House Republican leader John Boehner, the man who will likely replace pro-abortion Speaker Nancy Pelosi, filed legal papers today to support the lawsuit against the ObamaCare law that will fund abortions.
“I’m proud to stand with these states and the NFIB on behalf of America’s workers in the revolt against this job-killing health care law,” Boehner said, emphasizing his economic opposition to the measure.
For pro-life advocates, the legislation is a concern because its lack of limits on abortion funding are expected to usher in what pro-life groups have called the biggest expansion of abortion funding since Roe once its provisions are fully implemented.
Boehner’s legal paper requests leave from the trial judge to file an amicus brief challenging the constitutionality of the ‘individual mandate’ at the heart of the ObamaCare law.
The GOP leader’s legal papers come as a new poll shows Obama’s health care overhaul has now hit a lower level of popularity than at any previous time in his presidency.
According to a Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: “Just a quarter of the public (25 percent) now says they expect their own families to be better off under the health reform law, which is the lowest share since KFF [Kaiser Family Foundation] began tracking this question.”
Kaiser also found “those who named health care or health care reform as one of the top two factors in deciding their vote for Congress” overwhelmingly supported Republican candidates, with nearly six in ten (59 percent) supporting GOP candidates.
Earlier this week, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced his intent to file a brief backing the states’ lawsuit.
The McConnell brief argues the mandatory purchase requirement “dramatically oversteps the bounds of the Commerce [Clause] which has always been understood as a power to regulate, and not to compel, economic activity.”
The federal judge in Florida ruled in October that the lawsuit more than 20 states have filed against the ObamaCare health care law, which allows abortion funding, can proceed. The judge ruled that parts of the lawsuit can go to trial. His decision joined a similar decision by a federal court in Virginia, which also allowed it to move ahead.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson issued a written ruling saying the court needs to issue a decision on the question of whether or not it is a violation of the Constitution to force Americans to purchase health care insurance.
He will hold a hearing on December 16 on the question, though the ultimate decision will ultimately wind up before the Supreme Court.
The key component of the decision Vinson issued concerns the individual mandate, and he appears sympathetic to those who oppose it, thus opposing the entire law.
“At this stage in the litigation, this is not even a close call…But, in this case we are dealing with something very different. The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it,” he wrote. “Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake.”
“Of course, to say that something is “novel” and “unprecedented” does not necessarily mean that it is “unconstitutional” and “improper.” There may be a first time for anything. But, at this stage of the case, the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action,” he said.