The battle to derail the government-run, pro-abortion ObamaCare is about to intensify in the courts and in Congress.
As you know, there are numerous legal challenges to this health care law. We’re involved in many of them – representing members of Congress in filing amicus briefs supporting efforts by Florida and Virginia to challenge the law. In one case, a petition already has been filed urging the Supreme Court to take that case.
In fact, there will be a well-worn path to the Supreme Court on this issue. All of these legal challenges are likely to end up there at some point. And, ultimately the high court will determine whether ObamaCare survives.
Our lawsuit directly challenging ObamaCare is headed for oral argument next month (September 23rd) before a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. In our latest court filing we have made it clear that our position is “grounded in the Constitution” along with Supreme Court precedent. In arguments to reinstate our lawsuit, we contend that the arguments put forth by the Department of Justice “lack support in the text, history, or related Supreme Court jurisprudence of the Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses” of the U.S. Constitution.
Our challenge is clear: we believe the individual mandate, which forces Americans to purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause.
While the legal challenges move forward, the Republicans in Congress are now talking about refocusing on derailing ObamaCare. Consider this excerpt taken from a FoxNews.com story, which is posted here.
House Speaker John Boehner reminded Democrats last week, following another bleak unemployment report, that Republicans want to “repeal the job-crushing health care law with all of its mandates and tax hikes.”A spokeswoman for House Republican Leader Eric Cantor told FoxNews.com that Republicans will “continue our focus on undoing the flawed ObamaCare law” when Congress returns.
Specifically, the party is looking at a new proposal aimed at preventing workers from losing their current health plans.
“The president claimed that under ObamaCare if you liked your health care you could keep it, but his new law included a regulation that will actually prevent that from happening,” Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon said. “We plan to take up legislation this fall to eliminate this harmful regulation to ensure that if people like their health care, they actually are able to keep it.”
The legislation would pertain to regulations governing whether certain plans that existed before the health care bill was signed last March can be exempt from some requirements of the law.
The legal and legislative challenges come at a time when new information is surfacing about the true cost of ObamaCare. What is now coming to light is very troubling, but not surprising. A new report indicates that federal payments required by ObamaCare have been significantly underestimated to the tune of $50 Billion per year. That’s right. It’s going to cost HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE than expected in the first ten years of the law’s implementation. It seems budget forecasters didn’t take into account the cost of insuring many employees’ spouses and children.
If that’s not enough, the state of Kansas is now returning a $31 million grant to the federal government for ObamaCare. Gov. Sam Brownback said the state would return the money because of doubts surrounding the federal government’s ability to pay for the grant in the future. Kansas is the second state to return such funding. Oklahoma returned a similar grant in April.
No matter how you slice it, ObamaCare is in trouble. It faces significant legal challenges that we believe ultimately will render it unconstitutional and unenforceable. Legislative action challenging it is moving forward. And, it seems that with each passing day we learn that it will cost more.
America deserves a health care plan that is effective, affordable, and constitutional. ObamaCare doesn’t fit the bill.
LifeNews.com Note: Jay Sekulow is the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
