TIME’s Kate Pickert has the audio of Alaska Governor Sean Parnell’s pronouncement that he would not accept federal funds to implement the exchanges in the Affordable Care Act, citing a district court ruling in Florida which found the individual mandate unconstitutional and invalidated the entire law. Here is the relevant portion:

Seven state legislators who support the federal mandated health insurance have urged me to apply for federal funds to establish a state health insurance exchange in conformance with the new federal health care law. Never mind according to these lawmakers the Florida judge held that health care law unconstitutional and stopped its implementation here. These lawmakers, three of whom are lawyers and know better, urged me to violate – I’m a lawyer to so I’m not going to laugh [crowd laughing]. Huh, I’m a recovering one [crowd laughing]. What these three lawmakers, plus the four others, urged me to violate the court ruling, which is effectively an injunction halting the implementation of the federal health care legislation. I of course will not do so. [...]

The result, Alaska now swims freer of federal entanglement then these other states. These other states are now trying to find out what to do with the oppressive constraints of money taken under a constitutional regime. Next, the supporters of the federal health care law claim, in a letter to me, that the feds will take over implementation of the federal health insurance exchange if I don’t do it. Not true. So long as this court order is in place the federal government is barred from implementing the mandates and the provisions of that federal health care law. That claim is patently false in light of the court ruling. Can the decision be appealed by the federal government? Of course it can. However, at this time, the courts declaratory judgment that the federal health care law is unconstitutional is the law of the land as it applies to Alaska, and 26 other states, by the way. And we will not proceed down an unlawful course to implement it.

It’s difficult to know where to begin, so I’ll start with the most recent events first. Yesterday, the administration filed a motion asking Florida District Court Judge Roger Vinson to clarify the practical impact of his holding, effectively asking for a stay of his decision. “Defendants will appeal both the Court’s judgment and the rulings that underlie it,” the government wrote. “This motion respectfully asks the Court to clarify the scope of its order, in particular that its declaratory judgment does not relieve the parties to this case of any obligations or deny them any rights under the Affordable Care Act while the judgment is the subject of appellate review.” In his ruling, Vinson found that of the 26 states that took part in the lawsuit just two — Utah and Idaho — had standing to challenge the law. That means that the other 24, including Alaska, are on shaky ground if they decide to halt implementation.

From his comments, one would think that Parnell hasn’t applied for any federal dollars that were appropriated through the Affordable Care Act. But Alaska has asked for and received $2.9 million from the ACA. That includes: Medicare improvements for patients and providers, epidemiology labs, strengthening public health infrastructure to improve health outcomes, the maternal and child home visitation program, background checks for long-term care providers, workforce development, and HIV Prevention and Public Health Fund activities. Why those dollars don’t fit under the description of “oppressive constraints of money ” is unclear, as is the question of why Parnell thinks that it is worse to be broke than to receive an enormous pool of money that you are not allowed to spend in frivolous ways.

His claim that the federal government won’t be able to implement a federal exchange is also misguided. As the law states, if a state “will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014,” “the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not- for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.” Of course, if a formal stay is granted, then the government can proceed implementing this portion of the law.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is out with an updated estimate of the effects of H.R.2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, which passed the House of Representatives on January 19, 2011. According to the CBO, the GOP’s much-touted repeal would “cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period” and increase the number of uninsured by 33 million, “leaving a total of about 57 million nonelderly people” without coverage.

Republicans dismissed the initial estimate by claiming that the deficit reductions from the health law were the result of budget gimmickry and thus, they argued, the deficit increases from repeal are similarly unbelievable. As Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) described it on the Senate floor in early February, “So what I’m saying is, garbage in, garbage out.”

But for those who don’t dismiss uncomfortable reports — after repeatedly praising other more favorable scores from the agency — the new CBO offers its own bit of irony. That is, by repealing the coverage provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans may be lowering the government’s commitment to health care over the first 10 years, but because they’re also going after the cost control measures in the law (and growing Medicare outlays), they are increasing the government’s involvement over the next 10:

CBO projects that enacting H.R. 2 would reduce the “federal budgetary commitment to health care” by $464 billion over the 2012–2021 period…The net reduction in that commitment would be driven primarily by repeal of the coverage expansions….However, CBO projects that enactment of H.R. 2 would increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care in the decade following the 10-year projection period. The estimated effect in later years differs from that in the first decade because the effects of those provisions that would tend to increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care (such as the increase in Medicare spending and the repeal of the excise tax on insurance policies with relatively high premiums) would grow faster than the effects of provisions that would tend to decrease it (primarily the repeal of the coverage expansions). As with the longer-term estimate of overall budgetary effects, that projection incorporates an assumption that the provisions of current law would otherwise remain unchanged throughout the next two decades.

In other words, Republicans may think they’re preventing a so-called “government takeover” of health care by repealing the law, when in fact they’re putting one off for another 10 years.

Moments ago, the House of Representatives passed four different amendments to the continuing resolution that would deny funding to the Affordable Care Act or the employees who are currently implementing the law, jeopardizing the law’s consumer protections and potentially leading to the loss of some 500 federal jobs. Below are the relevant amendments:

- REHBERG #575 – prohibits funds in the bill from being paid to any employee, officer, contractor, or grantee of any department or agency funded by the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies portion of the bill to implement the provisions of ObamaCare. Passed: 239-187
 
- KING (IA) #267 – prohibits the use of funds in the bill from being used to carry out the provisions of ObamaCare. Passed: 241-187
 
- KING (IA) #268 – prohibits the use of funds in the bill from being used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of any federal department or agency with respect to carrying out the provisions of ObamaCare. Passed: 237-191
 
- EMERSON #83 – prohibits the use of funds in the bill from being used by the Internal Revenue Service to implement the individual mandate and penalties and reporting requirements of ObamaCare. Passed: 256-182

The amendments only tackle the discretionary spending for FY 2011, while leaving the mandatory funding for programs like high risk pools, the exchanges, small business tax credits, and other benefits largely intact. Since many of the law’s most popular consumer protections have yet to be finalized, the amendments may also endanger such popular provisions as the prohibition against discriminating against children with pre-existing conditions and allowing children to remain on their parents’ plan until age 26. During the debate on the floor, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) attempted to offer an amendment that would defund the automatic spending, but it was not included because of a procedural technicality.

Should these amendments survive in the Senate, the Department of Health and Human Services would also have to stretch its $1 billion implementation fund to maintain the hundreds of employees responsible for drafting regulations and enforcing the ACA — an impossible task given the fund’s other obligations. Of the more than 500 employees responsible for implementing the law, an untold number would find themselves without a job and the law itself would be seriously hampered, further undermining House Speaker John Beohner’s claim of, “I don’t want anyone to lose their job, whether they’re a federal employee or not.”

A recent CBS News Poll found that a majority of Americans disapprove of the GOP’s tactics “and many aren’t sure of its impact on the health care system.” According to the poll, 55 percent “disapprove of the plan to cut off funding to the new health care reforms, and just 35 percent approve. Among Republicans, approval rises to 57 percent. Forty-nine percent of independents disapprove, and 38 percent approve.”

Republicans have been all over the map on which parts of the Affordable Care Act they preserve and which they want to repeal, but if we consider the bill House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) offered in 2009 as a blueprint for where the party stands on health care, then we can assume that most Republicans support allowing children to stay on their parents’ health care plan well into their 20s. The reform is designed to ensure that college-aged students have a sound coverage option.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has previously spoken out against this provision and now Luke Russert is reporting that Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) would also oppose the measure:

Talking on the House floor today about the provision that allows children to stay on their parent’s health-care plan until they’re 26 years old, Kingston said (paraphrasing here, but pretty close):

“I have four kids under the age of 26. I have raised them to be responsible. The average age of soldiers in Vietnam was 19. World War II probably the same. I have raised my kids to be responsible, to get health care at 21. Kids don’t need to be running home to mommy and daddy until they’re 26 for healthcare.”

Back in January, King similarly explained that he opposed the provision because it could permit some younger members of Congress to “still be on mommy and daddy’s health insurance policy” (rather than the government-funded care he receives) when they’re elected to Congress.

All this means that if Republicans want to include this provision in their replacement legislation (should they ever produce one) they might have quite the fight on their hands from more conservative members who are already benefiting from government sponsored coverage but refuse to extend similar benefits to all Americans.

A recent New York Times/CBS poll found that an untraceable percentage of voters want to repeal the 26 year old provision, suggesting that many are using it to extend insurance to their children.

Last night, the House of Representatives spent nearly three hours debating Rep. Mike Pence’s (R-IN) amendment to strip $327 million from Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, raising concerns from some Democrats that the measure may be unconstitutional. Pence’s measure would specifically bar Planned Parenthood from receiving any Title X funds, even though the Republican continuing resolution (CR) would eliminate the entire Title X program.

Democrats argued that defunding Planned Parenthood would significantly hamper access to health care for lower-income Americans who depend on the organization for primary care services and insisted that the existing prohibitions against abortion funding already ensure that that taxpayer dollars don’t pay for abortions. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) went a step further, arguing that the amendment was unconstitutional and would be struck down by the courts. He quoted from the Constitution “in making his point that the Pence amendment would amount to a ‘bill of attainder’ because it would seek to punish Planned Parenthood for conducting activities that supporters of the measure disapprove of”:

NADLER: A bill that punishes someone, some person or organization, who is named or easily identifiable by legislative action is called a bill of attainder. That’s the definition of a bill of attainder. A legislative enacted penalty, in this case no funding, directed at an identifiable person or organization to punish them for something. Article I Section 9 says “no bill of attainder or ex post facto should be passed.” Fundamental foundation of constitutional law. If Planned Parenthood or anyone else is doing terrible things and ought to be punished, that’s up to the courts. [...]

I challenge anyone to say how this isn’t’ a bill of attainder. The definition of a bill of attainder is a legislative enacted penalty aimed at some person or organization that’s identifiable, named right here, for some reason, that they’ve done various things fund abortions, done illegal things or otherwise. So in addition to all these other problems, this amendment is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts if it should pass.

Watch it:

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) tried to pushed back against Nadler’s “bill of attainder” argument, before launching into a tirade against the phantom federal abortion funding for Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act (neither of which spend federal funds on abortion services).