NEW: U.S. Constitution, Abridged *With Commentary* - Click Here to Order

The “Deplorable” Heath and Human Services Forcing Planned Parenthood Funding

The “Deplorable” Heath and Human Services Forcing Planned Parenthood Funding

by Jake MacAulay


It has certainly been a “deplorable” week for children in the womb at Planned Parenthood clinics and for states that are restricting funding to these abortuaries. It seems the unconstitutional Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed a new rule that would prevent states from restricting the ability of “specific types of providers” like Planned Parenthood to receive Federal Title X money for family planning and related preventive health services.


Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards praised the proposed rule, making following statement regarding “the law”:


“The Obama Administration is protecting access to health care for millions of people. This rule makes it clear that politicians cannot ignore the law as they pursue their agenda to stop women from getting the care they need.”


Just what “law” is Ms. Richards talking about?


In order to restore right thinking about “the law,” I set forth the following analogy by Michael Anthony Peroutka:


Imagine your adult son (let’s call him Barry) comes to your home one Sunday afternoon in a new vehicle you haven’t seen before and says, “Hey, Dad, let me take you for a spin in my new car.”


“Sure,” you say, and you hop in and take a tour in his new car.


After he pulls back into your driveway and you re-enter your home, your wife asks, “Did Barry drive the car rightly?”


You think a minute, reflecting on the last 20 minutes you spent in the car.  Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Barry came to a full stop at every stop sign, he drove within the speed limit, obeyed all the traffic signals, and he refrained from texting while he was driving.  So you look at your wife and say, “Yes, dear, he drove the car rightly.”


Now, let’s add one more fact to this story.


Suppose that, just before your wife asked the question about Barry’s driving, you received a call from the local sheriff and learned that Barry had stolen the car earlier that day.


Does this fact change your answer as to whether Barry drove the car rightly? 


I think it does.


You see, if Barry has stolen the car then he has no right to drive it at all.  Therefore, no matter how safely or recklessly he seems to drive it, without the authority to drive it in the first place, he cannot possibly drive it “rightly.” 


There is no right way to do a wrong thing.


The point I am trying to make with this illustration is that when we consider the rightness or wrongness of any government program or agency – like the HHS or Title X – the discussion of its “rightness” must always begin with the question of authority.  Does the federal government have the authority to do this thing in the first place? 


With respect to government-controlled health mandates and funding, this question is easy to answer.  Article One, Section Eight, of the U.S. Constitution provides no authority for the federal government to involve itself in health care regulation or financing of any kind.  In other words, “Title X” is a stolen car.  And anyone who drives a stolen car is a lawbreaker.


Therefore all who have taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution, including federal and state officials, need to do their duty by pulling this stolen car over and arresting “Barry” or anyone else trying to drive it.