Unintended Consequences

This past week, a Republican led attempt to change the US Constitution with the Balanced Budget Amendment failed when it received only 261 votes, well short of the 290 needed to send the amendment to the Senate.  Senate approval of the amendment was virtually a non-starter, and the entire Balanced Budget Amendment was largely a political gesture, intended to attempt to embarrass President Obama and congressional Democrats.  However, neither Republicans nor Democrats should be interested in an amendment such as this; Republicans should consider it especially anathema.

A balanced budget amendment would virtually guarantee judicial involvement in the political budget process.  In a time when ranting and raving about "Judicial Activism" is the political mantra for Republicans, especially for Republican presidential candidates, the idea that our judiciary should be involved in the budget process seems to be especially galling.  Judges, whether elected or appointed, are not intended to be involved in budget processes.  Their jobs, as defined in our system, is to resolve legal disputes brought before them by interpreting the laws and applying them to disputes.  This does not extend to determining budgets and whether or not they are appropriate.

If this amendment were to pass Congress, and were enacted by the states, anyone who disagreed with a budget, passed by congress, would sue to block the budget, and/or to have a part or parts of the law declared unconstitutional.  Judges would, of necessity, have to resolve those problems, and would then have to determine whether the law in question passed the test and/or was creating an unbalanced budget.  This puts judges in an untenable position, as they are being called upon to exercise judicial function to approve or disapprove a law, but are instead involving themselves in the political process.

If congress does not have the intestinal fortitude to balance our budget, that is a problem the voters need to resolve:  they can do it at the ballot box by refusing to re-elect those congresspersons or senators who are unwilling to put politics aside and to do what is needed to truly resolve the budgetary problems of the United States.

The Truth about the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

          Several different blogs have recently gone into hysterics over HR 3, which was introduced into the US House of Representatives with 173 sponsors.  Let's discuss several of its provisions which have been the subject of debate, and compare them with what is actually meant.  To see the full text of the bill, (it is actually fairly short), click HERE

           I might note that this bill violates one of the Republican and Tea Partiers' first rules, in that  there is nothing in the bill indicating where in the constitution that Congress is authorized to pass this legislation . Of course, Congress IS authorized to do this by the powers vested in Article I, Section 8.  But, at the beginning of this term of Congress, the Republicans and Tea Partiers made it clear that they were going to require every bill to have a clause which establishes its "constitutional legitimacy", and this bill does not do so.  Perhaps that requirement only applies to bills that are sponsored by Democrats?

           Sections 301, 302 and 303 of the bill speak about prohibiting the use of federal or public funds, including trust funds, to fund abortions.  Simply put, this means that no government subsidized program, including any program such as medicaid or medicare, can fund an abortion.  If a woman wishes to have an elective abortion, she must pay for it out of her own pocket.  It also states that the woman cannot have a tax benefit for self-funding an abortion. 

          Section 305 and 306 allow for insurance companies to offer separate plans to women that will cover abortions, and I presume that an insurance company could also offer a separate abortion policy if it so desired.  It also states that taxpayer funds are not to be used to buy such insurance.  Again, this is in keeping with the desire that if a woman chooses to have an abortion, that she pay for it out of her pocket, and not have the taxpayer pay for it in any way.

          Section 309 is the section which seems to bring certain people almost to the point of hysteria.  This section has two parts.  One part states that Section 301, 302 and 303 shall not apply when there is a case of forcible rape.  This has been seized upon by some, perhaps with agendas of their own, to imply that force would be necessary to be proven, and that somehow, the Republicans are "redefining" the crime of rape.  That is complete hogwash.  Rape, at the common law, had 5 elements to make it a crime.  Those were: penetration, force or resistance, non-consent, absence of a marital relationship, and mens rea.  Modern statutes have evolved considerably from that.  A handful of states allow for a prosecution without proof of force, but this is not the prevailing view in the United States.  However, what counts as force has changed considerably, to include intimidation, psychological force, and other non-violent means of forcing the act.  A review of state statutes reveals that in all states under this law, no changes will need to be made to the rape classifications in order for a woman to seek an abortion after being raped.

          Section 309 also has a provision for incest where the victim is a minor.  Incest is a completely separate  crime versus rape.  In the case of a minor, there may be an underlying rape charge, especially if it is shown that the victim was coerced into sex with someone prohibited by family relationship.  An adult, however, is presumed to be able to give consent.  If the woman did not give consent, or was coerced into the sexual act, then again, it may be rape, and the statement above about Section 309(a) would apply.  An incestuous relationship where the woman is of legal age, and freely consents to the sexual act,  should not be treated any differently than any other case of a sexual relationship where the woman finds she is pregnant and then has second thoughts.  I realize that abortion up to a certain point is legal in the US, whether I like it or not, and if it is going to remain legal, the government has a right to refuse to pay for it.

          In short, HR3 is a bill which seeks to make sure that taxpayer funds are not used to pay for abortions.  If a woman chooses this drastic end to a human life, she should pay for it out of her pocket, and the taxpayers should not be complicit in assisting her in doing so.