We have the right, via abortion, to end the life of our pre-born children. Much is made about the supposed “right to die” in the circumstances of our own choosing. Dr. Kevorkian was a hero to a lot of people for helping them end their lives, yet his acts were crimes.  Attempted suicide will generally get you a stay in your local mental hospital – against your will.  In NY, a motorcyclist was part of a protest against helmet laws – a nanny-state regulation that we shall protect ourselves whether we will or no. He promptly died in an accident which, had he worn a helmet, he would easily have survived.

The question is not whether helmets are efficacious. The question is whether we have the right to indulge in risky behavior, or whether the state has the right to restrict us in order to preserve our lives.

Helmets and seatbelts today – a requirement to lose weight and exercise later? Questions that seemed ridiculous before Obamacare and a legal decision that a lack of activity – the refusal to buy health insurance – constitutes activity are now on the table.  Questions about whether there are any actual barriers to what Congress can require of us are currently being debated.  Helmets are the least of our worries.  Our very independence is at stake.

“Mystery shoppers” from the government are now helping us by calling doctors to see if they’re taking new patients, and if there is a difference in their willingness to accept appointments for Medicare/Medicaid versus privately insured patients. The article implies that would be a Very Bad Thing – evil mean foot and tonsil thieves are willfully refusing to serve The Poor!

Of course, given that doctors actually lose money on those patients, refusing to take them is a rational response to the market the government has engineered. But now, if the government can define the problem as “doctors refusing service” rather than “government insurance plans underpaying doctors” Obama can implement a solution in line with the rest of his extra-legal regulatory adventurism.  Will it be that hospitals who don’t treat a certain percentage of Medicare/Medicaid lose all access to government funding? Will it be that “private” doctors have more difficulty with licensing and inspections?  Will it be some kind of surtax on private medical practices which don’t treat a certain percentage of Medicare/Medicaid patients? Or will it be addressed as a civil rights issue – the “right” to medical care?

h/t Instapundit

Pro-choicers are fond of claiming that if abortion became illegal, women would be subject to dangerous “back alley” abortions.  Therefore abortion needs to remain “safe and legal” in order to protect women. The truth is a lot of clinics are currently providing the “back alley” standard of care.  The horrifying story of Kermit Gosnell’s infanticide factory in Philadelphia was probably the first – and hopefully the worst – of many clinics shut down, as other states are finally cracking down on abortion clinics and investigating them for substandard medical care.

Here in New Orleans, a clinic was shut down yesterday for

operating without a registered nurse on staff, without a controlled dangerous substance license and without registering with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The clinic was actually shut down in January for those things, but it was permitted to reopen while they contested the issue in state court. Which, I guess, was better than actually making the effort to meet the medical standards.  But hey, it’s the GOP and pro-lifers who hate women and want to reduce their access to safe medical care, right?

How long is eighteen weeks?

That’s a full semester of grammar or high school.

Nearly half of a full-term pregnancy.

A week longer than football season.

And it’s how long you’ll be waiting to get your “free” doctor’s visit in Britain.  Is the “free” really worth the wait?