Does the Constitution allow the federal government to force individual citizens to buy health insurance? Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) have been waging a war to force Members of Congress to include a concise explanation of the constitutional authority empowering Congress to enact legislation as part of every bill. The legislation titled “The Enumerated Powers Act” would not allow the House or Senate to consider any legislation not containing an explanation of the constitutional authority for legislation. Clearly this is needed, because Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) had a hard time responding to a simple question from a CNS News reporter that strikes at the core of Obamacare: “Does the United States Constitution give the United States Congress the authority to mandate individuals to have health insurance, to carry health insurance?”
Members of Congress should be able to provide the constitutional authority for the federal government mandating the purchasing of health insurance under the penalty of fines and jail time if they support that idea. For that matter, they should be able to recite a constitutional basis for all legislation they support. It should be the first issue a member considers. Not true with Obamacare. In a report released today, Nicholas Ballasy of CNS News asked Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) a simple question concerning authority for individual mandated health insurance.
Akaka responded by saying “I’m not aware of that, let me put it that way. But what we’re trying to do is to provide for people who have needs and that’s where the accessibility comes in, and one of the goals that we’re trying to present here is to make it accessible.”
Later in the interview this exchange occurs:
Ballasy: “Is there any specific area of the Constitution that would give Congress the authority to be able to mandate individuals to have to purchase health insurance?”
Akaka: “Not in particular with health insurance. It’s not covered in that respect. But in ways to help citizens in our country to live a good life, let me say it that way, is what we’re trying to do, and in this case, we’re trying to help them with their health.”
All Americans should be deeply troubled that a United States Senator can’t argue the constitutional basis for Obamacare. Andrew Grossman wrote an excellent paper for The Heritage Foundation Titled “The Enumerated Powers Act: A First Step Toward Constitutional Government.” Grossman explains that the simple requirement of a constitutional explanation “would empower those few Members of Congress willing to stand up and call attention to Congress’s routine disregard of the Constitution’s division of powers, especially its limitations on federal power.” Grossman argues further that by requiring “legislation to state the basis of its authority would reveal the hollowness of the constitutional doctrine underlying so much congressional action. Every bill would be an opportunity for Americans to think seriously about our constitutional order, the wisdom of its design, and the consequences of departing from its strictures.” We clearly need to be having that debate right now, because at least one of the advocates for Obamacare in the Senate has not provided any constitutional basis for an individual mandate that all Americans purchase health care.
Co-authored by Shawn Ryan.
This Morning Bell is the fourth in a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.
“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions,” Or so President Barack Obama promised to the American people in his health care address before a Joint Session of Congress on September 9th. But then why did the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops send a letter to Congress on October 8th writing: “No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. … No current bill meets this test”?
Who is telling the truth? The President or the Bishops? Last Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked this question during his daily press briefing and answered: “Well, I don’t want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there’s a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn’t going to be changed in these health care bills.” Unsatisfied, the CNS News’ Fred Lucas again pressed on Friday:
The Catholic bishops have repeatedly said that the Hyde amendment would not apply to the health care bill and yesterday in the letter that they sent to Congress they said that if language expressly prohibiting abortion funding is not added to the health care bill, they will vigorously — “vigorously oppose” — that’s a quote — the bill. My question on that, does the President support the bishops on this?
Gibbs replied:
My answer isn’t different than it was on Wednesday. There may be a legal interpretation that has been lost here, but there’s a fairly clear federal law prohibiting the federal use of money for abortion. I think it is — again, it’s exceedingly clear in the law.
How to put this politely … it is safe to say that Gibbs’ above statement is less than true. The next time anyone tries to convince you otherwise, that the White House is telling the truth ask them where exactly in the Federal Code it says this. The truth is…it doesn’t.
But what about the Hyde amendment mentioned by the White House reporter? Is the Hyde amendment not the law of the land? No, it is not even a statute. First passed in 1976 by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) as a rider to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the Hyde amendment must be passed again every year as part of the HHS appropriations bill and even then it only applies to current HHS programs. The Hyde amendment would do nothing to stop Obamacare from funding abortions and all the versions of Obamacare passed by Congressional committees so far do exactly that.
Conservatives introduced amendments in all five committee markups (three in the House and two in the Senate) that would have specifically prohibited federal funds from being used to cover abortion. None of them passed. Worse, the “compromise” the White House has adopted is an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record according to the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Not only does the Capps amendment allow for federal money to subsidize abortions in private plans and mandate federal funding for abortions in the public option (this according to FactCheck.org), it also requires that at least one insurance plan cover abortion in every geographical region in the country.
In 2007, then candidate Barack Obama promised Planned Parenthood: “We’re gonna set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services including reproductive services. … We will also subsidize those who choose to stay in the private insurance market, except, the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care including reproductive care.” A Rasmussen poll released last month showed that only 13% of Americans want the health-care reform bill to use tax dollars to fund abortions, clearly demonstrating that even most pro-choice believers do not favor taxpayer funded abortions. A Pew Research Center poll two weeks ago showed that support for legalized abortion has dropped to its lowest level in years to 47%, down from 54% last year. Obama can either please NARAL and Planned Parenthood or he can honor the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Americans. He can’t do both.
Quick Hits:
- Another study, this time by Oliver Wyman Inc., found that health insurance premiums will rise up to 50% for individuals and 19% for group plans if Obamacare passes.
- Even without Obamacare, existing cuts by Congress and regulatory action by the Administration will cause the Medicare Advantage premiums paid by seniors to rise by an average of 25% next year.
- According to CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, cap and trade will slow the nation’s economic growth and cause “significant” job losses over the next few decades.
- Service Employees International Union (SEIU) general counsel, and Obama National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) nominee, Craig Becker is refusing to recant a 1993 law review article outlining how the NLRB could rewrite the nation’s labor laws in favor of big labor by regulatory fiat.
- Russia and the United States have tentatively agreed to a weapons inspection program that would allow Russians to visit nuclear sites in America to count missiles and warheads.