(but check back for updates!)
A specter is haunting America: the specter of profit. We have become fearful that somewhere, somehow, an evil corporation has found a way to make lots of money.
- Yale Law Prof. Stephen Carter in today’s Washington Post.
Read the whole thing.
As members of Congress discuss a tax on cosmetic surgery to pay for the healthcare bill, the blawgosphere covers the pressing question raised by Glenn Reynolds – whether this taxation of medical procedures could be extended to abortion.
Paul Caron suggests that a tax on abortion specifically (although not generally) would be seen as infringing on the constitutional rights of women:
In Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983), the Supreme Court held that a Minnesota use tax on the cost of paper and ink products violated a newspaper’s First Amendment rights. Although the precise contours of this doctrine are much debated, a tax singling out the exercise of the constitutional right of abortion would likely face special scrutiny. But a general tax on elective cosmetic surgery that also reached elective abortions may be permissible under the Minneapolis Star doctrine.
Jonathan Adler agrees, citing Casey specifically, but suggests that there might be quite a few SCOTUS Justices who disagree with its standards:
Of course, this assumes that Casey would govern the case, but I think that is a fair assumption. While at least two, and perhaps as many as four, justices believe the “undue burden” test is too restrictive on states, Justice Kennedy was part of the Casey decision that established this test and has shown no indication he is willing to abandon it.
To the pro-life movement, a tax on abortion would be the ultimate “Sin Tax”, but this entire debate seems to me to only illuminate the problems with Roe v Wade. The decision in Roe was based on a constitutional right to privacy – and this suggests that abortion can no more be taxed than gay sex (ie: Lawrence v Texas). On the other hand, there’s no inherent reason why an abortion – a trivial medical procedure in the parlance of Pro-Choicers – is any more constitutionally guaranteed than a botox-injection, tummy-tuck, or tonsilectomy.
When Ross Douthat spoke at Yale last year, I asked him a pointed question on abortion, to which he responded that the problem with abortion in America is the Roe decision, because it puts abortion on a constitutionally-protected pedestal so that nothing can touch it. Policies to limit abortions (say, to the first trimester, as is the law in some European countries) or discourage abortion (through taxation, counseling, or incentives) are perfectly legal in every other developed country in the world; only in the United States is abortion afforded special status as a fundamental right, and it is for that reason it is nearly impossible to implement policies to bring down abortion rates in America.
EDIT: Eugene Volokh extends this discussion to gun rights.
Shelby Steele says affirmative action is a distraction:
We blacks know oppression well, but today it is our inexperience with freedom that holds us back almost as relentlessly as oppression once did. Out of this inexperience, for example, we miss the fact that racial preferences and disparate impact can only help us — even if they were effective — with a problem we no longer have. The problem that black firefighters had in New Haven was not discrimination; it was the fact that not a single black did well enough on the exam to gain promotion.
Ilya Somin proposes getting rid of the bar exam, or at least exposing its utter uselessness.
Richard Posner takes Paul Krugman to task for … ignoring Keynes?
But Krugman’s passionate support for the Administration’s health-care program suggests that he has not absorbed one of the central elements of Keynes’s theory, which is the role of uncertainty in depressing investment spending and, both by depressing investment and by increasing passive savings, in depressing consumption spending as well.
But just because pro athletes have careers we covet doesn’t mean those careers come with further obligations than ours. Society’s approval is not part of the job description any more than it is for a banker.
I should really be asleep right now. I wonder if there’s any good literature on the tension between the awesome feeling of sleep and the desire to not waste 25%+ of your life in a comatose state.
By the way, the Sleep article on wikipedia has the following picture:
Can Haz Sleep?
Obama at his healthcare conference:
Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. … The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.
Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference…
Those greedy ENT specialists have responded:
We, too, are in favor of evidence-based medicine that supports quality patient care. President Obama’s statement highlights the complexity of medical decisions like this. However, the AAO-HNS is disappointed by the President’s portrayal of the decision making processes by the physicians who perform these surgeries.
Ann Coulter:
If politicians and employers had guaranteed us “free” food 50 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the “food crisis” in America, and you’d be on the phone with your food care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries was covered under your plan.
According to Drudge:
RASMUSSEN 2012 poll released at 10:30AM ET
Obama 45% Romney 45%
Obama 48% Palin 42%
When Romney is the Republican nominee, he beats Obama among unaffiliated voters 48% to 41%. But when Palin is the GOP candidate, unaffiliated voters prefer Obama by a 47% to 41% margin.
Men prefer the Republican over Obama whether it’s Romney or Palin, while women like the president better in both match-ups. Palin continues to fare more poorly among women than her male rivals.
In the NYTimes over the weekend, Randall Stross noted the surging popularity of Redbox as a low-tech video rental alternative to Netflix and/or streaming content. The president of Redbox (a Netflix veteran) suggests that they owe their success to “lower-income households with large families”. But the question is – why? Why does Redbox bear the stamp of middle America while Netflix is for the trendier crowds?
My hypothesis: because it doesn’t require a lifestyle shift. Netflix is a subscription service. Streaming video requires that you buy and connect television hardware, get a better internet connection, or upgrade your computer in some fashion. Redbox works exactly like a video rental store, except cheaper. You go to a physical location, get a physical disk, and return it to the same location. There are no forms to fill out and no need to adjust your view of the world to incorporate the concept of mailing disks back and forth. There’s no need to figure out why your internet is so slow, no problem if you’re watching the video in the car. You don’t need to give Steve Jobs your credit card number, install iTunes, or even have a computer.
The most popular movies on Redbox are safe, family favorites because play-it-safe, traditional families are exactly the type to use Redbox. They just want to watch a movie, without the hassle.
