Comments on Dorf on Law: Funding Abortions, Wars and Churches

I recently came across your blog and have been rea...

2009-12-21T00:08:15.526-05:00

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Alena

http://grantfoundation.net

有一位越南新娘在程式設計俱樂部發包一個案子結果有一個大陸新娘說他要接他會寫程式這幾個外籍新娘算是精英...

2009-12-14T01:52:04.141-05:00

有一位越南新娘在程式設計俱樂部發包一個案子結果有一個大陸新娘說他要接他會寫程式這幾個外籍新娘算是精英中的精英他們會寫C語言及組合語言他善長寫php的語言真是令人大開眼界。阿美是大陸新娘她和老公非常的恩愛她說嫁來台灣當大陸新娘是她這輩子最快樂的事她的越南新娘朋友小花最近發福了為什麼越南新娘會發福呢因為她過的很幸福這些外籍新娘都很滿足目前生活像台的比例越來越高而也相對的提高。

孝順公婆是越南新娘的美德她們愛小孩又顧家且越南新娘都長的很美，她們在外籍新娘中算是最美麗的一群陳君曼是大陸新娘嫁來台中已有十年了她的大陸新娘朋友阿花養了一隻非洲兔超可愛的養了一年黃金獵犬有玩渡過快樂的一天。雖然今年是姑鸞年但是根據統計娶大陸新娘的人數大幅上升比過去上升一成的比例，由於外籍新娘一般來說都非常的乖巧聽話且都有一雙巧手像越南新娘個個都非常的漂亮都會說台語嫁過來和我們有一種特別的親切感，大多都是健康的黑色皮膚且刻克耐勞對於做家事照顧公婆外籍新娘都非常的有耐心，單身男士朋友們心動嗎？幸福是掌握在自已的手中，歡迎來電詢問大陸新娘結婚的活動行程。

您想娶到一位勤勞、甜美、漂亮、不愛慕虛榮的美嬌娘，做為您終身伴侶？我們提供大陸新娘,越南新娘,等誼服務、交友與協助大陸新娘來台、兩岸結婚相關證件辨理等，的其它國家的外籍新娘。本網站為直營網站，誠信負責，外籍新娘合法保證，全省服務，會依照您喜歡與適合的對象，來安排聯誼認識，避免婚姻變成商品買賣行為，因為『婚姻』是一輩子的終身大事。想娶到一位漂亮、不愛慕虛榮、勤勞、甜美的美嬌娘，做為您的老婆嗎？我們提供越南新娘,大陸新娘,等誼服務、交友與協助來台、兩岸結婚相關證件辨理等，的其它國家的外籍新娘。本網站為越南新娘的直營網站，合法保證、誠信負責，全台灣都有配合的合法協會人員，會依照您喜歡的對象來安排約會相親，我們專門協助辦理大陸新娘,越南新娘以及外籍新娘的聯誼旅遊。

Maybe this is not an exact analogy but compare the...

2009-11-09T12:44:21.113-05:00

Maybe this is not an exact analogy but compare the political allignment on the Stupak Amendment to the House health care bill with that from the Franken amendment to the Military spending bill a few weeks ago. In both cases liberals wished to use govenment spending policy to further a political goal, in one case to provide money to health care providers to provide abortions to patients, and in the other case to ensure that women employed by govenment contractors and who were raped on the job would be allowed to sue employers in court and not be forced into arbitration as their only remedy.

The reasons for the Republican opposition to the Franken amendment was not totally clear but my two senators told me they were against it because the feds should not interfere in employer-employer contractual relationships. Conservatives say government should not interfere with private contracts. Except, as you point out here, when it should. I think you are exactly right that there are some medical decisions, especially with regard to reropduction and end of life services, that conservatives feel the government should completly control.

What is really shockiing to me, and what prompetd this post, is that it appears the conservative position with regard to federal funding is rape is OK but abortions are not.

I wonder if it is meaningful in this case to disti...

2009-11-09T12:44:13.286-05:00

I wonder if it is meaningful in this case to distinguish between targeting a liberty for discouragement and specifying one for non-encouragement.

As I understand it, abortions are not currently federally funded. The Stupak Amendment would maintain the status quo in that regard. It does however, stand as an island of non-encouragement in a sea of health care encouragement.

I take it that the proponents of this view support it by contending that while other coverage is intended to alleviate illness and promote health, funding for abortions is akin to funding elective (non-strictly-health-related) procedures. One reason it would not be covered, then, is precisely because it is personal to the patient and not medically indicated like other interventions.

Thus, they would argue, it does not make sense to argue that the government is "interfering" in a woman's choice to have an abortion because this bill leaves that choice at rest -- precisely as it is now -- with no authority to direct government funds to support it.

AB: Ah, now I get it. Let me see whether I can pu...

2009-11-09T10:52:30.352-05:00

AB: Ah, now I get it. Let me see whether I can put your point as strongly as possible: The burden of the individual mandate (IM) is at bottom simply a monetary burden; the same is true of the Stupak Amendment (SA). Just as under the IM it's still possible for someone not to get health care if he wants to avoid health care, so under the SA, it's still possible for a woman who wants an abortion to get an abortion--either by paying for one a la carte or by having purchased a supplemental insurance plan in advance.

My objection, of course, is that, at the margin, some women will be unable to afford to pay for such abortions, but then, at the margins some people subject to the IM will be unable to pay for whatever else it is that they need or want (including abortions) in virtue of the fact that they have had to pay a tax or to purchase unwanted health insurance. Stated in that way, the SA does look no worse than the IM.

Nonetheless, I still think it is substantially worse because in the SA Congress has targeted a specific form of liberty--the right to choose whether to have an abortion--for discouragement. By contrast, the IM is neutral with respect to the choices people make--except that it is not neutral with respect to people's choices about whether to have health insurance coverage in the first place. It discourages choices to forego health insurance.

So, to end more or less where I started in my last comment, my argument that the SA is worse than the IM rests on the supposition that it is more intrusive for the government to interfere (through financial incentives and coercion) with the private decision to seek an abortion than to interfere (through financial incentives and coercion) with the private decision to forego health insurance.

nice article

2009-11-09T05:19:14.348-05:00

nice article

2009-11-09T05:18:23.757-05:00

nice article

Prof. Dorf: I did not intend to imply you have be...

2009-11-08T21:47:42.326-05:00

Prof. Dorf:

I did not intend to imply you have been logically inconsistent. (All your libertarian-centric analysis of the health care debate has been fascinating, illuminating, and refreshing.)

But I am unsure why your analysis of an affirmative duty to use private funds to buy healthcare does not apply to the Stupak amendment. You argued that affirmative duties can be less bad than prohibitions, which are in many cases unobjectionable. The Stupak amendment can be restyled as an affirmative duty to use private funds to finance abortions. What makes the Stupak amendment less warranted than an affirmative duty to use private funds to purchase affordable healthcare if you don't want any?

AB: Yes, obviously. Are you suggesting that it is...

2009-11-08T21:05:42.451-05:00

AB: Yes, obviously. Are you suggesting that it is somehow logically inconsistent to argue that (1) the libertarian objection to having to buy health insurance or pay a tax is weak, while simultaneously maintaining that (2) it is an unwarranted infringement on liberty for the government effectively to compel thousands of women to remain pregnant and bear children against their will? If so, you are mistaken. One need not be a thoroughgoing libertarian to think that some infringements on liberty are unwarranted. Indeed, that was rather obviously a premise of my earlier posts. If I thought that libertarian objections to restrictions on liberty were always meritless, I would have simply said that, rather than engaging with the substance of the particular objections that had been made to the individual mandate.

Is this a libertarian objection to the Stupak Amen...

2009-11-08T18:27:34.357-05:00

Is this a libertarian objection to the Stupak Amendment?