Op-Ed: Attorney General Tom Corbett
Health Care Reform Law is Unconstitutional
We can all agree that health care reform is necessary.
As Pennsylvania's attorney general, I have made health care a priority. In 2009 alone, the attorney general's Health Care Section assisted more than 4,700 consumers and saved Pennsylvanians more than $4.2 million.
In addition to providing such direct services to consumers, I believe we must work together in a bipartisan fashion to develop legislative solutions instead of engaging in mere rhetoric.
I believe we need meaningful health care reform in this country and that Pennsylvanians deserve access to quality health care.
However, it is my belief that the Health Care Reform law as written is unconstitutional, and Congress has exceeded its authority by requiring citizens to purchase government-approved health insurance. Those who fail to comply with the mandate will be punished with an annual tax penalty.
This analysis is shared by my colleagues who have joined me in filing a lawsuit challenging the act's constitutionality. Thus far, five additional states have indicated that they will join this litigation and that number is expected to increase.
The individual mandate contained in the legislation is unprecedented and will have implications for the future of American liberty -- far beyond health care.
If Congress is permitted to impose its will on the citizens of our country and this commonwealth without the proper constitutional foundation, what will prevent Congress from enacting other mandates? Will they be permitted to compel citizens to purchase certain products, further dictate individual choices and penetrate even deeper into the personal lives of all American citizens, under the guise that it is in the public's best interest?
It begs the question: Do the ends justify the means?
I understand there is great passion on both sides of this issue.
Critics argue that filing such a challenge is an attempt to derail health care reform; however, they are missing the point. This litigation is not about health care reform but calls for a judicial determination of whether Congress exceeded its authority under the U.S. Constitution.
Some also have charged that expending funds for this litigation is a waste of taxpayer funds.
Although I would disagree with that statement, I can assure you that I am using the existing resources of my office to litigate this matter. I have not, and will not, request additional funds for this purpose.
The attorneys general who have signed on to this litigation understand that we cannot sit idly by while Congress encroaches on the authority of the states and the rights of their citizens as set forth in the Constitution. To simply look the other way to avoid potential criticism would be doing a disservice to the citizens of the commonwealth.
As this litigation proceeds in the coming months, there will continue to be spirited debate with respect to this issue.
There is one thing that we can all agree on, that improving access to quality health care is a laudable goal, but at what price?
In my view, the ends do not justify the unconstitutional means.
We can all agree that health care reform is necessary.
As Pennsylvania's attorney general, I have made health care a priority. In 2009 alone, the attorney general's Health Care Section assisted more than 4,700 consumers and saved Pennsylvanians more than $4.2 million.
In addition to providing such direct services to consumers, I believe we must work together in a bipartisan fashion to develop legislative solutions instead of engaging in mere rhetoric.
I believe we need meaningful health care reform in this country and that Pennsylvanians deserve access to quality health care.
However, it is my belief that the Health Care Reform law as written is unconstitutional, and Congress has exceeded its authority by requiring citizens to purchase government-approved health insurance. Those who fail to comply with the mandate will be punished with an annual tax penalty.
This analysis is shared by my colleagues who have joined me in filing a lawsuit challenging the act's constitutionality. Thus far, five additional states have indicated that they will join this litigation and that number is expected to increase.
The individual mandate contained in the legislation is unprecedented and will have implications for the future of American liberty -- far beyond health care.
If Congress is permitted to impose its will on the citizens of our country and this commonwealth without the proper constitutional foundation, what will prevent Congress from enacting other mandates? Will they be permitted to compel citizens to purchase certain products, further dictate individual choices and penetrate even deeper into the personal lives of all American citizens, under the guise that it is in the public's best interest?
It begs the question: Do the ends justify the means?
I understand there is great passion on both sides of this issue.
Critics argue that filing such a challenge is an attempt to derail health care reform; however, they are missing the point. This litigation is not about health care reform but calls for a judicial determination of whether Congress exceeded its authority under the U.S. Constitution.
Some also have charged that expending funds for this litigation is a waste of taxpayer funds.
Although I would disagree with that statement, I can assure you that I am using the existing resources of my office to litigate this matter. I have not, and will not, request additional funds for this purpose.
The attorneys general who have signed on to this litigation understand that we cannot sit idly by while Congress encroaches on the authority of the states and the rights of their citizens as set forth in the Constitution. To simply look the other way to avoid potential criticism would be doing a disservice to the citizens of the commonwealth.
As this litigation proceeds in the coming months, there will continue to be spirited debate with respect to this issue.
There is one thing that we can all agree on, that improving access to quality health care is a laudable goal, but at what price?
In my view, the ends do not justify the unconstitutional means.
.jpg)
Comments