Klosinski: Because I Said So


Most of us have heard this many times. It means there is no further need for explanation and no permission to question simply an absolute declaratory act. Now the government has recalled into use a “sophisticated, legal jargon” way of saying the same thing called “compelling government interest”.

Let us consider the definition of what the government is now using as justification to accommodate unauthorized intrusion into our most sacred sanctuary, the right of privacy over our own physical existence.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Government interest, or significant government interest, or compelling government interest, is a concept in law that allows the government to regulate a given matter. For instance, there has been held to be a compelling government interest in restricting access to unapproved drugs.”

From The free dictionary.com

“Declaratory Act

(1766) Declaration by the British Parliament that accompanied repeal of the Stamp Act. It stated that Parliament’s authority was the same in America as in Britain and asserted Parliament’s authority to make laws binding on the American colonies.”

I have been exposed to a lot of information thanks to the internet with the ability to track down the source and confirm authenticity.  A recent Fox News interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano sent me to anger and frustration which I had learned to control many years ago when I became a full time caregiver for a terminally ill family member.

The recent interview states.   “The Supreme Court is looking at whether police need a warrant before ordering a blood test for someone suspected of drunk driving.

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, for years, courts took the position that you can’t enter someone’s body without a search warrant. Twenty-five states prohibit police from taking blood without a person’s consent or a warrant.

Police argue that such evidence may no longer be available by the time a search warrant is issued.

Hear the judge’s take in the video below.”


The case before the Supreme Court is significant in maintaining the right to protection against compelling entry into someone’s body without a search warrant obtained through proper process of probable cause.

We have been told that enacting the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the federal Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act will provide health insurance coverage for all.  These acts result in the federal government having a “compelling government interest” in the healthcare of every individual because they have in fact approved what is defined as a declaratory act, acts declared to bind all individuals to healthcare mandates of the government.   We have been told we will not have to change our insurance, that the cost of insurance will be controlled as will medical costs and that a now 906 page bill had to be passed so we would know what is in it.

There is mandatory coverage we now discover, we can keep insurance provided through our employer or purchase our own our or be charged with a tax for non-compliance and refusal to purchase insurance.  How is the penalty calculated for refusal to purchase insurance?  Compliance is mandatory, there is no self-determination.  Suddenly there are wellness standards being implemented by companies to try to hold down the cost of insurance, others have reduced the workforce to fall below the compliance of mandatory provision of insurance.

If the government can determine by “compelling government interest” that a blood test or DNA can be taken without due process based upon probable cause what might the HealthCare Acts determine?

Now I ask that you consider the provisions of Senate Bill 230 which appear to strike down the federal claim of “compelling government interest”.

Chapter 1. Legislative Statements
Sec. 1. The general assembly finds the following:
(1) The people of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes as set forth in the Constitution of the United States and for nothing more.
(2) The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all powers not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves.
Sec. 2. The general assembly finds that the power that the federal government has assumed by enacting the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L.111-148) and the federal Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L.111-152):
(1) is nowhere expressly granted by the Constitution of the United States;
(2) interferes with the right of the people of Indiana to regulate health care as they see fit; and
(3) is inconsistent with the power granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States”

If “compelling government interest” is cited as law of the land through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act what requirements can be demanded from you?  Remember we are already mandated to be penalized for refusing to purchase.

How will government handle disagreement when an individual determines they do not want to abide by wellness directives?

How will government handle disagreement when an individual determines they do not want a medical test?  A specific procedure?  Prescribed medications?  What will the punishment be?  Taxation?  Forced compliance through physical detention until compliance?  Fines?

Ok, now many of you think I have gone off the rails.  I will explain why I have not.  Have any of you heard about Medicare?  As a caregiver to a terminally ill parent I was exposed to the government method of Healthcare under this plan.  The individual paid into the system for decades, and carried additional private insurance from a major company.  Medicare determines what treatments are covered, not the patient.  Medicare determines how much will be paid to a provider, not the provider.  The balance between Medicare allowable payments is what the private insurance picked up but only if it was a treatment Medicare approved. The prescriptions determined by physicians were not covered by Medicare or the private insurance; the “medi-gap” program did not cover the prescriptions either.   Medicare and insurance did pay for a Medicare approved walker.  When the individual could no longer walk a wheelchair was not covered because Medicare bought the walker.   And private insurance only picks up the balance of Medicare approved charges.

The individual was hospitalized many times.  He determined he wanted no extreme measures to continue life and was ready to go on his terms.  Do Not Resuscitate forms were completed and filed; Power of Attorney for medical care was completed and filed.  Hospice forms were completed and filed.   All these documents are government requirements to allow the patient self-determination.

Do you believe with the “compelling government interest” in executing the National Healthcare system that you will retain control over your body?   Perhaps if you choose non-compliance and monetary penalty you will.

What provision exists in the Constitution which provides government with authority to demand or limit certain medical tests on your body?  What provision exists which provides government with the authority to demand you purchase anything?  What will you be mandated to purchase next in the name of a “compelling government interest”?    Even some legislators in Indiana believe the federal government has no such authority and you will be unable to determine your healthcare as you see fit.  Yet here we are Indiana with no protection provided by the state to block implementation because other legislators have determined it is the law of the land and therefore by default confirming there is a “compelling government interest” and validity to these federal declaratory acts. Why?   Is it perhaps because total control by the government over your body is anticipated through the implementation of these federal acts?

The U.S. Constitution and the Indiana Constitution were not written to guarantee the general welfare of the public under the constraint of “compelling government interest”.  They were written to guarantee protection of the inalienable Rights of the Sovereign individual.  If these Rights are indeed protected by these documents and if the powers of government are limited to those within these contracts, how is forced healthcare deemed in the best interest of the general welfare of the public?   How does the National Healthcare system protect the individual from forced government oppression in determining the Right to Sovereignty over our only true possession our physical being?  Much of what you are allowed to put into your body is already controlled by the government even though you are causing no harm to others from your choice.  What is not forbidden is controlled, regulated and taxed in efforts to control consumption.

I have often been told and seen posted to others that those who complain represent only a minute fraction of the population therefore all the rest are in favor of what the government is doing and that disruption to the system is what is causing the harm.  How long will you wait for government to determine what healthcare you or your loved one is entitled to and how you must comply?  Much of what you are allowed to put in your body is already controlled by the government even though you are causing no harm to others from your choice.

“There has been held to be a compelling government interest in restricting access to unapproved drugs”.     Who approves drugs?   Who allows authorized use?   Who determined there to be a “compelling government interest” simply by making an unauthorized declaratory act that there was?   Government!

Share this

Phyllis Klosinski is a lifelong inhabitant of Indiana from Mishawaka and has made Brown County her home for the last 40 years. As a wife, mother, grandmother, caregiver and homeowner Phyllis has experienced a full range of governmental changes imposing authority over the daily lives of individuals and their Sovereign Rights. She has actively opposed State and Special taxing units and continues to object to unauthorized legislated Indiana power at all levels of government.

Further reading