FamilyFoundationBlog.com

The pro-abortion forces in Virginia are nothing if not masters at hyperbole. That, or downright Orwellian. Today, they held a news conference at the General Assembly Building to reinforce their message of choice since their stunning defeat on the abortion center regulation bill: That limiting abortions, and thus saving the most innocent among us, is “an attack on women’s health.” Among attendees were a who’s who of the General Assembly pro-abortion crowd: Senators Donald McEachin and Mary Margaret Whipple; and Delegates Patrick Hope, David Englin, Jennier McClellan, Scott Surovell, Adam Ebbin, Onzlee Ware, Vivian Watts and Charniele Herring — the so-called “Reproductive Health Caucus.”

They were joined not only by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, but by the ACLU and the League of Women’s Voters, whose representative enthusiastically gave herself a shout-out when Delegate Herring failed to recognize her. What abortion “rights” has to do with registering women to vote is anyone’s guess, but that moment was the most exciting thing at what had to be the most uneventful news conference in General Assembly history — nothing more than introductions, a statement by Delegate Herring, and a story by a woman whose situation was not relevant to the exchanges. Not even a question by one of the two or three members of the press who attended. Even the distributed prepared press statements were boring. Sorry, but no video, excerpted quotes, nor links worth citing. Even Planned Parenthood’s e-mail alert left a lot to be desired. An indication that the tide is turning? We’ll find out tomorrow when our electeds vote to sustain or reject two pro-life amendments passed down by Governor Bob McDonnell: One, to HB 2434, to prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion in the new state health insurance exchanges mandated by the federal healthcare law; and another, a budget amendment, restoring abstinence education funding that former Governor Tim Kaine eliminated.

These votes promise to be very close in the Senate tomorrow during the “Veto Session.” Please contact your senator Wednesday morning and ask him or her to vote for each.

Click here if you know your senator and need his or her phone number.

Click here if you don’t know who your senator is.

Meanwhile, here’s more coverage on the health insurance exchange amendment, from the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot (here) and below, from WTVR-TV/CBS6 in Richmond. Both feature comments from Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb.

Tomorrow at noon, the full Senate is scheduled to take up two bills on the floor that would undermine marriage in Virginia and, we believe, may violate Virginia’s Marriage Amendment.

Please contact your senator now and urge him or her to vote NO on SB 1121 and SB 1122. To call his or her capitol office, click here. To e-mail him or her, click here.

SB 1121, patroned by Senators Donald McEachin (D-9, Richmond) and Mark Herring (D-33, Leesburg), would permit local governments to extend health and life insurance to “any other person” as agreed to by the insurer and the local government. Included in “any other person” would be domestic partnerships between non-married hetero- and homosexual couples. In essence, this bill creates domestic partner benefits for local government employees.

A second bill, SB 1122, also patroned by Senator McEachin, would allow the state to expand benefits in state government to cover domestic partners. The fiscal impact statement done by the state admits this saying the bill . . .

could create an increase in costs paid by state agencies, state employees, and retired state employees under the state employee health insurance plan. The provisions of this bill may allow coverage to be offered to extended family members and other non-related individuals not currently covered.

The cost to the state (and consequently the taxpayer) to these bills may not be determinable by the state, but we can guarantee that the creation of this new entitlement will be extraordinarily costly for you and your family. At a time when the state can’t even pay its full commitment to Virginia Retirement System and is struggling to make ends meet, the Virginia Senate is about to pass legislation that will bury the state in insurance costs.

While the legislation is “permissive,” and doesn’t require that benefits be offered, this legislation is obviously the next step in the progression toward domestic partner benefits in Virginia. The long-term consequence of this legislative track goes beyond finances to a threat to religious liberty. Eventually, private employers will be forced to provide these benefits against their will in order to be eligible for government contracts. We have seen this progression elsewhere and many other states are eliminating faith-based providers from contracting with them for this reason.

According to the state constitution:

Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

Insurance long has been recognized as a benefit of marriage in our Commonwealth. This legislation would create a “class of persons” and assign them a benefit of marriage.

Although it is the first of many court decisions he faces, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli this week became the first person to successfully challenge President Obama’s federal health insurance scheme. U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled a key component of the plan — the “individual mandate” — unconstitutional.

In his opinion, Judge Hudson concluded:

Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter a stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market. In doing so, enactment of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I.

He added that the individual mandate “is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.” That letter meaning this: “Regulate” during the days of the constitution’s adoption meant, “to make regular.” Far from taking over entire industries, the federal government instead was to ensure that states didn’t discriminate against businesses from one state to the advantage of one from another.

The Obama administration argued that the constitution’s Commerce Clause gives the government broad authority to order Americans to purchase health insurance because not doing so adversely affects commerce. Of course, this unprecedented attempt to force Americans to purchase a product was predicated on labeling inactivity (not buying insurance) “interstate commerce.” Stranger than fiction, we know.

While the Obama administration will appeal Monday’s decision to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Attorney General Cuccinelli would prefer an expedited appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. He was in talks with the Department of Justice about a joint motion to that affect, but it now appears DOJ wants no part of it (better to delay until more and more parts of the law go into affect). However, Mr. Cuccinelli told Fox New Channel’s Greta Van Susteren Monday night he may go forward on that by himself and also may appeal Judge Hudson’s refusal to place an injunction on the health care law (see video). He has 30 days from last Monday to make that appeal. Regardless of how or when, ultimately Obamacare’s fate will be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

While there are dozens of reasons to oppose Obamacare (see Obamacare411), the provision that requires otherwise free Americans to purchase health insurance or face penalties is the most egregious — but it is also the financial linchpin of the entire law. Without the mandate, much of the rest of the law is untenable.

Earlier this year, The Family Foundation supported the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, the basis for the Commonwealth’s lawsuit against the federal government. It protects Virginia citizens from being compelled to buy insurance against their will. We applaud the Attorney General and his staff for their commitment to protecting the freedom of Virginians. For a great perspective on the hearing and Judge Hudson’s ruling, view Mr. Cuccinelli’s post-decision news conference (click here). We are the only news or Internet site that recorded and posted the entire news conference.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli just sent this e-mail to supporters:

As I told you earlier today, Virginia won the first round of the constitutional fight over the federal health care law. I also told you I’d get back to you with more details later in the day, and I’m keeping my promise.

I will tell you up front that I will also go into still more detail later this week — when time allows.

Arguments and Outcomes

There were two basic arguments in this case.

First, Virginia argued that the individual mandate was beyond the power of Congress and the President to impose under the Constitution. Specifically, Congress claimed that their regulatory power under the Commerce Clause allowed them to order you to buy their government-approved health insurance, even if you decide not to buy health insurance.

The judge ruled that the federal government does not have the power to compel you to buy health insurance as part of its attempt to regulate the entire field of health care and health insurance. Thus, Virginia won this argument.

Second, the federal government advanced a ‘fallback’ argument in case it lost on its commerce clause argument. The feds’ fallback argument was that the financial penalty you have to pay if you don’t buy the government mandated health insurance is a tax.

This may sound like an odd argument from a political standpoint — usually they say everything is NOT a tax (in fact, they argued the penalty was not a tax while they were trying to get the bill passed); however, they changed position after the bill became law to try and save the bill. What they were trying to do was to get the courts to agree that because the penalty would presumably raise some revenue, it was therefore a ‘tax’ under the taxing and spending for the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution.

No judge in the country has bought this argument, and Judge Hudson was no exception. He ruled that the taxing power of Congress does not save the bill, because the penalty for not buying the mandated health insurance is not a tax.

The federal government only had to win on either of these two arguments, while Virginia needed to win both to prevail, and we won both!

What’s Next?

Certainly the federal government will appeal their loss in the district court to the 4th circuit court of appeals within the next 30 days. And whichever side loses in the 4th circuit will certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. And no one has any serious doubts that ultimately the constitutionality of the individual mandate will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That could take approximately (very rough approximation) two years. We are discussing with the Department of Justice accelerating the case, and those discussions have been very cordial thus far. More on that later.

Conclusion

Today is a great day for the Constitution. Today the Constitution has been protected from the federal government, and remember, an important reason for the constitution in the first place was to limit the power of the federal government.

Today is also a day of a small degree of vindication. When we first filed suit, the screeching of the liberals was deafening. Everything from accusing us of playing politics instead of practicing law, to filing what they called a ‘frivolous’ lawsuit.

I want you to know, that our team makes decisions based on the Constitution and the laws. Period. We deal with the consequences of our decisions separately, but first and foremost we have been and will continue to be true to the Constitution and laws of the United States and Virginia, regardless of whether it’s easy or hard in any particular case.

Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration approved the controversial drug “ella” as “emergency contraception” to be used up to five days after sex to “prevent pregnancy”  (see the First Things blog First Thoughts). In another example of Orwellian redefinition, pro-abortion factions would have the public believe that “contraception” can occur after fertilization, when the word itself means to prevent fertilization. In fact, the FDA did not disclose that ella acts as an abortifacient, resulting in the destruction of the smallest of human life.

Those marketing ella have tried to closely associate it with Plan B (also known as the “Morning After Pill”) in an effort to quell some of the controversy and break into the EC market, as opposed to the abortion market. While ethically there is no difference between EC and abortion as both cause the destruction of life, legally and legislatively, there is a difference.

Classification as an abortifacient creates significant hurdles for the producers, marketers and distributors of ella. If labeled an abortifacient, it most likely loses eligibility for federal tax subsidies and of ever becoming an over-the-counter drug (as is Plan B). It’s also possible that if President Obama’s federal health care takeover stands in court, ella, as EC, may be covered by health insurance plans. Additionally, future distributors of ella (such as predictably supportive Planned Parenthood) have a financial incentive to refer to ella as EC, not an abortion pill, since “contraception” is less objectionable than “abortion,” thus  increasing the distributors’ client base and profitability.

Ella marketers would like you to believe that it is merely an improved version of Plan B. Plan B can also prevent an embryo from implanting in the uterine wall and causes the destruction of the embryo. If taken after the embryo has implanted, Plan B is not able to destroy the embryo. Conversely, ella can. It is crucial that the public understand Ella’s destructive nature.

The drug that has a similar chemical makeup to ella is not Plan B, but rather RU-486, the pill used for chemical abortions. Ella’s misclassification as EC is a clandestine method to provide funding for abortion. In its research trials, ella was not tested for its abortive potential and therefore the unknown consequences and dangers are potentially expansive. (At least six deaths as a result of RU-486 have been reported to the FDA over the past six years.) Since ella’s chemical makeup is similar to RU-486, it’s likely its complication rate will be just as tragic.

Watson Pharmaceuticals, the U.S. company marketing ella, says it will likely be available with a prescription by the end of this year. Disguised as emergency contraception — it is more appropriately called “The Five Day After Pill” and “The Stealth Abortion Pill” — ella is a drug with greater destructive value than previously available. For more facts about ella, Michael Fragoso composes a detailed examination into its truly destructive capability, as well as what its proponents don’t want you to know, at The Public Discourse.

As we were one of the first to report this morning, Virginia, through Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (see news release), and despite what almost every liberal pundit and legislator has prognosticated, won round one in his lawsuit against the constitutionality of the new federal health care takeover law. Federal District Court Judge Henry Hudson, of the Eastern District of Virginia, in Richmond, ruled against the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the case because Virginia, it alleged on several fronts, has no standing. Judge Hudson rejected those arguments and the case now will go to full trial, on October 18 in Richmond (see Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog).

In his 32-page ruling (see here) Judge Hudson wrote:

Although this lawsuit has the collateral effect of protecting the individual interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, its primary articulated objective is to defend the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act from the conflicting effect of an allegedly unconstitutional federal law. Despite its declaratory nature, it is a lawfully-enacted part of the laws of Virginia. The purported transparent legislative intent underlying its enactment is irrelevant. The mere existence of the lawfully-enacted [Virginia] statute is sufficient to trigger the duty of the Attorney General of Virginia to defend the law and the associated sovereign power to enact it.

Ouch! Quite smackdown to the feds’ several arguments as well as to left-wing pundits and activists who repeatedly said Attorney General Cuccinelli had no standing, no right, no business and no chance in filing this suit. Judge Hudson’s opinion, boiled down, is exactly what the AG has said all along: That he took an oath to defend not only the U.S. Constitution, but the Virginia Constitution and the laws of the commonwealth. Judge Hudson also found that even though the federal insurance mandate doesn’t take effect until 2014, the case is “ripe” because a conflict of state and federal laws is certain to occur. All are obvious reasons to proceed to trial to anyone with commonsense, regardless of political persuasion, except the hyper left.

At issue at the trial on October 18 is whether the federal government can order individuals to buy something (in this case, health insurance) in contradiction to Virginia law, the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act (see text). Then, it will be the AG on the offensive, asking for summary judgment. In the hearing to dismiss on July 1, the Department of Justice said it was not invoking the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as Congress itself said it was, but rather its taxing authority, which made for some pretty humorous and pretzel twisting arguments from the government’s lawyers.

For what it’s worth: At the conclusion of the hearing on the feds’ motion to dismiss, Judge Hudson promised a decision by the last week of July. When it didn’t come last week, it was widely expected to come this morning. We were notified of the ruling around 10:30. One tip that something was up was a promo last night on the Fox News Channel that the AG would be on On The Record with Greta Van Susteran (hear her commentary) tonight at 10:00. Odds are that it won’t be the only show upon which he will appear.

In the meantime, we were the only media, new or old, to have Attorney General Cuccinelli’s entire July 1 post-hearing news conference. To see it, and hear more of his legal reasoning behind the case, click here.  

As we said from the early days of this past General Assembly session, what Virginia was doing with the Health Care Freedom Act was historic. Today was another new chapter which, most likely, will have several more written.

Far left liberal Northern Virginia Delegate David Englin (D-45, Alexandria) has pursued some real follies in the General Assembly — and that’s putting it politely. Bills to punish people by raising gas taxes and restoring the death tax, to name a few. So pardon us if we think it more than slightly ironic that he, of all people, is complaining about the cost of the suit filed in federal court (Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog) today by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to overturn, as unconstitutional, the government takeover of health care, made official with President Barack Obama’s signature a few hours ago.

Delegate Englin launched a Web site that will connect, by phone, government-run health care supporters to complain to the AG (I guess looking up the phone number or e-mail address is too much yeoman’s work for certain elitists). Quote the delegate:

This is an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars that could stop Virginians from enjoying the benefits of health-care reform.

Hmmmm. Let’s do the math on this one: A few thousand budgeted dollars to do what the AG is sworn to do versus more than $1 trillion in new, unbudgeted federal spending for something proven to fail everywhere it’s tried, plus more than $500 billion in new taxes, hundreds of new business and job killing regulations, as well as 118 new federal agencies and 18,000 new IRS employees to enforce that we all buy a government approved health insurance policy (unless, of course, we’re 26 and still slacking and can mooch of the parents). Which is greater?

Apparently, Delegate Englin thinks it’s “frivolous” to defend Virginia law, which is exactly what the attorney general is sworn to do, as if this nation’s most serious challenge to constitutionally guaranteed individual rights is a light matter. In this case, he is defending the General Assembly’s recently passed Health Care Freedom legislation. To put it another way, repeat the litany above, followed by:

But defending Virginia law: Priceless.

Now, if Delegate Englin wants to make the argument these tens of thousands of new government jobs are part of the “stimulus” plan, he might have us stumped. But if it will put him at ease, we have the Attorney General Communications Director Brian Gottstein’s assurance of one of the most economical law suit filings in Virginia history. When asked by the Washington Post why the suit was filed “before the ink (from the president’s signature) dries,” he replied:

It’s more cost efficient to start the process of challenging the bill as soon as possible. There are significant costs in implementing the health care law, so if it is going to be found unconstitutional, then we can save taxpayer money and trouble by making that determination sooner rather than later.

(By the way, experience for yourself the level of fanaticism, hate, extremism and adherence to the god that is government-is-best by today’s leftists. Click on the above link and read the comments.) But they don’t have to save it for our AG. In fact, more than a dozen (and counting) attorneys general are filing legal challenges (Christian Science Monitor), but none of them is defending a state law. No, Internet games are frivolous, and in this regard, Delegate Englin has topped even his legislative follies, with a Web site designed to hassle and harrass the Office of Attorney General. Talk about wasting tax dollars. We hope, but don’t expect, the delegate and his rabid supporters, will own up and admit they were wrong if, and when, Attorney General Cuccinelli and any of the other attorneys general win their cases.

In the debate over health care “reform,” liberals point to models in England, Canada and other socialist countries as systems we should emulate, despite their abject failures and rationing. The next time a liberal tells you the Euros do it better, agree. Then add, “if you mean Switzerland.”

Switzerland?

Yes. It just so happens Switzerland has, perhaps, the best consumer driven approach to the health care marketplace. There are spots of consumer driven health care percolating here, such as “doc-in-box” services and clinics at chains such as Wal-Mart and CVS, which drive down prices for non-emergency care. But Switzerland is where it’s at, according to Regina Herzlinger, the Nancy R. McPherson Professor of Business Administration at Harvard, no less, and author of Who Killed Health Care? (and this Washington Post piece).

She was the featured speaker today at the Tuesday Morning Group monthly meeting in Richmond. Here’s how it works there, in a nutshell:

There is a government mandate: All citizens must buy health care coverage, because neither the government nor employers provide any! The result is massive competition and more than 80 insurance companies in that small nation. (What is the U.S. down to? Six, not including the government?) Even nuns in the mountains have formed insurance companies.

The policies have high deductibles so people are not tempted to use their insurance when you have an earache. People are forced to more cost effectively spend on their health care. This creates competition for services, just like any other trade, such as computers, phones, restaurants or clothes: Health care providers line up to provide the best service possible, or a niche service that’s needed, at the best cost possible to win customers. Because customers pay out of their own pocket, there’s no haggling by insurance companies and government to determine a price in which doctors must settle for their service. Instead, doctors set their own prices and if patients don’t like it, they go to someone else. Insurance is used for what it is really intended — serious illness or injury.

The result is health care costs are 5 percent lower in Switzerland than here and takes up only 11 percent of GDP, while it accounts for 17 percent here. Not only that, insurance companies rebate you half your money if you stay healthy. They also create reinsurance pools among themselves to minimize risk.

But if the Obama administration doesn’t want to look to the one European country that does it right — better, in fact than we do it now — maybe he’ll stop apologizing for America long enough to look to a country we supposedly had to apologize to. Dr. Herzlinger pointed to an experiment in South Africa, of all places, where an insurance company paid clients to stay healthy. It motivated them to eat right, live a better lifestyle and exercise. The result is that the percentage of certain illnesses are lower in the RSA than in the USA.

One last observation by Dr. Herzlinger: If you think outsourcing of certain jobs is bad now, wait until socialized medicine is approved by Congress and the Obama administration. She predicts jobs and services will get exported to India, Singapore, Brazil, Costa Rica and Argentina.

You hear sports commentators talk about it all the time, although referees deny it: The Make Up Call. When a ref thinks he missed a foul or made a bad call, he will even it up later in the game on an unsuspecting player on the opposite team. Once, in a rare moment of candor, when I coached travel soccer, a ref told me as I complained about a bad call he made against my team: “You got a call down there, we’re making it up here!” Nevermind that he made the right call earlier.

Thus, President Barack Obama’s reaction today to the homosexual lobby’s outcry over his decision to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal lawsuit (see yesterday’s post): He’s going to grant the extension of employee benefits to ”partners” of homosexual federal workers. However, this is pyrrhic at best to many homosexual activists and may have steamed them off at the POTUS plenty more, as Ben Smith reports at The Politico. You see, while it at first the Mainstream Media reported it as a great win for the homosexual lobby, the fact is that DOMA prohibits the extension of health insurance and retirement benefits to same-sex partners. There’s that DOMA, again, which the president is defending. According to an update on Smith’s post at The Politico:

“Are they kidding us? Domestic Partnership benefits WITHOUT health insurance because of DOMA? What kind of reality do they live in?” gay fundraiser and activist David Mixner emailed me this morning. “It is like rubbing salt in the wound. I am glad that some barriers will be lifted for Federal Employees but what is the most important benefit needed….health insurance! Good god.”   

The anger isn’t limited to e-mails to bloggers, either. Prominent homosexual lobbyists are boycotting a big time fundraiser by Vice President Joe Biden, as Jake Tapper of ABC News reports on his Political Punch blog (here).

Also, see the Obama “Fraud” and “Fail” posters in the photo at this Politico post (here). In the end, this make up call is about as worthy as one in an athletic contest, which is to say it is not worthy at all. One doesn’t make up an alleged grievance by intentionally harming an innocent party, especially when your original stand is just. As we noted yesterday, surprising as it is, the Obama administration simply is defending the Constitutional powers of the legislative branch, as well as the several states. Whatever his reasons, cynical or otherwise, it is the correct call and requires no make up.

All this proves a point: When the most liberal, “progressive” president in history isn’t moving on the homosexual agenda at the pace its advocates want, how mainstream is their movement?