Medicine Is Restorative, Not Inhibitory

The purpose of medical care is always restorative . . . or at least it should be. It is meant to treat the sick and restore them to health, at least as much as possible at our current stage of knowledge and development. A severed arm is reattached, if possible. A malfunctioning thyroid is treated with medicine to restore its natural function. We remove cancers, repair lacerations, fuse broken bones. Medicine is about healing the dysfunction, illness, and injury that interrupts our healthy, natural bodily functions. It is never about the inhibition of our healthy bodily functions; that would run counter to what medicine is about.

Yes, occasionally we remove or inhibit something as part of a medical treatment, but only when it is absolutely necessary. A kidney that is badly diseased and cannot be restored to its natural function because it is beyond the limits of modern medicine will be removed, for example. But even in this case, although the function of the kidney itself cannot be restored, the end goal of the treatment is to restore the body’s overall function as much as possible given the circumstances and prevent the spread of the disease to other organs. The fact that the person’s overall kidney function will be halved is a side-effect brought on by necessity; the inhibition of bodily function is not the goal, but the unfortunate consequence.

How curious, then, that contraception (and even abortion) is now being cynically labeled as health care, as if it is no different than pain killers or thyroid drugs. Except in very rare cases, these treatments are not restorative but inhibitory by their very nature. They interrupt and stymie the body’s natural functions as their primary goal. The reproductive cycle and the bearing of children is a perfectly natural and healthy function of the female human body, no different than the function of the kidney or the thyroid. It is part of who we are as human beings. Blocking that natural function, except when there is a restorative need to do so, is not medicine any more than me arbitrarily wanting to turn off my left kidney would be. I think everybody would recognize the absurdity of a demand that my health insurance plan cover my choice to shut down my left kidney, even if I had the right to do it (which I don’t; apparently some choices about inhibiting natural body functions are more equal than others).

State of the Union Not-Live Blog

I missed the State of the Union address this past Tuesday because I had a schedule conflict, which was unfortunate since I really enjoyed live-blogging it last year. Well, I finally got around to watching it (and the Republican response) this evening. So here is what would have been in my live blog if I had been live-blogging it. Think of it as a time-delayed live-blog.

State of the Union Address Tonight at 9pm

President Barack Obama (D) is scheduled to give the annual State of the Union address tonight at 9:00 p.m. EST before a joint session of Congress. The address will be followed by a Republican Response to be delivered by Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN).

As I do every year, I encourage all of my readers to watch both the State of the Union address and the opposition response. I recommend the unfettered and uninterrupted coverage from C-SPAN, but the addresses will also be available on most broadcast channels and cable news networks.

The Constitution requires that the president report to Congress annually on the state of the union, but does not specify the method or form of this report (Article II, Section 3). The in-person State of the Union address has been a tradition since 1913. Transcripts of all 1945-2011 addresses before joint sessions of Congress, including each State of the Union, are available from C-SPAN.

Off on a Tangent will not be providing a live blog of this year’s addresses (due to a scheduling conflict), however I will post a review some time in the following days.

Supreme Court: Warrantless GPS Tracking is Unconstitutional

In a welcome victory for civil liberties, the United States Supreme Court today unanimously ruled that using a GPS tracking device to monitor a suspect’s vehicle without a warrant is unconstitutional. The ruling in United States v. Jones (10-1259) makes it clear that this kind of warrantless tracking violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court stated unequivocally that, “The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.”

In 2004, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) investigators placed a GPS tracking device on suspected drug dealer Antoine Jones’s vehicle without having first obtained a warrant. They tracked Jones’s vehicle 24-hours/day for four weeks, eventually charging him with a number of drug related charges. Jones was convicted, but that conviction was later overturned by an appeals court because it rested on the unconstitutionally obtained tracking data from the GPS device.

The Jones case is one of two important civil liberties cases Off on a Tangent is monitoring in the court’s current session. Had the court ruled in the government’s favor, it would have been a very serious erosion of our basic civil liberties and damning evidence that we are now living under an extra-constitutional government. I am pleased that the Court ruled solidly in favor of individual rights, and am pleasantly surprised that there were no dissenters. Sadly, civil liberty cases are usually narrow 5-4 rulings these days.

Analyzing the Republican Nomination Battle

By this time in 2000, it had become clear that the two-way race for the Republican nomination between then Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was pretty much settled; Bush was going to be the nominee. Likewise in 2008, the three-way primary race between McCain, former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA), and former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) was rapidly settling on McCain. Across the aisle in the Democratic Party, then Vice President Al Gore (D) had essentially cinched the nomination by this time in 2000, as had Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in 2004. In 2008, the race had settled into a near dead-heat between then Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and then Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

The Republican primary battle this year, however, is unlike any of these recent nomination battles. Although many believe that Romney’s nomination is ‘inevitable,’ he has won only one of the three primaries so far, and he is only narrowly leading the delegate count. Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) narrowly defeated Romney in Iowa, Romney won in New Hampshire, and former Representative Newt Gingrich (R-GA 6th) won by a surprisingly solid margin in South Carolina. As of today, Romney has a projected 31 delegates, Gingrich has 26, Representative Ron Paul (R-TX 14th) has 10, and Santorum has 8. Candidates will need to accumulate 1,144 delegates to win the nomination.

The polls have been incredibly volatile with an unprecedented four candidates in the lead at various times—including two, Herman Cain and Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), who have since dropped out of the race. By a number of measures, this has been the most disjointed and unpredictable Presidential primary in modern history.

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.