A couple of recent Supreme Court cases (Citizens United vs. FEC and ATM vs. Bullock) have hit the reset button on what is commonly understood by the term person. One also cannot forget presidential candidate Mitt Romney's statement: "Corporations are people too."

I will concede that corporations are persons, but they are not people.

I suggest that we make a distinction between corporal persons and corporate persons. The former refers to you and I; the latter refers to creatures of civil law. The term corporal dates to the 14th century and is defined as "of or belonging to the body." The term corporate dates to the 15th century and is defined as "united in one body."

A corporal entity is a living thing, a human person, a singular and indivisible biological entity, the product of the reproductive activity of the species. Corporal entities, that is, human persons, enjoy rights, privileges, and responsibilities consistent with their nature--"endowed. . .with certain inalienable rights" in the language of the Founding Fathers. These characteristics are recognized in civil society, but are not created by nor the product of civil society. Corporate entities are human creations and as such socially, politically, and legally defined, structured, and sanctioned. As human creations, they are the products of group consensus and civil sanction as to their origination, existence, dissolution, and propagation/division. Corporate entities, that is, corporations, properly enjoy the rights, privileges, and authority inscribed in civil law and only those. Rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Constitution do not apply to corporate entities unless subsequent legislation explicitly so states.

An example might help or may further confuse my attempt at a distinction with a difference. A marriage is a corporate entity comprised of two corporal entities. The two persons remain intact and viable both within and apart from their identity, rights, privileges, and responsibilities as a married couple. The state views a married couple as a single entity with respect to the joint ownership of marital property, taxation, indebtedness, and self/spousal incrimination. In other spheres, the spouses are individually responsible or culpable, such as, child support, domestic violence, and spousal rape. I offer that free speech within the context of a marriage is a right wholly retained individually by the spouses. It is not abridged by the marital relationship nor is a third "quantity" of speech ascribed to the couple in addition to that which they enjoyed before becoming husband and wife.

Freedom of speech is not a right to be enjoyed by corporations simply because of their status as legal persons or personages. Federal and state legislation, which is responsible for creation of corporate entities in any and all detail, can withhold or limit corporate speech. Just as they have not been afforded voting rights nor the ability to hold elected office. Constitutionally protected freedom of speech is a singular right enjoyed by corporal entities which is not surrendered to nor diluted by the corporate entities in which the corporal entity participates, even when the political speech (read: campaign contributions) of the latter is limited by federal or state legislation.

In a recent interview, in which former President George W. Bush discussed his work with military veterans, he once again stated his opposition to the use of the term Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He insists that the term be abbreviated to Post-Traumatic Stress. His reason: "It is not a disorder; it is an injury." Whatever his motivation, his apparent aim is to remove the condition and the discussion from the realm of mental health and thereby eliminate the negative connotation so often associated with mental illness. In my judgment, he is de-legitimizing all other mental illnesses in the hopes that his re-definition can foster expanded awareness, greater acceptance, and improved treatment of the one.

In my view, PTSD is not an injury, but the result of an injury. The element of disorder comes into play when the extent of the injury results in an impairment, which meets or exceeds established criteria. Furthermore, the distinction between physical illness and mental illness is very arbitrary. One only has to eavesdrop on a discussion between a neurologist and a psychiatrist to come to the conclusion that this distinction is counter-productive in terms of diagnosis and treatment, let alone public awareness and acceptance.

We will all be better served, if those, who have access to a bully pulpit, would consider the bigger picture. In this instance, that means supporting an awareness of mental illness and treatment with a legitimacy shared with all other illnesses and medical conditions resulting from biological agents, genetic factors, injuries of any kind, environmental teratogens, and/or aging. All of these conditions impact on the biological function, cognition, psychic capacity, and physical performance of the individual sufferer.

Let us all refuse to accept health care under the terms of a zero-sum game.