I guess the main question I have about this position is, if people who hold unconstitutional views can all be disregarded as “intent on destroying the fundamental tenets of our system of government through subversion,” then how can the constitution ever be changed in the even that such change would be just? We agree that the forced birthers are not working to effect just change, but surely it is possible that some other group could try to do so. If they were always dismissed out of hand, political progress via constitutional amendments would not be possible (e.g., suffrage for women)

The fundamental issue here is actually completely separate from socialized medicine. The issue is why we, as a society, continue to offer a seat at the political table to a group whose position is admittedly, intrinsically, patently unconstitutional. The issue is why we don’t see breaking bread with these people as a violation of the oath every elected official takes to uphold and defend the Constitution. Completely aside from how we might feel about socialized health care, why do we even entertain the concerns of a group that at best represents theocrats intent on destroying the fundamental tenets of our system of government through subversion and at worst engages in active terrorism?

But your point about the constitutionality of the forced birth position is a really important one. However, focusing on that really just pushes the whole universal health care debate back a level: is *universal health care itself* constitutional? If not, then there’s no use quibbling over details of what it would hypothetically cover. And it’s no secret that lots of people think the taxes imposed on Americans today are indeed unconstitutional, and they or worse would be required to fund universal health care. Also, apparently there is stuff circulating about the constitutionality of universal health care in particular. Here’s a recent example from the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562948992235831.html

I wish I were more familiar with this perspective on universal health care. I will have to read up.

And just by the way, I share your disdain for the forced birthers, and all people who spend their political capital on actively reducing the range of options available to others. Thanks for reading.

I’d definitely like the system to be more open to choice, but the argument rings hollow when it only comes from people who spend much of their political capitol on actively reducing the range of options available to others. If forced-birth proponents are so opposed to abortion that they don’t want their insurance funds to go towards it, well, belief isn’t free. They are free to make that decision, but they are not free to have their position subsidized. They, like everyone else, have to balance the cost of a given position against the rewards of moderating it. Just because their position happens to be balanced in an interpretation of a book about a stolen deity doesn’t somehow insulate them from the same difficulties the rest of us face.