Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
The warnings are everywhere in the Internet: “Obamacare requires being microchipped,” “Obamacare Bugging You! It Will With a Microchip,” and “RFID Chip Impact in 36 Months.” But a new legal analysis says there just isn’t any language in President Obama’s newly adopted health law that requires such an invasive procedure.
Not that language in the bill couldn’t eventually be interpreted to include such a plan if Big Brother ever decided to go that direction, but “the individual micro-chipping of Americans is not currently and explicitly laid out in Obamacare,” concludes a new report from a law firm that has worked on a number of challenges to the sitting president.
Reports circulating commonly cite a reference in H.R. 3200 to a “National Medical Device Registry” and a “class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.”
One report warn that the FDA considers the device an “implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information.” “When fully implemented,” the report says, the law sets up the framework for “making the United States the first nation in the world to require each and every one of its citizens to have implanted in them a radio-frequency identification (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling who is, or isn’t, allowed medical care in their country.”
But H.R. 3200 wasn’t passed; the bill that became law was H.R. 3590, and it contains differences from the many earlier generations of the bill.
According to the analysis, released by attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, while “bells and whistles are ringing far and wide” over the many legitimate concerns raised by Obamacare, there is no requirement for people to be implanted with health-care devices – yet.
“While this is a very real potential repercussion, it is not, currently the case,” said the analysis written by USJF staff attorney Chris Tucker.
Tucker explained that the legislation’s reference to “devices” focuses on the medical device, not the person.
“The language of this section makes it very clear that the Secretary of Health and Human Services … is given broad power over the collection of data pertaining to medical devices,” he wrote.
“No part of [the health care bill] explicitly calls for the mandatory implantation of medical recording or tracking devices into individuals,” he said.
However, the door was opened, he concluded.
“Since [the Health and Human Services Secretary] is responsible for ‘validating methods for analyzing patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and for linking such data with the information included in the registry,’ … it would seem incumbent upon him or her to not only track the medical devices, but to also track the health and lifestyle of each patient treated, so as to properly analyze ‘postmarket safety and outcome data,’” the analysis said.
“It can certainly be argued then, that for proper collection of data to determine a medical device’s performance would be to eliminate the ‘human factor.’ If someone does not follow the prescribed course of care to make a treatment effective, it would tend to skew the results of a device’s effectiveness. To ensure that the device did or did not work properly, it would be necessary to monitor each patient’s lifestyle habits, so as to make a proper determination as to the effectiveness of the medical device,” the analysis said.
There would be issues on which to challenge such actions constitutionally, he wrote. The “strict scrutiny” test, which demands that a government show its actions are necessary for a compelling government interest, probably wouldn’t be applied, since abortion involves a similarly intrusive action, and the test doesn’t apply in those cases.
Regarding abortion, the analysis said, the test is whether a government restriction is an “undue burden.”
But even that may not be directly applicable, since that “determines the level of roadblock or speed bump placed by the government in the way of a woman obtaining abortive services,” the analysis said.
“With potential micro-chipping, there is no roadblock placed by the government, but a mandate that, healthy or not, guilty of a crime or not, one must be subjected to physical bodily invasion and constant monitoring,” the analysis said.
“Sadly, under Obamacare, since the government now has a fully and deeply rooted monetary and political interest in the health of its citizens (not to mention an ego interest in forcing this round peg into a square hole), many things that would have fallen short of meeting this strict constitutional standard can now soar effortlessly over this ever shortening standard of scrutiny,” the analysis said.
The analysis suggests there also could be questions over 4th Amendment protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” because wiretapping has been ruled inappropriate. But taking blood at a DUI checkpoint has been approved, even though it’s short of chipping plans that would allow the government to follow an individual into his or her own home.
“If this were allowed in the future, it would not only fly in the face of the Constitution, but God, the natural law, and each and every individual right that has been recognized since the beginning of time,” the analysis warned.
While being pressed on the complications of the “Obamacare” plan, as critics have dubbed it, Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill., was asked, “Where in the Constitution?”
“I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest,” Hare said.
Instead, he said, he worries about peoples’ lives: “It’s people’s lives. It’s people’s children. It’s when you take your child to the hospital and you think it’s really bad and your heart is thumping, thumping, thumping while you’re waiting for the doctor to tell you what it is and then the doctor comes out and says it’s going to be ok, except you don’t have insurance and you’re stuck with a $10 or $15,000 bill. …”
In an Examiner commentary, David Thornton said, “Obamacare contains plenty of things that will be bad for patients, doctors, and the economy in general. It is not necessary to create things that aren’t there.”