When the Constitution was adopted, it established a federal government of limited enumerated powers. Under this system of government, every power not granted was denied. A review of the proceedings in the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787 shows there was not a single proposal to vest the federal government with any authority over the medical profession. Thus, the Founders did not insert a single provision in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to regulate medical procedures within the several States.

It their thirst for power, politicians in Washington, with the aid of political appointees masquerading as federal judges, have perverted a provision of the Constitution to get control over the medical profession. This provision, which is commonly known as the Commerce Clause, has all but replaced the Constitution as the measure of federal power. The usurpation of power under this clause is so extensive that Congress claims it has the power to regulate anything or any person that moves in commerce and anybody that engages in an activity that has the potential to affect commerce. This warped and distorted version of the Constitution is the basis for the new abortion law. The bill reads in part:

“Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.” [Bold added]

This raises a question―- even if the federal government had been granted the power to regulate the medical profession, how does a doctor performing a partial-birth abortion affect interstate or foreign commerce? Based on the clause cited and the construction of the statute, there can only be one conclusion. Since the word commerce, as used in this clause, refers to the movement of commodities, it is apparent that Congress views human life as tangible property that belongs to the federal government. After all, this government commodity, if allowed to live, would eventually get a job and become a source of revenue for the federal government. If government allowed one of its commodities to be removed from the chain of commerce without generating any revenue, that removal could have an adverse affect on interstate or foreign commerce in the future. That alone, under judicial interpretations of this clause is sufficient to trigger federal intervention.

Irrespective of the reader’s views on partial-birth abortions, if we set aside the emotional, ethical, and religious aspects of this procedure and focus on the construction of the statute, coupled with the warped interpretation of the Commerce Clause by the federal judiciary, this bill is simply an attempt to prevent physicians from removing future government property from the flow of commerce.

(Editor's note: There must be plenty of trees left in Washington DC... Where's my rope.... )

Archives

The First Amendment did not Create Any Constitutional Rights

Have you been the Victim of an Unlawful Traffic Court Prosecution?