Judge Rules Pro-Abortion ObamaCare Law Unconstitutional

Judge Rules Pro-Abortion ObamaCare Law Unconstitutional

Richmond, VA – A federal judge issued a ruling today on a Virginia lawsuit against the ObamaCare health care law that allows abortion funding and he said the program is unconstitutional in part.

LifeNews.com/state-5735

Slow down a minute.

Here is the opinion of the judge. If you take the time to read it, you will find that he only ruled Section 1501 of the law unconstitutional, while leaving the remainder of the law in force. Section 1501 was the individual mandate to maintain health care coverage.

It’s really good news, but don’t go overboard. There is still a whole lot of work to be done.

To characterize the health care reform as pro-abortion is misleading. Also, several district courts have ruled that there is no constitutional problem with the individual mandate. Let the appeals begin…

the individual mandate is unconstitutional. there is nowhere in the constitution that says the federal (not state) government can force us to buy a product or service. THat is not one of its powers, and the individual mandate hurts our right to free enterprise and free commerce.

Freedom of expression also comes from what we buy. Also, the example that Obama uses of the CAr insurance requirements of some states does not prove the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health care bill. The State governments have powers that the federal government does not have. THe state governments can mandate insurance, the feds cannot.

Nothing unusual here. Given enough states, enough states attorneys, and enough motivation, any federal law can be held unconsitutional to some extent.

There is probably going to be more money spent on trying to repeal the 2010 Healthare Affordability Act than the current cost of the program itself. So who wins?

So why isn’t social security and medicare (and associated taxes) held to the same standard?

THe state governments can mandate insurance, the feds cannot.

Much of the time they do but this doesn’t work with flood insurance. The states seem to have problems with catastrophic events.

who said I supported Social Security?
I believe people themselves should save up for their own retirement, or at least have the choice whether to have money deducted from their paycheck, just so the government can give some of it back when you are older.

Picture this, a gang takes your wallet every week and takes away say $5. Is it wrong? yes, it is. now what if they promise you (and keep the promise) that they will give some of the money they stole from you, back to you. Is it still wrong? you decide.

Social Security should be a choice, and it sounds a lot like a ponzi scheme. YOu pay into it, and hope you get something out of it.

:smiley:

One could ask why isn’t the individual income tax held to the same standard either.

The biggest difference is that the FICA and Medicare taxes are charged to you based upon you earning income (13th Amendment says OK).

The individual mandate is worded as a “penalty”

In Section 1501 of Public Law 111-148, it says,

(1) IN GENERAL- If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection ©
So therefore, the government is mandating that you, as an individual, engage in commerce or face a penalty (that is unconstitutional according to this judge). In addition, that is essentially a fine, but you aren’t convicted of a crime (which would be a violation of 5th Amendment rights…but that part hadn’t come up yet).

(It could be worded so that it was constitutional, though. All they’d have to do is to make a tax on everybody and then give everybody who has acceptable insurance a tax credit that is exactly the same as that tax. Darn the bad luck, those evil Republicans control the House as of Jan 3rd…so that change won’t ever happen…darn…shucks…hee…hee…)

(Nothing above should be interpreted as saying that I support either social security old age retirement, medicare old age insurance, or Obamacare)

The earlier leaders of our republic found any law allowing or forcing governmental charity to be unconstitutional. There are numbers of quotes that can be found with a quick Internet search.

The deal here is that there is no severance clause in the law. If one part fails, it all goes. That is why the court fight is going to be nasty. The omission of a severance clause is a very big deal with some on the left privately blaming the Blue Dogs.

With the public support of Obamacare in the minority, there is no way that it could get passed again. If the courts find one part that fails constitutional muster, it is all over.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.