Obamacare: mandatory microchipping?
April 9, 2010 By admin
U.S. Supreme Court
By Christopher Tucker
Bells and whistles are ringing far and wide after the passing of OBAMACARE. One of the more alarming sirens to be sounded is the idea that the language of this new bill will require each individual to be implanted with a device to monitor their healthcare so as to streamline care, monitor daily “health” habits, and keep tabs on individuals. While this is a very real potential repercussion, it is not, currently, the case.
I. A MICROCHIP MANDATE IS NOT EXPLICITLY STATED IN OBAMACARE
The language cited in support of this proposition comes from H.R. 3200 §2521, which amends 21 United States Code (herein after referred to as “U.S.C.”) 360(i) (essentially the same legislation), and calls for the extensive tracking of all class II or III devices used in or on a patient so as to “facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data” (§ 2521 (g)(1)(A),() of the medical device, not the person. The language of this section makes it very clear that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (herein after referred to as “SECRETARY”) is given broad power over the collection of data pertaining to medical devices.
II. § 2521 CREATES A POTENTIAL PATHWAY TO UNNECESSARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION OF PRIVACY IN ONE’S BODY
No part of H.R. 3200 § 2521, or its counterpart 21 U.S.C. 360(i), explicitly calls for the mandatory implantation of medical recording or tracking devices into individuals. However, this could, and probably would, be the avenue taken if micro-chipping Americans were to be discussed in Washington. Since SECRETARY is responsible for “validating methods for analyzing patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and for linking such data with the information included in the registry…” (2521 (g)(2)(, it would seem incumbent upon him or her to not only track the medical devices, but to also track the health and lifestyle of each patient treated, so as to properly analyze “postmarket safety and outcome data”. It can certainly be argued then, that, for proper collection of data to determine a medical device’s performance, it would be necessary to eliminate the “human factor”. If someone does not follow the prescribed course of care to make a treatment effective, it would tend to skew the results of a device’s effectiveness. To ensure that the device did or did not work properly, it would be necessary to monitor each patient’s lifestyle habits, so as to make a proper determination as to the effectiveness of the medical device.
III. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES
Determining which test to apply, to decide whether OBAMACARE passes Constitutional muster on the issue of potential forced micro-chipping of Americans for the purpose of data collection, would raise a serious question. The general test used when privacy rights are at issue under the Constitution is the “Strict Scrutiny” test, which calls for the government to show that its actions are necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. However, when abortions are involved the threshold is not so high. The test applied in these cases states that government must not place an undue burden in the way of a woman seeking an abortion.
It would appear, at first glance, that the undue burden test is appropriate, because it is involved a woman’s right to privacy within her own body, just as each citizen would similarly have in their own body in denying the forced implantation of anything by the government. However, this test determines the level of roadblock or speed bump placed by the government in the way of a woman obtaining abortive services. With potential micro-chipping, there is no roadblock placed by the government, but a mandate that, healthy or not, guilty of a crime or not, one must be subjected to physical bodily invasion and constant monitoring. It would, therefore, make more sense to apply strict scrutiny standard, because the government is forcing an invasion of bodily privacy on an individual, rather than barriers being placed in the way of the individual obtaining a service which they actively seek.
Sadly, under OBAMACARE, since the government now has a fully and deeply rooted monetary and political interest in the health of its citizens (not to mention an ego interest in forcing this round peg into a square hole), many things that would have fallen short of meeting this strict Constitutional standard can now soar effortlessly over this ever shortening standard of scrutiny.
Additionally, the 4th Amendment protects citizens from “unreasonable searches and seizures”. Un-consented government invasions of the body (such as forced stomach pumping to obtain evidence) have, in the past, been deemed too intrusive of the person and a violation of the 4th Amendment (See Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952). However, the taking of blood to prove that one has been driving under the influence of alcohol has been decided to not violate the Constitution. The implantation of a monitoring device is much more invasive than blood-taking in two ways. First, the giving of blood requires only a small needle, and leaves no scarring, requires no stitches, and involves no cutting or opening of the skin. Secondly, the blood stays with the government, at a lab to be tested. On the other hand, a monitoring device follows a person everywhere, including the home, which at all times requires a warrant, or a specific exception, to be searched. Wiretapping phones (Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1947) and thermal vision (Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27 (2001) have both been held to be unreasonable intrusions by the Supreme Court. Implantation of a monitoring device, which follows one into every private area of life and records personal information, is even more intrusive and unreasonable, because there is no ability to turn it off (even if it were able to be turned off, it would be at the complete and unfettered discretion of a government official, which is also unconstitutional).
Summarily, the individual micro-chipping of Americans is not currently and explicitly laid out in OBAMACARE, but could become a very real possibility under the guise of protection and “delivery of efficient and affordable healthcare”. If this were allowed in the future, it would not only fly in the face of the Constitution, but God, the natural law, and each and every individual right that has been recognized since the beginning of time.
Read the language of these sections here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/H.R._3200/Division_C/Title_V/Subtitle_C (§2521 OBAMACARE)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/usc_sec_21_00000360—i000-.html (21 U.S.C. 360i)
You mean O'Baaahmaah, O'Baaahmaah, who turned this country upside down. i have never seen a president lie so much on national television.
Everyone has their right to their political party and issue preferences and views. People able to share their opinions, views etc is what makes America interesting :-)
I hope the one factor people take consideration of before finalizing their decsion before election day comes, is that Obama's Senior Advisor David Axelrod, has helped Tremendously in bringing more attention to epilepsy and need of more funds for medical research to better understand the brain and epilepsy and find new treatment for epilepsy, in hopes of one day seeing epilepsy as treatable for all. David Axelrod and his wife Susan, have a daughter with intractable epilepsy and even surgery did not reduce seizures nor improve life, which is what motivated Susan Axelrod to start an organization for Epilepsy Awareness and rasing money for research. Of all organizations focused on epilepsy research. I strongly feel having a president whose senior advisor has seen the struggles of treating epilepsy first hand because of his daughter, which gave him and his wife Susan Axelrod the motivation to raise money for research specifically in epilepsy. If you read about the way their organization works, you will see CUREepilepsy.org raises money for grants in epilepsy research for medical professionals, in areas of study that "think outside the box" compared to grants for epilepsy research in which the study begins with government funds. Once CUREEpilepsy.org chooses grant proposals to fund/or assist in funding, they also help the medical professional(s) once a grant is making progress and near end of funds provided by CUREEpilepsy.org, to format grant proposals of medical studies in progress to be able to still be areas that much need studying to lead to better treatment of epilepsy at same time not too far out of what government funded medical grants are willing to fund.
Also ability to use stem cell research has boardened medical professionals research. I personally hope, but respect each individual's choice, that dealing with Epilepsy for yourself and/or family member(s) and/or friends etc. and your awareness for research that better treats the difficult cases of Epilepsy and hope/belief in a cure or at least better treatment/quality of life for All with Epilepsy in your lifetime can override voting for a candidate that would stop stem cell research. We are on our way, slowly and surely, and hopefully Obama wins the elction so David Axelrod can continue to use his popularity to the public eye and career position to promote and increase epilepsy research more.