THE ROBERTS DECISION IMPLICITLY SAYS GOVERNMENT CAN EFFECTIVELY ORDER YOU TO HAVE ONLY ONE BABY

HERE'S WHY THE EFFECT OF THE ROBERTS OBAMACARE DECISION IS UTTERLY IMMORAL:

What if government were to be once again completely under the control of liberals once again - as it was from 2009-2010 - (under the control of "liberal fascists" to be exact), and a liberal president and the liberal Congress decides it wants couples to have NOT more than one baby? (They might argue that this would help the nation save national energy usage or costs, and to reduce the nation's impact on the environment).

As a result of the Roberts Decision, this liberal-run government could penalize couples with a tax for each "excess" baby - oh, let's say... hmmm... $25,000/baby. After all, every baby will enter interstate commerce, need costly healthcare and effect the "common good". And, after all, the government needs to pay-down the massive $70 trillion liability on Social Security and Medicare.

They wouldn't be forcing you to have one baby, they wouldn't be mandating that you have only one baby. They would just tax the crap out of you if you did.

That's an awfully powerful and awfully immoral government. Emphasis on awful. And that's the government that Obamacare and the Roberts Decision have now given us.


It seems to me that Obamacare and the Roberts opinion implicitly endorse China's one baby policy.

Obamacare and the Roberts Decision basically say that a government - the state - does have the power to determine the number of babies couples may have and that China's "one baby policy" is bad only because the tool they use - kinetic coercion - is bad; they should be using taxes.

Lovely.