First: is all of this venom directed at Obama over health care particularly nasty because he’s black? I’m not sure I agree with this one, because Clinton got dragged through the mud on this too, but it’s an interesting thought.
Here’s a rather amusing look at some of the Great Americans who showed up at the teabagger rally on Saturday. (nod to Milo, whose facebook page I found this and the above thing on.)
Fiscal conservative Andrew Sullivan had this to say about teabaggers a few months ago: These are not tea-parties. They are tea-tantrums. And the adolescent, unserious hysteria is a function not of a movement regrouping and refinding itself. It’s a function of a movement’s intellectual collapse and a party’s fast-accelerating nervous breakdown.
On 9/11, Obama suggested a Day of Service to honor the dead. In response, Rush Limbaugh said “Community service is one of the baby steps towards fascism.” Wow, you can’t really argue with insanity.
On the other side of the coin, here’s something I don’t quite get: if Obama is doing this for all the right reasons, why won’t he even consider tort reform?
Let me explain the last item, as an attorney. Tort law is not federal law—it is state law reserved under the constitution to the states as it derives from the common law. It amuses me to no end when the Right tries to make tort reform a national issue. To do so, it would require a Federal Tort Law Act essentially eviscerating the federalism that the Right loves to tout (states' rights and all) and create the greatest Federal Government power grab in national history.
In other words, whatever the merits of tort reform (and it is fine, as long as insurance reform goes with it, since the direct beneficiary of any tort reform would be the insurance companies, not professionals) it just isn't a Federal Government issue. As with gay marriage (not a Federal issue), Right to Die (not a federal issue) and school choice (not a federal issue unless it violates constitutional rights), this is nothing more than rhertorical grandstanding. Just so I don't get attacked on that issue, I am not a personal injury lawyer and have no vested interest in protecting the Trial Lawyers lobby.
Bob- The floor is yours…
Thanks, PJ. In the words of the late great Ed McMahon: “I did not know that.”
I find it more than a little disingenuous to want to “reform” health care in this country by means of a complete takeover by the federal government, and then argue that we can't touch tort reform in any way, shape or from at the federal level because it's a “state issue,” and suddenly we're really really concerned about federalism and states' rights. I'm not at all sure that it's actually enumerated anywhere in the U.S. Constitution that the federal government shall take complete responsibility for health care decisions effecting each and every citizen of the U.S., (and also most probably the non-citizens living here illegally.) In fact, you could make a pretty good case that such a government takeover is an infringement on very basic human rights.
As for the protests against the current administration, there are provisions in that same constitution referred to above granting the citizens free speech, the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to assembly and the right to peaceful protest. Nowhere does it says that these rights are restricted only to Democrats or left-wingers protesting against Republican administrations. So maybe you guys that have such a huge problem with protests that you don't happen to agree with should, as the expression goes, get over it. If you prefer authoritarian governments there are any number in the wide world to choose from, many of them socialist and many featuring “free” health care. So maybe you should relocate somewhere else where protest against the government is not allowed and you won't be bothered by people who don't agree with you..
Once again you are being disingenuous. No one has proposed having the government take over all health care decisions – all that's up is a public insurance plan. Something our government already has, with Medicare and Medicaid, but unfortunately they only cover subsets of the population, and the current plan on offer is way too small and timid.
With your claims on the Constitution, do you really think that the healthcare industry has no effect on interstate commerce? Hell, if health reform was unconstitutional, so would be existing programs like Medicare (of course, Republicans fought that one tooth-in-nail too).
There's no proposal to take over decisions, which would be left to patients and their doctors, just like is done currently under Medicare and Medicaid, and in fact is the case in countries like the UK with a real nationalized healthcare system. This is also unlike the current system, where insurance companies routinely deny needed procedures, and rescind coverage when people actually get sick. And how the hell would universal insurance violate human rights?
You also don't seem to understand the meaning of free speech. The Constitution allows you to say whatever you want without government interference; it also protects my right to criticize what you say and call you a dumbass for it. No one has suggested that the teabaggers should be censored; just said that they are idiots, liars, and that many are racists. Somehow, though, a lot of the wignuts seem to believe that criticism amounts to an attack on their rights to free speech.
And bob, you are the only one here has has supported authoritarian governments. It boggles my mind when conservatives attack Obama as being authoritarian, when he has done nothing of the sort, except for very disappointingly not dismantling some of the Bush administration's egregious, actually authoritarian and unconstitutional abuses of power.
You and your hero Obama are the ones who are being disingenuous when you maintain that a government option would not inexorably lead to the final result of a government takeover of health care. Obama is on record as being in favor of a totally government run system and he is also on record as saying he would support a government option as a temporary means transitioning to that end. Experts on the issue in both parties as well as neutral sources both in the government and outside of it all agree that a government plan would have the effect of driving private insurers out of the market. The CBO says the same. So you and Obama are simply lying when you say differently.
I will repeat: I am not opposed to reasonable heath care reform. I am very much opposed to a single payer government run system. And there is nothing in the history of medicare or medicaid to lead one to believe that any money would be saved or that any efficiencies would result from a government run system.
Obama is presenting the country with a false choice. It is not an either or situation. There are ways to make insurance much less expensive and much more available without a governmment takeover. Simply freeing insurance from the present maze of regulations and mandates and allowing competition across state lines would drive down the cost. Nobody is calling for a government takeover of car insurance and robust competition has driven down costs in that industry. And I really wish you wouldn't repeat the 30 million figure of uninsured. It is a vastly inflated number, which includes everything from illegal aliens to people who can easily afford insurance but choose not to purchase it to people who simply do not register for available government programs. It is so misleading that citing it is basically lying.
And a government run system with the power to make decisions on the availability of care would certainly be an infringement of people's rights. How the hell can you argue differently? What right does the government have to decide how and when people can be treated for illness, what treatment and drugs will be available and to whom, what drugs and procedures will be allowed? You liberals are a fucking joke. You're all up in arms accusing the government of running a police state and “shredding” the constitution because of the Patriot Act when fucking credit card company is more intrusive in your personal affairs. And then you turn around and maintain that there is no fucking problem at all with the government taking over the health care industry and making life and death decisions about people's lives. What a fucking joke.
When did I ever say Obama was my hero? I think you're projecting again, just like that crap you've spouted referring to him as “the messiah,” which makes no sense at all.
Stop with the spurious accusations of lying. I'd love a government-run health care system, and getting rid of private insurance companies. But that's not what's on the table right now; and that's called compromise. You claim that Obama, by telling the truth about the plan, is lying because it might someday lead to a government-run system. That's simply ridiculous; you might as well say I'm lying when I say I don't own a car, because I do have a driver's license, and that means I might someday buy one.
Of course a government-run system would be more efficient than our current system. Most importantly, you get rid of the profit motive, which is the main reason our healthcare system is so fucked up; all those seven- and eight-million dollar salaries and stock dividends drive the costs way up. And countries with some form of nationalized health care or insurance spend a lot less, even as they get much better results.
It's also the source of the companies' constant denials of coverage and rescission. I'm talking about people with insurance here, not just the uninsured; but thanks for that display of the typical conservative lack of compassion – the typical Randian asshole philosophy of “I've got mine; fuck the rest of you”. And top that off with claiming undocumented immigrants dont't count, and labelling them with the “illegal alien” slur. But you less regulation is the answer? That is total bullshit. The free market is the problem here; the market can't be the solution.
Why would a government run system deny needed treatments? It doesn't in places like the UK which have nationalized healthcare systems. And yet, we have such a system, where the insurance companies deny coverage if it will upset their profits. If someone has to make decisions about health care and people's lives, the government is a hell of a lot more trustworthy than for-profit corporations.
And yeah, liberals were up in arms about the actual illegal, unconstitutional actions of the Bush administration. Besides the worst of the patriot act, there was illegal wiretapping, detaining people without trial, and of course torture. But you, having no sense of morals or common decency, have already established that you are A-OK with that. It was targeted against Muslims, of course; and you have already admitted to being a bigot against them.
The government run systems in both Canada and the UK are not the rosy utopian delights you claim. Treatment can be slow, there are waiting lists and certain drugs and treatments are denied.
I've never read Rand and have no plans to and am not a libertarian. So save your insults about Rand for somebody who gicves a fuck.
If “I have mine,” as you put it, it might be because I had enough sense to do some planning ahead in my life, have saved some money over the years, and have worked for it. Yes, I have health insurance. And it is not given to me for free. I have to pay good money for it. I have constantly met and spoken to people over the years who have insurance available to them but maintain that it is “too expensive.” Poor little dears, the deductibles are too high. The copays are too high. Better that it be given to me for free. We have assholes in this country that will pay $200.00 for a haircut, have lap tops and every fucking new electronic gizmo that comes out, spend small fortunes on cable TV service, internet and cell phone service, and then piss and moan that they have to spend a $20 copay to see a doctor, a person who has been in school and training until he or she is about thirty years old, as opposed to the hair stylist who may or may not have graduated from high school.
All this is, of course, beside the point. The reasons that people do not have health insurance in this country are varied. In some cases, thay don't want to pay for it, even though they are well able to. In others, they've lost it as a result of unemployment or truly can't afford it. Insurance can be made available to them without the necessity of the government taking over the entire fucking health care industry. That would be an expensive disaster. The welfare state in the UK with its socialized government run health care is definitely not what I want in this country. The majority of my fellow citizens agree with me.
As for “illegal aliens,” I fail to see why calling them that is a slur. They are aliens and they are here illegally, hence they are “illegal aliens.” And I for one do not wish to pay for their fucking health care. If you want to, be my guest. But pay for their health care out of your own fucking pocket, and don't expect to take my money by force of law in the form of taxes to do so.
And, finally, as I've pointed out before, my hypocritical friend, under Obama the provisions of the Patriot Act remain in effect. Wiretapping and suveillance continue. Rendition continues. Hotel Gitmo remains open. People are still detained w/o trial. Captured enemy forces do not enjoy any constitutional protections. And the allegedly illegal and immoral war in Iraq with all its attendant war crimes and human rights abuses, continues. Bush is long gone and very little beyond a few cosmetic changes have occured. But nary a peep from you. Much more fun to trash the long gone Bush.
Oh, and yeah, that is a pretty intensely ugly shirt that guy is wearing in the second frame; however, I happen to agree with his button.
Actually, I agree with Bob on the protest right—we all have the right to protest and express our opinions. Of course, there is a line which deals with violence and incitement to violence.
However, Bob does not understand the constitutional distinction between health care and the court system. The Federal Courts are established in the Constitution and are of limited jurisdiction. They only can take cases arising under the laws of the United States and where the parties are of different states (and only a party sued in a non-home state may remove to a Federal Court). Otherwise, all cases must be brought in state court pursuant to the law of that state. Tort law (negligence, trespass and intentional torts) arise out of the earliest English common law —and such law has evolved under the laws of our 50 states. The separate judiciary and common law of the states is reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment.
There is no similar established legal and administrative framework for healthcare. Indeed, since the passage of Medical Assistance and Medicare, healthcare regulation is largely federal, with state agencies merely administering the reimbursement formulas set by HHS. Indeed, health care already is one of the most intensively regulated and funded fields by the Federal Government. Thus, it is ironic and somewhat sad that we hear seniors yelling to “Keep your hands off of healthcare”, when they all participate in Medicare now—a Federal Health program.
We can argue all we want about what the best plan may be. We cannot, as a society, afford, morally or financially, to maintain the current system, where 30% or more of the population has no health care and rely on emergency room care which is far more expensive and for which we already pay. A well designed national health care system would be cheaper than the current system—-I believe that we should create a national HMO for non-covered people (it can be administered like an assigned risk insurance system if you don't like the government actually running it) so everyone has access to preventative care. This is what we need to debate—the Federal government already is paying for a national health care system between Medicare, Medical Assistance and emergency room care for those who show up (they must be treated by law). We need a system that makes sense—-but it is an issue totally unlike tort law.
I know you all will disparage the source and content of this column, but I thought it might be good for another opinion…
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?i…
i think you all need to get a life, or at least your boss needs to look over your shoulders more often to see how little work you are getting done.
Uh, Clancy, this whole exchange of ideas thing is pretty much what runs the internet. That being said, most of us here are men of leisure and would never encumber ourselves with superiors looking over our shoulders.
men of leisure???? uh what does that mean? not sure if what is said here really does run the internet. i thought it was electrons and 1s and 0s.
If you have to ask what a man of leisure is…
Clancy-What runs the internet is binary code- but that binary code is built on the backs of the angry Bob's and sensible Palestra Jon's of the world[just kidding Bob]. Those 1s and 0s are built on the witty comments of Wonderwoman Wonders and Kristy Baldwin. Those electrons, Clancy, are the leisurely heart and soul of one Johnny Goodtimes! So yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
well dan if you can't explain what leisure means than i guess you don't know. the next thing you are going to tell me is that there is an easter bunny.
and if the internet is based on the backs of the people you have just describes then they need to tear it down and start all over. and you need to get a life.
Clancy- We seem to be the only one's fighting this battle. Everyone else is too preoccupied with their politics. I don't like to go down that rabbit hole because it leads to name calling and misrepresentations. I will stay above the fray and simply state that you seem like a real turd Clancy.
I win.
“The government run systems in both Canada and the UK are not the rosy utopian delights you claim. Treatment can be slow, there are waiting lists and certain drugs and treatments are denied.”
Why do people who know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about “socialized” medicine spout off about other coutries they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT! Is the US healthcare system so rosey??? I'm really sick of people acting like they know “first hand” what the state of healthcare is in other countries.
Its bad in the US too!!!! I work in healthcare. Its bad. People get denied treatment all of the time by bureaucratic HMO's and even from our own “charity” systems, which also need overhauling. I personally know several people who have gone bankrupt and been forced into poverty by our “rosey” privatized system. Only when we stop thinking about healthcare as a “business” will this nonesense end!
My fiance is from a “socialized” country, the Netherlands, where their “socialized” system actually works! I also just heard a story about a woman from Poland who lived in the US, got colon cancer in her mid-20's and chose to go back to her “socialized” medical system to be spared the paperwork nightmare of the US system. Her “socialized” system spared her a paperwork nightmare and saved her life. She had no waiting for her treatments and is in remission (look at Fresh Air sometime in the past week).
Yes, for routine medicine, you must schedule appointments a couple of months out in these “socialized” countries. But, you have to do that here too! I am 9 month pregnant, and I had to schedule every single appointment weeks out because my office is so busy. Hell, I can't even get my dog into the vet for at least two weeks! LOL
OK, off my rant. I just hear this “aint so rosey” crap about other countries from a lot of people, not just people here. They don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Right on, Wonder Woman!
About 10 years ago, David Sedaris did a reading at Borders and he told an amusing story about visiting an emergency room in France. Luckily, thanks to the internet and my boss not looking over my shoulder, I found the story on NPR. I think about it whenever anyone bashes the “socialized” health care system.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st…
Bob's complaints about illegals are complete nonsense. Yes, illegals must be treated in an emergency room. If you want to blame someone for that, blame Reagan. That law was passed by him in 1986. Then again, Ronald Reagan was a humane person, and this was back before the Republican party was hijacked by angry, bitter old white men and its spokesmen were not the seething frothing racists they are today (see Hannity, Limbaugh, Dobbs, Beck, etc., etc., etc.,)
When illegal aliens go to an emergency room and have no money, guess who pays? You do. That will not change, and doctors will not stop treating people who desperately need medical care. Again, Reagan's fault. Other than that, illegals get no coverage under this health plan. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Bob, I am sure you hate Michael Moore, and I consider him to be an obnoxious oaf and, when he speaks, somewhat of an embarrassment to liberalism. But he makes damn good movies that contain unassailable facts. Watch Sicko. The system is broken. It is great that you are financially secure, but unfortunately there are tens of millions of people who are not. This “$200 on a haircut but don't want to pay a copay” beef is another “welfare moms with Cadillacs” bullshit story that gets play on the right. I am not sold on socialized medicine, and you could very well convince me that it's a bad idea, but not with a bunch of bullshit propaganda.
Please, please, Johnny, do NOT talk about 'bullshit propaganda' on the right while remarking that Michael Moore's movies 'contain unassailable facts.' They may very well be 'damn good movies' but they simply do NOT 'contain unassailable facts.' The movies are, well, propaganda. Sorry, but they are.
Yes, they are propaganda, but they are built on actual numbers. Moore as a person is ripped to shreds, as are his movies, but I never hear anyone deny that the facts contained in his movies are just that. Facts. They are pretty accurate. Bob's belief that people with $200 haircuts don't want to pay for health insurance and then cry when they don't get it is just made-up bullshit.
JGT, my point is that why are people willing to spend large amounts of money for all kinds of crap, and then are outraged that healthcare and health insurance actually cost money. Doctors are highly trained professionals who train for years. Why be willing to pay a relatively unschooled hair stylist $200 or $100 or $50 or even $20 and then bitch about a $20 copay. Why be willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a car payment and car insurance, spend money for cable TV, internet hookups, cell phone service and then be suprised that highly trained professionals and sophisticated diagnostic tests and the insurance to cover them cost money? You're not asking other people to make your car insurance payments– at least I hope not– so why expect others to subsidze your health insurance?
I can't check the numbers, of course, but sometimes (and we see this in Obama's speeches) you can be technically and legally accurate while misrepresenting the facts and building a false premise. I think this is what Moore may be doing. For instance, he'll take what you might call a 'fact,' and let it stand without questioning, without analysis, and without context. He never asks 'why.' He never explores the other side of the story, which is why his films are not documentaries, but well, propaganda. When you purport to espouse a thesis, you are responsible for exploring it and proving it. Simple, bald, facts and figures are not enough.
And is no one here going to acknowledge that these protests are called TEABAGGING!? LOL Teehee My inner teenager is amused. Yep, Amurika, the Right's healthcare system of choice will be a set of sweaty-ass balls right on your nose! That's all you deserve if you are unemployed, underemployed or employed by someone who doesn't care enough about you and your family to give you a real choice in healthcare. The “tea parties” are just organized advertisements for Fox News.
More on Dutch healthcare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the… Its a pretty good summary. Dutch system is about 2/3 govt, 1/3 private. Yes, you have choice. Yes, you can purchase more insurance, if you want it. The bottom line: everyone has coverage. Everyone gets healthcare.
What a disgusting image, WWW. Nice rhetoric.
Awww! Stingo can't take a joke! Besides, JGT dubbed them teabags!
yes dan you win because you resorted to name calling. you must truly be the only intelligent person on the web. i yield to you sir. truly my superior.
i wasn't fighting with anyone.
so i was wondering how many posters are without healthcare insurance?
For someone who was chiding frequent responders as needing to “get a life” just yesterday, you certainly are a prolific poster.
Before I answer your question I'd like to know your point?
my point is 46 million of your fellow citizens do not have even basic healthcare coveage.
perhaps a few post but you will notice i am not a parrot of the talking heads.
I don't even know where you stand on the issue so I can't accuse you of being a parrot of anything. The only thing I can obtain from this message thread is that you are cranky-if I were to profile you based on that stereotype alone I would imagine that you are on the side that speaks of reform that doesn't include any hint of a public option and that you just want all these damn kids to get off your lawn!
So based on WWW's work experience in healthcare and the experiences of some friends and acquantances, we're to socialize our medical system to be in line with those more enlightened countries such as the Netherlands. And BTW, you might want to check out the relative size of the economies, relative size of populations and demographics before you make glib generalizations about reforming the U.S. system along the lines of the Netherlands.
It's also interesting that Obama and supporters of his plan all swear up and down that the government option is only one of many and that people will still maintain control over their healthcare, but then segue in discussions about how socialized medicine is so superior. Seems that you're kind of giving away the game and admitting where this whole thing is heading, no?
And I love the way you compassionate types always want to take care of people with other people's money. I regularly give money to charity. This can rightly be called compasskion, charity and generosity. I'm not sure what to call wanting to tax other people whom you consider wealthier than yourself to fund your charitable impulses and assuage your guilt, but it is definitely not compassion, charity or generosity.
JGT, Stingo is absolutely right. Don't complain about right-wing propaganda and then cite Michael Moore. And illegals will get coverage under the Obama plan simply because there will be no method of checking their eligibility and the Dems with their eyes fixed on the burgeoning Hispanic vote have nixed any and all mechanisms for doing so. In the UK, that socialized medicine wonderland of WWW and JMP, billions are spent on aliens who come to the country illegally solely to take advantage of its health care system. And abortion? Obama lies and states that abortion will not be covered. But when amendments are proposed to make that absolutely clear, they are shot down. One thing you can definitely count on is that any health bill so championed by feminists and the left in this country will very definitely cover abortion.
Finally, I'll repeat what I said before. Obama is putting forward a false choice. The choice is not and has never been between doing nothing and adopting his plan. Every one of the issues cited by you Obama supporters could be addressed and solved without a massive government takeover of healthcare in this country.
i live in philly i don't have a lawn, as for being cranky you might be right about that. mainly just tired of all the BS spewed forth.
Its about the approach. My point is that other countries have figured it out. Lets look at what they did and learn
What is the basis for your assertion that the UK and Canada systems aren't “rosey?” I think talking to people who live and have lived in a country where they've made universal healthcare work is a lot less “glib” than just stating that “it aint rosey.”
Go educate yourself on other coutries' systems, so at least you seem like know what you are talking about when you attempt to shoot the other side down. The Netherlands system is a joint system between the individual, the employers/businesses and the government. It covers all while keeping the businesses happy. The Netherlands is very “socialist” on the social scale and very capitalist on the economy. As my future in-laws say, “The Dutch like their money!” They are, by the way, self-employed and very happy with their healthcare system.
FYI, the Netherlands is a very business-friendly country. At the end are two links to CIA fact book. Look at the Netherlands and America. Very similar economies but yes on different scales. The US's GDP is $6000 more than the Netherlands, but the Netherlands has lower unemployment, lower poverty, more money in investments, actual growth in industry (the US is -2%), less public debt and less inflation (I'll stop there; you all can read).
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-wo…
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-wo…
And my reply to you is that Obama and his allies aren't asking anybody to figure anything out about healthcare– they want to ram a government option down our throats that will ultimately force private insurers out of business and lead to a government takeover. They refuse to recognize legitimate concerns about runaway costs, abortion coverage and coverage of illegals. Reforms would probably be welcomed by the country; Obama's snake oil, a path to a government takeover and socialized medicine, are not.
Yeah; why should we look at what other countries do on healthcare, just because their systems both have better outcomes and are cheaper? After all, our (by far) top spending on health per capita in the world has managed to make our system the 37th best. USA! We're #37! Yay!
And Bob, nice of you to keep repeating Republican lies. The health plan on the table does ban coverage of undocumented aliens and abortions. They're unfortunate, too; because they should be covered. It's a problem the Democrats have of assuming the Republicans are acting in good faith, when they are not. Not only does the compromise not get any Republican votes, but then like you they just lie and say the bill covers what it explicitly doesn't.
And really, there is no good argument for not covering abortions. Why should one important medical procedure be left out? But no; it's dropped to appease the misogynists who believe women's bodies should be controlled by the state (yet you claim that liberals are somehow anti-freedom); and yet they still claim it's in there. It's a shame; a basic procedure shouldn't be left out just to satisfy the assholes who think sexually active women are sluts who should be punished for having the temerity to have sex.
Also, while you claim not to be a libertarian, you sure sound like one. You show not one ounce of compassion and demonize the uninsured as if it was their own fault. Most of your arguments against the government doing its job come back to their whining credo of “wah wah wah; I don't wanna pay taxes!” Tough shit; you are a member of society, and should pay your fair share; if you don't like that, move to Somalia.
Why are you and the insurance companies so afraid of competition, anyway? By claiming that a public option would shut down the insurance companies, they are basically admitting that they can't compete with a government run, non-profit system. And yeah, I hope they do go out of business; healthcare is no place for for-profit industry; no more than education, policing, firefighting, or national defense are. Of course, you probably would rather we go back to the Roman for-profit system of firefighting, where the firefighting companies would show up at a fire and offer to put it out if and only if the property owner paid them.
On one of your points: let's not get into the morality of abortion. You now have the right to dispose of your unborn baby if you choose to. It's the law. But someday you might not have that 'choice.' When health care becomes scarce, and it will, and ultrasound testing reveals a disability or chronic illness in an unborn baby, no matter how much you may want to raise your child with his or her condition, and regardless of whatever resources you personally have, abortion may be required. The decision may not be yours. And there goes your choice.
Uh, no. Forced abortion would be unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade, and for the same reasons, as it would violate the right to privacy and personal autonomy. Forcing women to have abortions, like in China, is morally and legally equivalent to forcing women not to, like the right wing wants to do here; and it shows the same hatred of women and belief that they cannot control their own bodies.