Testing unborn babies for 3,500 genetic disorders

Medical researchers have developed a non-invasive test that can potentially identify not just Downs but thousands of other genetic disorders.  That could mean thousands of other excuses for abortions.  And thousands of reasons for a government-run health care system to–someday–require them.

A team has been able to predict the whole genetic code of a foetus by taking a blood sample from a woman who was 18 weeks pregnant, and a swab of saliva from the father.

They believe that, in time, the test will become widely available, enabling doctors to screen unborn babies for some 3,500 genetic disorders.

At the moment the only genetic disorder routinely tested for on the NHS is Down’s syndrome.

This is a large-scale genetic defect caused by having an extra copy of a bundle of DNA, called a chromosome.

Other such faults are sometimes tested for, but usually only when there is a risk of inheriting them from a parent.

By contrast, the scientists say their new test would identify far more conditions, caused by genetic errors.However, they warned it raised “many ethical questions” because the results could be used as a basis for abortion.

These concerns were last night amplified by pro-life campaigners, who said widespread use of such a test would “inevitably lead to more abortions”. . . .

As well as testing for thousands of genetic defects, the scientists said their test could give a wealth of information on the baby’s future health.However, they warned: “The less tangible implication of incorporating this level of information into pre-natal decision-making raises many ethical questions that must be considered carefully within the scientific community and on a societal level.

“As in other areas of clinical genetics, our capacity to generate data is outstripping our ability to interpret it in ways that are useful to physicians and patients.”

Josephine Quintavalle, founder of the Pro-Life Alliance, put it more baldly.

She said: “One always hopes, vainly, that in utero testing will be for the benefit of the unborn child.

“But, whilst this new test may not itself be invasive, given our past track record, it is difficult to imagine that this new test will not lead to more abortions.”

via Unborn babies could be tested for 3,500 genetic faults – Telegraph.

HT:  Grace

Health care and “broken markets”

Here is a different argument for the mandatory insurance requirement in Obamacare from Donna Dubinsky:

The private insurance market does not function as a normal market. If you are not employed and you want to purchase insurance in the private market, you cannot unilaterally decide to do so. An insurer has to accept you as a customer. And quite often, they don’t. Insurers prefer group plans, with lots of people enrolled to spread the risk. Can you blame them? The individual consumer is a lot of work, is a higher risk and produces relatively little revenue.

The Government Accountability Office studied this problem last year and found a range of denial rates that vary by state and by insurer. On average, 19 percent of applications nationwide are denied. One-quarter of insurers denied more than 40 percent of the applications they considered. These denials are not limited to deadly illnesses but include many minor reasons. Expect to be denied if you have asthma, if you take just about any prescription medication, if you are more than 15 percent overweight. Expect to be denied if a doctor has recommended any procedure for you, no matter how insignificant. Basically, expect to be denied.

I’m astonished that this information was not laid out in oral argument and that no questions were asked about it. I believe that lawyers on both sides of this argument, and the justices hearing the case, have always been employed and always been covered by employer-provided health insurance. Perhaps it simply does not occur to them that if they were to try to purchase insurance, they might not be able to.

The justices repeatedly asked: If the government can require you to purchase insurance, what else could it require you to do? What are the limiting conditions to this breadth of control?

The government muffed its response. To me, the answer is obvious. There are two simple limiting conditions, both of which must be present: (1) it must be a service or product that everybody must have at some point in their lives and (2) the market for that service or product does not function, meaning that sellers turn away buyers. In other words, you need something, but you may not be able to buy it.

Let’s test the examples presented to the high court: Can the government force you to eat broccoli? This proposition fails on both counts. Nobody must eat broccoli during their lives, and the market for broccoli is normal. If you want broccoli, go buy it. Nothing stops you.

Can the government force you to join a health club? Again, double failure. You don’t need to join a health club. Maybe you should, but you don’t have to. And, if you want to join one, plenty of clubs would be happy to admit you. Indeed, can you imagine a health club turning people down because they are too fat, the way insurers turn people down because they are too sick?

How about burial services? While this example passes the first condition — it is a service that everybody will need — it fails the second. There is a clearly functioning market for burial services. If you want to purchase a burial or a cremation, no seller of those services will turn you away.

The health insurance market meets both criteria. Everybody will need health services at some point. And as long as the United States doesn’t provide national health care, the only reasonable method for most people to pay for those services is through insurance. But here, the market simply does not work. Sellers of health insurance turn away purchasers, and in great numbers.

Although the Affordable Care Act is huge and enormously complex, the point of the legislation is straightforward. It aims to fix the market for health insurance by prohibiting sellers of the service from declining buyers. Why did Congress not pass a simple law just requiring insurance companies to accept all applications? Because such a law would not repair the market and would probably make it worse. With only sick people seeking insurance — because healthy people would wait until they got sick, knowing that insurance was guaranteed — coverage would become overwhelmingly expensive and impossible for most Americans to afford.

The only answer is to expand the pool and spread the risk, which lets insurers have a rational business model. Short of government-provided health services or a government-sponsored national insurance plan, the Affordable Care Act is the next best shot at fixing this broken market.

via The case for Obamacare – The Washington Post.

Could you answer this argument for Obamacare?

Obamacare defenders taken by surprise

Even fans of Obamacare are admitting how poorly the administration lawyers handled the argument before the Supreme Court.  It is as if they didn’t anticipate the opposing arguments, much less prepare an answer for them.  It is as if they didn’t even conceive of how anyone could disagree with the goodness of the law.  From Rand Simberg (links to the quotes are in the linked article):

Having seen the transcripts of Tuesday’s hearing before the Supreme Court of the United States, I can only conclude that . . .testing their arguments against those of their political opponents. . .not only never occurred to the solicitor general or his defenders in the media, but that the very notion that their arguments had any flaws never crossed their minds.

In fact, even Mother Jones said that it was a judicial disaster for the government:

“Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.

…Justice Samuel Alito asked the same question later. “Could you just -— before you move on, could you express your limiting principle as succinctly as you possibly can?” Verrilli turned to precedent again. “It’s very much like Wickard in that respect, it’s very much like Raich in that respect,” Verrilli said, pointing to two previous Supreme Court opinions liberals have held up to defend the individual mandate. Where the lawyers challenging the mandate invoked the Federalist Papers and the framers of the Constitution, Verrilli offered jargon and political talking points. If the law is upheld, it will be in spite of Verrilli’s performance, not because of it.”

The months leading up to the arguments made it clear that the government would face this obvious question. The law’s defenders knew that they had to find a simple way of answering it so that its argument didn’t leave the federal government with unlimited power. That is, Obamacare defenders would have to explain to the justices why allowing the government to compel individuals to buy insurance did not mean that the government could make individuals buy anything -— (say, broccoli or health club memberships, both of which Scalia mentioned). Verrilli was unable to do so concisely, leaving the Democratic appointees on the court to throw him life lines, all of which a flailing Verrilli failed to grasp.

It apparently never occurred to him that he might be challenged on these issues. Why was he so unprepared?

For months we’ve been hearing from the usual suspects in the MSM about how ludicrous was the notion that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to compel someone to purchase a product, as though proponents of the proposition were advocating the legitimacy of slavery, or the notion that the government couldn’t prevent someone from growing wheat for their own use on their own land, or that it couldn’t prevent an individual from growing marijuana to treat her own cancer.

As evidence for their scoffing, they pointed out how that great constitutional scholar Nancy Pelosi was incredulous at the notion that there could possibly be an issue with it, or the more honest Democrat congressman (who somehow inexplicably later lost his election) who didn’t even think that it mattered. They also pointed out the sophisticated legal argument that it must be constitutional, otherwise its proponents would have actually put forth legal arguments supporting the case:

“That the law is constitutional is best illustrated by the fact that — until recently — the Obama administration expended almost no energy defending it.”

Could there be a more airtight defense? Perhaps, if one had a sieve.

All of this is evidence of the media/academic cocoon in which so many of these commentators live. It is a world in which it is unimaginable that Wickard v. Filburn may have been wrongly decided, in which there may actually be limits to federal power. It is unimaginable that the great solons on the Hill — Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank — could possibly write a bill which might actually be unconstitutional despite its hundreds of pages that not one person read, and that we couldn’t possibly know what was in it until they passed it.

As a specific example of how completely gobsmacked they were, read “legal analyst” Jeffrey Toobin’s reaction to the hearing:

‘“This law looks like it’s going to be struck down,” he said. “I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong.”’

Shocking, Jeffrey, we know. Just shocking.

Shocking, that is, to anyone completely unfamiliar with the founding document and the intent of the Founders. Sadly, this includes most people in the traditional media, on which too many continue to rely for their analysis. The White House could have avoided, or at least mitigated, this disaster by hiring the smartest opponents of the law to come in and do a moot court exercise against them, in order to prepare their advocate in advance. But, whether due to arrogance, incompetence, or both, it did not.

via PJ Media » The White House/Media Cocoon on ObamaCare.

Another bad day for Obamacare

In today’s final arguments over Obamacare, the Supreme Court considered whether striking down the individual mandate should mean throwing out the whole health care law.  It sounded like getting rid of the requirement that people buy insurance were a foregone conclusion.  And a majority seemed to favor scrapping the whole law.  We’ll know in June when the ruling will be announced.  From the Los Angeles Times:

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law’s controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court’s liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.” But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

via Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law – latimes.com.

A second abortion mandate in Obamacare

National Review has uncovered a second abortion mandate in Obamacare:

Finalized on March 12, 2012 (and set to go into effect with the 2014 exchanges), the new HHS rule implements Section 1303 of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” The new rule imposes mandates on every single enrollee in a qualified health plan that happens to include abortion coverage. In particular, federal law will soon mandate that every single individual enrolled in such a plan make payments to a private fund designated solely to the payment of abortion. This scheme allows Obamacare to get around the controversial issue of government-funded abortions with a new funding source: mandatory private payments by you, the insured.

Here’s how it works. The new rule authorizes issuers to offer abortion coverage as part of their plans in the government-subsidized exchanges. For issuers that voluntarily include abortion coverage as part of their health plans, the new HHS rule mandates the private insurer to compel all enrollees to directly pay a separate abortion premium “without regard to the enrollee’s age, sex or family status.” Not surprisingly, the abortion premium also must be paid without regard to whether the individual has a religious or moral objection to funding other people’s abortions.

The new rule specifies that the abortion premium must be separately itemized on each enrollee’s bill or payroll deduction. The Obama administration’s new rule then directs the issuer to place the abortion premiums into “allocation accounts” to be used “exclusively” to pay for other people’s elective abortion. It’s astounding. It’s also a violation of religious liberty for the reasons set forth in the friend-of-the-court brief that we recently filed to aid the Supreme Court in its review of Obamacare’s individual mandate.

So, if you want to avoid abortion premiums, you can simply pick an abortion-free plan, right? Well, the new HHS rule seems deliberately designed to foil that option. With an audacious snub of the concept of consumer transparency, the HHS rule expressly instructs the issuer to hide the abortion coverage and the mandated separate abortion-premium payment from any advertising or information listings in the state exchanges.

According to the rule: “A [qualified health plan] that provides for coverage of [elective abortion] must provide a notice to enrollees, only . . . at the time of enrollment.” It goes on to provide that the issuer’s advertising in the exchange must provide information “only with respect to the total amount of the combined payments” (without the need to put consumers on notice by breaking out the abortion amount to be billed separately). Thus consumers picking plans will likely have no idea about which ones come with the abortion premium mandate.

Who will end up in these plans? First, many people will accidentally walk into the rule’s trap and buy a policy under which the federal government will force them to make monthly abortion-premium payments — something they would not do if the government mandated transparency (or at least permitted transparency!) about the abortion-premium mandates. Second, many people will end up in these plans if it is the plan chosen by their employers. Third, many people may be forced to select these plans if available alternatives do not have the coverage or doctor networks their families need.

One way or another, millions of Americans will soon find themselves in plans that require these separate abortion payments as a matter of federal law.

via What Rules Us – By Dorinda C. Bordlee & Nikolas T. Nikas & Mark Rienzi – Bench Memos – National Review Online.

HT:  Leroy Huizenga

A bad day for Obama at the Supreme Court

On the second day of oral arguments on Obamacare at the Supreme Court, the majority of the justices were  shooting holes in the administration’s arguments.  Justice Kennedy, usually a key swing voter, expressed skepticism that the government has the constitutional power to force citizens to buy something.  So, surprisingly, did Obama appointee Justice Sotomayor, at least at one point, though at other times she seemed to be in sync with the other three liberals in throwing softball questions.  Not that you can reliably tell the final outcome from judges’ interrogations, but supporters of the law are not feeling good about the day.

There will be one more day of arguments.  The ruling isn’t expected until June.

 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X