Privacy for thee but not for ye?

The New York Times is suddenly worried about Patient/Doctor privacy in Pelosi-care.

When the House narrowly passed the health care reform bill on Saturday night, it came with a steep price for women’s reproductive rights. Under pressure from anti-abortion Democrats and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, lawmakers added language that would prevent millions of Americans from buying insurance that covers abortions — even if they use their own money.

The restrictions would fall on women eligible to buy coverage on new health insurance exchanges. They are a sharp departure from current practice, an infringement of a woman’s right to get a legal medical procedure and an unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors.

(emphasis, ours)

It’s rather convenient to address this concern with respect to federally funded fetus reductions as Pelosi-care, on the whole, is nothing more than an intrusion into the patient/physician privacy peg upon which Roe v. Wade proponents have hung their hats for years.

How does the liberal-Left square the inconsistency presented here: The idea that it’s acceptable for, say, a decision on eye surgery to fall under the purview of a comparative effectiveness board but restrictions on your tax dollars going to fund abortions represents an “unjustified intrusion”.

This needs to be explained as otherwise we will just chalk it up to blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty when it comes to justifying a federal take-over of health care.