Take Me To Post Comment Form Its now time for another look at "Say what you mean, or mean what you say." For this excerpt, we will be looking at government's ability to invade your privacy and your person.

There has been fear mongering going on lately by the rapidly fading Conservative propaganda machine, in that they are promoting the idea that microchips will be implanted into the bodies of the citizens of this country through "Obamacare." Yes, "Obamacare" the law that regulates the Health Insurance industry, is now being used in the Conservative propaganda as a means to show that the Federal Government is covertly incorporating "Big Brother" technology into your body in order to follow your every move.

I have to believe that the part of this propaganda that is creating the fear is the "implanting of a chip" into one's body, along with the additional reasoning that it's intent is to track your every move. It is the thought of having to submit, by Government rule, to having an evasive device inserted into your body that really creates the fearful thoughts, because the reality of it is, every cell phone sold in this country by Federal law, must have a trackable GPS chip in it, so your where abouts can be tracked as it is now. This way the Federal Government does not need to grow in order to track someone, they just turn to the corporation that services your phone to provide the information. In our current "corporate friendly" Federal government, laws have been written in order to more easily share information between the government and the corporations with very little push back from the corporations. Its that give and take that make controlling the masses easier to do while extracting profits a little less abated by laws.

So, like I said, in my opinion, it is first and foremost, the thought of having to submit to the government and have a piece of technology inserted into one's body, so as to have your privacy and your person invaded, is what is generating the fear. To show an example that this fear is actually being generated, the following comes from a Town Hall meeting in Chariton, Iowa, being held by Iowa Senator, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). One of Mr. Grassley's constituents stood up and asked the Senator:

"CONSTITUENT: They’re saying that they’re going to start, in 2013, putting microchips in government workers and then any kid that enrolls in school, starting in pre-school, will have a microchip implanted in them so that they can track them. [...] Is that true?"

Now, Mr. Grassley's response was one that I would expect from a member of the wise, and deliberative branch of our government, which was:

"GRASSLEY: No. First of all, nothing can be done to your body without your permission. It’d be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy if that were to happen."

Now based on what Mr. Grassley stated, it appears to follow one of the general principles of the Liberties that is one of the driving factors in the formation of this nation. It is a general belief that we as Americans have the right to privacy from the Government intruding in our lives. We tend to believe that the "Bill of Rights" are our protections from the government dictating to us how we are to live our lives.

Here is where we get to the "say what you mean, or mean what you say" portion of this blog. Is Mr. Grassley presenting us a well thought out belief on his part as a Senator, and sworn protector of the Constitution, that the Constitution provides this protection from the government, so that "nothing can be done to your body without your permission"; and is he presenting the view point of the Conservative Party, of which he is a leader in Congress? From the laws that I see being passed in Conservatively ran states, Mr. Grassley is either out of step with his Party, or Conservatives in control of various state legislators and Governors are intentionally violating the Constitution of the United States as Mr. Grassley pointed out.

Here is what I am referring to, take the State of Indiana as an example. Indiana is one of twelve states that have already passed invasive "ultrasound requirement laws" that require an ultrasound device inserted into a woman's body prior to having an abortion. There are those legislators in these various states that have passed such laws who have reasoned that these laws "might change the woman's minds" as justification of governmental over reach. On what Constitutional ground does this reasoning exist? Especially since studies have shown that 90% of women who have decided that they require an abortion, feel very confident about their decision prior to seeing their physician. It appears that based on Mr. Grassley's statement, these 12 states are implementing unconstitutional laws that force something to "be done to your body without your permission."

Getting back to the State of Indiana. The state legislators in the Senate there have taken up in Senate Bill 371, the addition to the law requiring the invasive, as well as non-medically needed, plus, also brings additional cost procedure to those women seeking to utilize the "morning after pill" - "officially known as RU-486." So, contrary to the words that Mr. Grassley used to his constituent in order to subside her fear of governmental intrusion on our privacy, Conservative law makers are passing laws that do that very thing, that by government rule, they can demand that things "be done to your body without your permission."

So are these 12 States violating the Constitution as Mr. Grassley's reassuring statement implied to his constituent? Tea Party favorite, Thomas Jefferson, has been quoted as saying:

"If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?"

Now keeping in mind what Jefferson is implying here in this quote, lets look at that statement that Mr. Grassely made again,

"No. First of all, nothing can be done to your body without your permission. It’d be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy if that were to happen."

Now, the Conservative Party, as well as the Democratic Party, have a large contingency of lawyers, and these lawyers help craft the political rhetoric that those in the parties use in order to present view points that are ambiguous, so as not to present what is actually taking place. Now, take the statement from Grassley, it appears to be a reassuring statement that "It’d be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy if that were to happen.", but it is what he said before this sentence that is where the lawyers stepped in, "First of all, nothing can be done to your body without your permission." Mr. Grassley is making it sound as if you have the power here because, as he states, "nothing can be done to your body without your permission" but the way these invasive "Ultrasound Prior to administering desired medical procedure Laws" get around the principle of "It’d be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy if that were to happen" is to require that the woman seeking the medical procedure first give her "permission" to have the invasive procedure prior, otherwise, by law, she is forbidden from being allowed the medical procedure. Its a caveat that is presented as an option. So, Mr. Grassley is looking to be a protector of your privacy rights, but is the reality that he is just "leading the flock to slaughter?"

Now, without sounding too dramatic with the statement "leading the flock to slaughter", let's take a look at how this can actually be true. It is a fact, that the constituent that was asking Sen. Grassley whether we should fear that the government will require that citizens will have to submit to have invasive technology inserted in their person was not speaking about abortion, but does that mean there can't be a law that says one must "first give permission" to having a chip implanted in their person prior to receiving a heart transplant? Since one would first have to give permission to receive the implant prior to receiving the heart transplant in order for the transplant to take place, this would technically be within the parameters that Mr. Grassley used to reassure his constituent that her right to privacy is not being subverted.

As we see by the actions of Conservatives around the country, it does not appear that Mr. Grassley feels, that his responsibility as protector of the Constitution in his position as a Senator in the Congress of the United States, applies when it comes to laws around the country that mandate a non-medically required procedure. Does he mean what he says when he speaks about the "constitutional right to privacy"? I haven't read where he is introducing legislation that will protect the women in the twelve various states within the Union that are currently violating their right to privacy from the government, and of its ability to impose unnecessary laws requiring that they be forced to have invasive technology inserted in their person prior to receiving non related medical attention from a professional medical practitioner. Where is his call to the Federal Government to act in enforcing the Constitution?

This is really "Big Government" forcing its will on the citizens, so do the Conservatives mean what they say when they are against big government? It does't appear so by their actions. Is this what "re-branding the Party" means? Yes it does!

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/21/1616291/chuck-grassley-abortion/

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/21/1620891/indiana-transvaginal/