Sign up for email updates!

Don't miss out on what matters. Sign up for email updates from Larson's Political Economy!

Stay informed! Sign up for e-mail updates:

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Is Your Life Worthy of The State Budget?

The point with the American constitutional republic is to let people live their lives without government interference. The state is supposed to be limited to its minimal duties: the protection of life, liberty and property. Unfortunately, as government grows it breaches these limits time and time again.

Until it gets so big it starts destroying what it was supposed to protect in the first place. 

We have already seen government destroy property. From Kelo v. New London to the destructive forest fires on federal lands, government has reduced property and property rights to political instruments. Liberty is also being infringed, from the growing presence of government in our health care system to Patriot Act incursions in our private lives.

And now, even life itself is in the government crosshairs. As I explain in my forthcoming book Faith and Freedom: The Moral Case for America, there can be no ethical compromise between individual liberty and the use of government for any other purpose except its minimal duties. The horrific expansion of state abortion laws into the realm of infanticide is the most egregious example to date, but is not surprising given the death cult that follows in the footsteps of government-provided health care. In fact, as I explain in chapter five of my book The Rise of Big Government, the more government advances in health care, the more it reduces life - and the lives of individual human beings - to utilitarian units in a cost-benefit system. 

It is important to understand this as a context of why states stretch out abortions to also include infanticide. The context has two parts, the first of which is the gradual growth of government presence in our health care system. As Medicaid comes to cover more people; as Obamacare continues to regulate, restrict and restrain access to health care for working families; as the left escalates their "Medicaid for all" campaign; more and more of American health care falls under a system that by necessity rations health care - and needs to make utilitarian choices of what patients to cure and which ones to discard.

Yes, discard. In single-payer health care systems - which is where this gradual expansion of government medicine is taking us - physicians, health care bureaucrats and politicians routinely make decisions, regulations and laws that separate patients worthy of saving from patients whose cure would be too expensive to taxpayers. To function, government health care systems rely critically on a moral principle that demotes life to a cost item in the budget.

It is a safe guess that most of America's elected officials are in favor of expanding government in health care; if they were not, we would have seen substantial liberty-oriented reforms in our health care system. Therefore, most of our nation's politicians explicitly or implicitly subscribe to the idea that government has the moral authority to choose who lives, and who dies. 

Most Americans still do not subscribe to this idea. Therefore, in order to get us accustomed to utilitarian choices regarding life itself - the most sacrosanct freedom of all - many politicians see a virtue in escalating abortions into infanticide. Once the idea is established that we can kill newborn babies based on utilitarian considerations, our resistance to government-imposed utilitarian life-or-death choices will wither away.

In other words, the first part of the context of the new infanticide laws in states like New York and Virginia, is that they contribute toward morally preparing America for single-payer health care. 

The second part has to do with the economic incentives that government-run health care creates. Here, again, life becomes a policy instrument - as opposed to a policy goal in itself. A good example is the reprehensible use of tissue from human babies in research on mice:
The Department of Health and Human Services says it has granted a second 90-day extension to a contract it has with the University of California at San Francisco that requires UCSF to make “humanized mice.” These creatures are made by implanting mice with human tissues taken from late-term aborted babies. The HHS's multi-million-dollar contract with UCSF that requires the construction of these “humanized mice” creates a demand--driven by federal tax dollars--for tissue taken from late-term aborted babies. According to an estimate it has published on its website, the National Institutes of Health (which is a division of HHS) will spend $95 million this fiscal year alone on research that--like UCSF's "humanized mouse" contract--uses human fetal tissue.
This research project sees human babies as an instrument toward some policy goal that is more important than the lives of those babies. The fact that the research is aimed at finding a cure for AIDS - a horrible disease - does not reduce the immorality of the matter. On the contrary, it pits one human life against another: a baby dies in a late-term abortion so that a patient with AIDS may live. 

One life is discarded to save another. 

In a society where the first order of government is to protect liberty, the baby and the person with AIDS have exactly the same inalienable right to live. That is a society where research to cure serious illnesses is conducted with unrelenting respect for this right.  

By contrast, a society where people surrender decisions on their own health care to government is a society that creates the most perverted incentives imaginable. It is a society where late-term abortions come with a profit tag for those who are in the business of supplying government-funded research projects with human baby tissue. It is a society where the pursuit of profit from harvesting organ of dead babies can even reach into a coroner's office:
A San Diego physician whose firm was hired as a medical examiner in Texas has been accused in a lawsuit of harvesting body parts from deceased children not for medical reasons, but to boost his research prospects. The lawsuit accuses Dr. Evan Matshes of practicing medicine in the state of Texas without a license. It also says he and his company, NAAG Pathology Labs PC of San Diego, terminated employees who complained about the practices. ... NAAG Pathology Labs took over the department on an interim basis in August after a former medical examiner vacated the post, the lawsuit states. The agreement was rewritten in October, and Andrews was named chief medical examiner. Within weeks, the complaint says, NAAG began harvesting more human tissue during autopsies than was needed to determine causes of death.
The organs that NAAG allegedly harvests beyond coroner functions, are almost entirely cost free to the firm. It is, of course, tempting for them to sell the organs on the market for human-tissue based research (and the one for organ donations). That temptation is reinforced with our tax dollars. The fact that the organ harvester in this case is focused strictly on dead babies, is of no real consequence. A deceased child's tissue becomes a profitable product because government allows, and funds, research using that same tissue. 

When we permit the harvesting of organs from babies that died of an accident, an illness or a crime, we make it profitable for a coroner to steal those organs (which is allegedly what happened in the Lubbock, TX case). When this form of organ harvesting is made profitable, so is the organ harvesting from victims of abortion.

And life is demoted to an instrument for tax-paid medical research.

This demotion does not just take place as the beginning of life. It targets the end of life as well. Back in 2017, LifeNews.com reported:
Last week the Oregon Senate passed Senate Bill 494. ... this bill is designed to allow for the starving and dehydrating to death of patients with dementia or mental illness. ... Senate Bill 494 is little more than the state colluding with the healthcare industry to save money on the backs of mentally ill and dementia patients. This bill would remove current safeguards in Oregon’s advance directive statute that protect conscious patients’ access to ordinary food and water when they no longer have the ability to make decisions about their own care.
LifeNews is wrong in limiting the cost-saving collusion to the insurance industry. Medicaid is a major provider of end-of-life care for the elderly. By permitting euthanasia through starvation and dehydration, the state of Oregon secures for itself a method for discarding people who are too much of a cost item in the state's finances. 

In short: government gives itself the right to deselect people whose lives are unworthy of its budget. To again refer to my book The Rise of Big Government, this is a classic example of fiscal eugenics at work: only people who meet government-set standards for lives worthy of living, will be given access to government-provided health care.

Again, it makes no difference that private insurance companies can save money under the same eugenic euthanasia law. A government that took seriously its first duty of protecting life, would not permit the killing of any person for any purpose.

The fight to protect individual freedom from the tentacles of big government is, literally, a matter of life or death. It deserves our attention accordingly.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Favorites!