below.
Judge Henry E. Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, declined the plaintiff’s request to freeze implementation of the law pending appeal, meaning that there should be no immediate effect on the ongoing rollout of the law. But the ruling is likely to create confusion among the public and further destabilize political support for legislation that is under fierce attack from Republicans in Congress and in many statehouses.
In a 42-page opinion issued in Richmond, Va., Judge Hudson wrote that the law’s central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central to the law’s mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured because insurers argue that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat those with expensive chronic conditions.