Monday, August 04, 2008

Roe vs. Wade

Clearly it is election season here in the USA judging from all of the bumper stickers on automobiles I saw today. For example a car next to me had these three attached:

  • Coexist -- with the "o" being a peace symbol
  • Obama '08
  • I vote for kids

Let me zero in on this last one by posing the obvious question -- "what office are the 'kids' running for and how can they serve if elected since they would be underage???" :-)

Seriously folks - this is classic big government/nanny state sloganeering, " I vote for kids" , indeed. I know what their message is -- we need to "invest" (aka take more of your money) in smaller class room sizes, before and after school day care, etc. etc.

Well my wife and I have two children so I can assure you every time I vote I vote for candidates that focus on cutting taxes and cutting programs so we can expand freedom. I do indeed "vote for kids" when I vote for candidates who support the expansion of school choice.

Which brings us to the key theme for this posting -- "choice" -- which is typically short hand for "free to choose whether or not to have an abortion which of course became the law of the land in the USA in the Roe vs. Wade US Supreme Court decision. What I always highlight for my big government friends is that Roe vs. Wade ruled that there was a "right to privacy" in the US Constitution.

So why is it that this "right" has ONLY been applied to abortion rights versus privacy issues such as our personal incomes? If a "right to privacy" truly exists within the US Constitution then the US Supreme Court should declare personal income taxes to be unconstitutional.

Now that my friends would truly be an "economic stimulus package" that would actually help our economy.



No comments: