States launch lawsuits against healthcare plan

CHICAGO Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:21pm EDT

Opponents of the proposed U.S. health care bill are pictured during a rally outside the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, March 21, 2010. REUTERS/Jason Reed

Opponents of the proposed U.S. health care bill are pictured during a rally outside the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, March 21, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Jason Reed

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Less than 24 hours after the House of Representatives gave final approval to a sweeping overhaul of healthcare, attorneys general from several states on Monday said they will sue to block the plan on constitutional grounds.

Republican attorneys general in 11 states warned that lawsuits will be filed to stop the federal government overstepping its constitutional powers and usurping states' sovereignty.

States are concerned the burden of providing healthcare will fall on them without enough federal support.

Ten of the attorneys general plan to band together in a collective lawsuit on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

"To protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation," said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in a statement.

The Republican attorney generals say the reforms infringe on state powers under the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who plans to file a lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, said Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. The bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance, he added.

"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

In addition to the pending lawsuits, bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

So far, only two states, Idaho and Virginia, have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. But the actual enactment of the bill by President Barack Obama could spur more movement on the measures by state lawmakers.

As is the case on the Congressional level, partisan politics is in play on the state level, where no anti-health care reform legislation has emerged in Democrat-dominated states like Illinois and New York, according to the NCSL.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican candidate running for governor, said the mandate would cost Florida at least $1.6 billion in Medicaid alone.

All states would receive extra funding to cover Medicaid costs that are expected to rise under the reform, including 100 percent federal coverage for new enrollees under the plan through 2016.

Medicaid is the healthcare program for the poor jointly administered by the states and federal government.

(Reporting by Karen Pierog, additional reporting by Michael Connor in Miami, Jonathan Stempel in New York, Joan Gralla in New York, Lisa Lambert in Washington and Michael Peltier in Tallahassee; Editing by Andrew Hay)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (73)
texasbrian wrote:
I love it. “State sovereignty”? So I guess this means the states don’t want Social Security or Medicare either, since they’re now “sovereign.” We’ll take back our passports and money now too.

And why would a “sovereign” state sue in a U.S. court?

Don’t attorneys general have to take law classes?

Mar 22, 2010 11:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Toro71 wrote:
thgirbla: Hey, nice hood. When’s your next cross burning?

BTW, the only poll that really matters is the one from Nov ‘08. It’s called “the election,” and the American people spoke pretty clearly then.

How much are these lawsuits going to cost? Worth it? For little more than attention?

Mar 22, 2010 11:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MorganBentley wrote:
Thank you State Attorney Generals. Some people think they can do as they please. I don’t know why people think the laws are there.Between twisting arms and God knows what else Obama and Pelosi ignore laws and what their representatives think will do the trick.Whatever happened to constitutional rights? This bunch can’t even operate during daylight hours.

Mar 22, 2010 11:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.