ThinkProgress Logo

Health

Republicans Protest ‘Judicial Activism’ While Seeking It For Obamacare

There appears to be little reason for the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act. As Ronald Reagan’s former Solicitor General, Charles Fried, said after the oral arguments, the legal rationale used by opponents of the law was “beneath contempt,” but should the Justices accept it, they would be breaking nearly two hundred years of precedent and writing new meaning into the Constitution.

That would be judicial activism, which, ironically, happens to be a favorite line of attack for Republicans against liberal justices. For example:

REP. STEVE KING (R-IA): If we’re going to respect judge-made law and stop praying in our public schools, that was the beginning of the judicial activism that’s begun to break down this civilization, and this culture.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Unelected and serving with lifetime tenure, and substituting their view for the views of the people’s…the people and their elected representatives. That’s not the way our democracy is supposed to work.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): Judges are not policymakers. That’s what we are in the Congress of the United States. Judges are called on to decide the facts and to apply the law.

Watch:

As E.J. Dionne wrote of the Court’s deliberations, “It fell to the court’s liberals — the so-called ‘judicial activists,’ remember? — to remind their conservative brethren that legislative power is supposed to rest in our government’s elected branches.”

- Zachary Bernstein

NEWS FLASH

Arizona Senate Defeats Controversial Birth Control Coverage Bill | Lawmakers in the Republican-controlled Arizona state Senate have voted down a bill that would allow employers to drop health insurance coverage for birth control if it conflicted with their moral or religious beliefs. Under the state’s current laws, only religious nonprofits are allowed to opt-out of covering contaceptive care, while the new bill would have expanded the exemption to include all employers. The rejection of the contraception bill offers a major boost in morale to women’s rights advocates who may have felt they were losing ground in the fight over the reproductive rights of women in the state of Arizona following the Senate’s 20-10 passage of a bill that bans most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy with the exception of medical emergencies.

Fatima Najiy

Timothy Dolan: Expanding Access To Birth Control Would Undermine ‘The American Enterprise,’ Spread ‘Secularism’

Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York took his case against the Affordable Care Act’s new rule requiring insurers and employers to provide preventive care services — including contraception — at no additional cost to Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. The Catholic Church is fighting the requirement against the tide of public opinion and despite being specifically exempt from providing birth control to its members.

Dolan pulled no punches, however, going so far as to imply that the requirement would undermine the “American enterprise” and spread “secularism” throughout the nation:

DOLAN: You’re a better historian than I am Bill, you know that every great movement in — in American history has been driven by people of religious conviction. And if we duct tape the churches — I’m just not talking about the Catholic Church — if we duct tape the role of religion and the churches and morally convince people in the marketplace that’s going to lead to a huge deficit a huge void. And there are many people who want to fill it up, namely a new religion called secularism, ok, which — which would be as doctrinaire and would consider itself as infallible as they caricature the other religions doing.

So to — to see — to see that morally-driven religiously-convinced people want to exercise their political responsibility, I think that is not only at the heart of biblical religion, it is at the heart of American enterprise.

Watch it:

But since most Americans — and Catholics — reject the Church’s teachings against contraception, Dolan is fighting an uphill battle that will persuade only the most ardent Catholic conservatives. It’s a reality he recognizes, telling O’Reilly, “It’s a tough battle because of that and our opponents are very shrewd because they’ve chosen an issue that they know we don’t — we’re not very popular on.” “[E]ven our — even — even very faithful Catholics, Bill, don’t like their bishops or priests telling them how to vote, a person or even on a particular issue.”

NEWS FLASH

Oklahoma Judge Strikes Down State’s Mandatory Ultrasound Law | On Wednesday, an Oklahoma district judge struck down a state law requiring women to have an ultrasound image placed in front of them and to listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion. District Judge Bryan Dixon ruled that the 2010 measure is an unconstitutional special law because it only affects patients, physicians, and sonographers who deal with abortions without addressing other medical care. Along with Oklahoma, several states have mandatory ultrasound laws; Virginia passed one most recently. Challenges against these types of laws are pending in North Carolina and Ohio, while Texas’ law went into effect this year after a judge upheld it.

Stephen Colbert: ‘Obamacare Is Dead!’

Stephen Colbert poked fun at some of the predictions of the Affordable Care Act’s demise before the Supreme Court. “Obamacare is dead!” he declared on Wednesday night’s episode of the Colbert Report. “It was killed by nine people in black robes. I told you there would be death panels.”

After the court adjourned Wednesday, legal and political analysts took to cable news networks to declare the proceedings a “train wreck,” which Colbert one-upped by calling the proceedings “a train wreck that slammed into the Hindenburg, landed on the deck of the Titanic, and then sailed it to see “John Carter.”

Colbert then poked fun at the misguided assumption that if the government can force you to buy health insurance, sooner or later they’ll force you to eat broccoli.

Watch the video:

NEWS FLASH

Oklahoma House Committee Advances Personhood Bill | The Oklahoma House’s Public Health Committee voted yesterday to advance a personhood bill. The legislation, passed by a 7-4 vote, would provide embryos and fetuses “all the rights, privileges and immunities” of other citizens. Opponents, including the Oklahoma State Medical Association, claim that the law could have unintended consequences, such as prohibiting some methods of contraception or in vitro fertilization, despite claims from proponents that it would not apply to those circumstances. The bill, a version of which has already passed the Senate, now heads to the full House, where it is also expected to pass. Opponents say they will stage a court challenge if it is signed into law.

-Zachary Bernstein

Justice

Health Care And The SCOTUS Day 3, Part II: The Purpose Of Power

Let’s be very clear about how Medicaid works. Medicaid offers each state a pool of money to provide health care to low income Americans. States can take or leave the money if they wish, but if they take the money, they agree to comply with certain conditions. If a state violates one of these conditions, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can dock their funds or potentially cut off funds entirely if the violation is sufficiently egregious.

This was the system in place when President Johnson signed Medicaid into law in 1965. It was the system in place after President Reagan expanded it to cover many new pregnant women and children in 1984. It was the system in place when Reagan expanded Medicaid again in 1985 and in 1988. And it was the system in place when new expansions were added in the 1990s. It each expansion, the bargain remained the same, states could accept the new conditions added by these expansions, or they could walk away from Medicaid. If they took the money and failed to comply with the conditions, they risked having their funding cut off.

In 2010, President Obama followed in his predecessors’ footsteps by expanding Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act. Yesterday afternoon, the Supreme Court flipped out. Although the five conservative justices’ objections to this most recent expansion often rested on other grounds, they almost always circled back to the same objection. The Affordable Care Act expands Medicaid, and the Secretary retains the exact same power she has had since 1965 to potentially cut off all of a state’s Medicaid funds if a state refuses to comply with any of the new conditions — so Obamacare could cause these states to lose all their Medicaid funds if they don’t comply with the new conditions.

Now, let’s be clear. If these justices are right that this Medicaid expansion is unconstitutional, than it also means that every single expansion since 1965 is also unconstitutional. That means stripping millions of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans of their only access to health care. Immediately.

Nor will the fallout be limited to Medicaid. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, many universities received federal funding in 1972, when Congress enacted Title IX’s requirement that they must cease discrimination against women if they want to keep their funding. This too would be unconstitutional under the conservative justices’ theory. As would every other similar expansion to these education funds after they were first enacted.

It is rare that a single moment in a Supreme Court argument perfectly distills the difference in world view between the Court’s liberals and its conservatives, but such a moment occurred today. When Solicitor General Verrilli explained, correctly, that no Secretary has ever used their power to cut off a state’s Medicaid funding completely, Justice Alito expressed bafflement that any person could possess such an awesome power and refrain from using it. How, Alito wondered, could it be a “realistic possibility” that “we are not going to cut off your old funds, and just let that condition sit there?”

Justice Kagan soon weighed in with this answer:

[W]hen the Secretary withdraws funds, what the Secretary is doing is withdrawing funds from poor people’s health care, and that the Secretary is reluctant and loathed to take money away from poor people’s health care. And that that’s why these things are always worked out. It’s that the Secretary really doesn’t want to use this power, and so the Secretary sits down with the State and figures out a way for the Secretary not to use the power.

To Justice Alito, power is something that is to be wielded — just as he and his fellow conservatives appear dangerously close to casting the Constitution aside and striking down the Affordable Care Act simply because they can. To Justice Kagan, power is a sacred trust granted to our national leaders on the promise that they will use it lawfully and compassionately.

There are five of him, and only four of her.

House Advances Abortion Bill Blocking Interstate Travel If Parents Are Not Present

Across the country, conservatives have been pushing legislation designed to make obtaining an abortion as difficult as possible. In some cases, that means the best option for a woman seeking the procedure is to travel to a state with less restrictive regulations. If some lawmakers get their way, that could become more difficult.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives advanced the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) out of the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 20-13. The legislation, which has 158 House co-sponsors, would impose jail sentences on doctors who perform abortions on out-of-state minors if a parent is not present. While the bill’s sponsor Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) claimed the bill was designed to protect the right of parents “to be involved in their children’s lives,” its supporters do not appear to be concerned with protecting teenagers:

The committee rejected several proposed amendments that would have provided exceptions for victims of rape or incest, women facing threats to their health, and grandparents and older siblings trying to accompany their family members to abortion clinics. [...]

Opponents of the bill argue that it fails to consider the extenuating circumstances in which a teen would turn to another adult — such her grandmother or adult sister — for support, and could force young women to instead turn to unsafe alternatives to terminating her pregnancy.

This bill hampers a woman’s right to choose without offering any protections for extreme circumstances. A girl whose parents were “absent or abusive,” according to the Huffington Post, would still need to seek their help in obtaining an abortion, even if she had been raped or was facing a medical emergency.

The bill now heads to the full House for a vote. It remains unclear whether it will face a vote in the Senate, even though a companion bill has been introduced.

Zachary Bernstein

Morning CheckUp: March 29, 2012

Judicial activists in the Supreme Court: “Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health-care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.” [E.J. Dionne]

Lawmakers wary after SCOTUS arguments: “Senate healthcare leaders from both parties are reacting cautiously to the direction of arguments at the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the 2010 federal healthcare law.” [Modern Healthcare]

Bipartisan group offers alternative to GOP budget: “A bipartisan budget plan to cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years with a mix of new tax revenues and spending cuts across the federal budget is headed for a House vote, but it is likely to be rejected by Republicans against higher hikes and Democrats opposed to curbs on Medicare and Social Security benefits.” [AP]

The folly of free market health reform: “The purpose of the Supreme Court hearings on President Obama’s health reform law is to determine whether a key provision, the individual mandate, is constitutional. But the case may end up demonstrating something else: That there is no “free market” solution that will extend coverage to millions of uninsured people and get skyrocketing costs under control.” [U.S. News]

Effort to pay hospitals based on quality didn’t cut rates: “Medicare’s largest effort to pay hospitals based on how they perform — an inspiration for key parts of the health care law — did not lead to fewer deaths, a new study has found.” [Kaiser Health News]

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up