Arizona And Nevada To Join States Suing Over Health Care Reform

PHOENIX (AP) -- The governors of Arizona and Nevada say their states will join 14 others suing the federal government over health care reform.

Gov. Jan Brewer announced Arizona was joining the suit Tuesday night. She signed a bill April 1 that gave her the authority to skirt the state's Democratic attorney general, Terry Goddard, who declined to sue on the state's behalf.

Republicans say the bill signed by President Obama is unconstitutional in part because it requires people to buy private health insurance. Goddard and other Democrats say a suit would be unlikely to succeed and thus a waste of taxpayer money.

Also Tuesday, Gov. Jim Gibbons signed an executive order for Nevada to join the multistate challenge to the federal legislation.

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat, refused an earlier directive from Gibbons to join the suit.

Comments

[kawlabangdagirl]

11:41 PM on 04/14/2010

I don't think anyone is focusing attention on exactly who is financing these initiative­s by the state attorney generals. Who finances their campaigns? Is there any insruance industry money behind them or their efforts?
http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­danielle-i­vory/will-­health-ref­orm-law-ba­_b_518803.­html
Seems like it is time for some serious investigat­ive reporting:
http://www­.cjr.org/t­he_audit/r­euters_is_­excellent_­in_diggin.­php
Maybe some Nader groups in the states could look into it some....
http://kru­gman.blogs­.nytimes.c­om/2010/03­/17/demons­-and-demon­ization/

[davecarlson]

06:54 AM on 04/12/2010

Add another State and the Number keeps growing that believe this is a BAD HR LAW and will br declared unconsitit­utional...­....

POINT/COUN­TERPOUNT -- Is health care suit a valid challenge?
April 11, 2010|Attor­ney General Tom Corbett and state Sen. Daylin Leach
By Tom Corbett

W e 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.

[davecarlson]

06:53 AM on 04/12/2010

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?

[davecarlson]

06:52 AM on 04/12/2010

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.

GO FOR IT !! - Pennsylvan­ia

[Iron Daddy]

12:07 AM on 04/11/2010

Don't govern according to the polls, govern according to the facts...


http://onl­ine.wsj.co­m/article/­SB10001424­0527023041­9800457517­1782805022­028.html?K­EYWORDS=th­e+massachu­setts+insu­rance+blac­kout

[1010TRAVIS]

10:32 AM on 04/09/2010

The federal government didn't create the states, the states created the federal government­, The states have the final say.

[imsosure]

10:17 AM on 04/09/2010

I am surprised to see two states that realize medical marijuana is a valid remedy and ought to be made accessible up in arms about requiring insurance for the rest of it's constituen­cy.

Perhaps after a few sit downs and some tea parties they will come around and understand it is for their own good. After all some insurance is better than none as with drivers and auto insurance. To think of all the money they will be wasting. Perhaps they ought to speak with Mitt and learn more about the virtues of this program before trying to shoot it down. A few phone calls could go a long way versus the cost of fighting and losing in an effort to stop national health care options.

[mrkr]

09:05 AM on 04/09/2010

Ignorant, wasteful spending: Using State taxpayers' money to sue the Feds who must use Fed taxpayers' money to defend. Frickin' Brilliant!­!!

[davecarlson]

06:49 AM on 04/09/2010

I am not alone in my belief in the sanctity of life. Some stated that I have done nothing to help others. The fact of the matter is that I have been a volunteer for 25+ years serving the state and county. All life is important to me. My country is important to me. Division and hatred among the people will have no successful outcome. I hope that my children and yours will inherit a better place to live than what we have now. We may differ on how to get there and what may work best. Ideas of those that may differ from us give us an opportunit­y to work together..­....

There is common ground that we share and that is the future of this country. We have not seen a good example by our leaders in Congress. What they have shown us is that one group is on one side, and aother on the other side, and nobody is going to give an inch. That mode of operation is not the model for success. Perhaps our congressio­nal leaders should be petitioned to go back to work with that in mind to accomplish what's best for the people. A leader's task is not easy. If his people think he has been betrayed, they will not follow him.......­.

What we see in our leaders is a reflection of us. They can't be blamed entirely and the "blame game" has no winners. Today can be better and progress made......

[davecarlson]

06:22 AM on 04/09/2010

I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biological­ly manifest that human life commences at the time of conception­—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstan­ces. My position is scientific­, pragmatic, and humanitari­an.

6 The First Internatio­nal Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion­:

The changes occurring between implantati­on, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-o­ld child, or a mature adult are merely stages of developmen­t and maturation­. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.

7 The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the "Human Life Bill," summarized the issue this way:

Physicians­, biologists­, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelmi­ng agreement on this point in countless medical, biological­, and scientific writings.

[marvm]

07:16 AM on 04/09/2010

well let me ask you one question are you going to stand before the judgment seat for the people who committ a sin if not so why worry about what they do your belief might not be like their so let them SIN they are the one who after answer to GOD for their SINS

[davecarlson]

07:38 AM on 04/09/2010

An adult who chooses to make a decision is not something I can interfere with, the challenges from those that sued over the new HR LAW are that their tax dollars would go to pay for another's abortion. They conscienti­ously object to a new HR LAW that previously was protected in the Hyde Amendment. That was the reason for the EO and negotians with Stupak from Michigan. He previously was opposed to the HR LAW and negotiated with the Pres for the EO in exhange for his support. The agreement is temporary and neither pro-life or pro-aborti­on groups are pleased with it at present...­...

[davecarlson]

06:21 AM on 04/09/2010

Dr. Nathanson'­s study of developmen­ts in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his "increasin­g certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000
deaths."

4 In his film, "The Silent Scream," Nathanson later stated, "Modern technologi­es have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistingu­ishable in every way from any of us." Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary
leader.

5 At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusion­s were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.

Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-sev­en years attending obstetrici­an-gynecol­ogist at Columbia-P­resbyteria­n Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internatio­nally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-pro­ducing sperm. His intrauteri­ne photograph­s of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,

[davecarlson]

06:19 AM on 04/09/2010

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightfo­rward matter—the beginning is conception­. This straightfo­rward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociologic­al, political, or economic goals."

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, "Pro-abort­ionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifical­ly testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantati­on. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins."

2 Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception­:

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathe­tic to the prolife cause. Neverthele­ss, he affirms unequivoca­lly, "The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception­."

3 Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internatio­nally known obstetrici­an and gynecologi­st, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere­. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

[davecarlson]

06:16 AM on 04/09/2010

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommitt­ee, "after fertilizat­ion has taken place a new human being has come into being." He stated that this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysic­al contention­, it is plain experiment­al evidence." He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception­."

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception­."

Professor Micheline Matthews-R­oth, Harvard University Medical School: "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive..­.. It is scientific­ally correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception­.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data."

[davecarlson]

06:15 AM on 04/09/2010

Some of the world's most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception­:

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommitt­ee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.

1 Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni­, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvan­ia, stated: "I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception­.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interrupti­on at any point throughout this time constitute­s a terminatio­n of human life....

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of developmen­t in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...­is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."

[rf dude]

02:56 AM on 04/09/2010

'
I suppose that AZ and NM could, instead, promote medical tourism to their fine states...

[sheikwil4]

05:53 AM on 04/09/2010

these fools are wasting money that the states don.t have to appeal something that will only waste the tax payors money and make these governors look more foolish than the republican­s have already made them look. I hope there is a way that for every of these states that pull this crapa, they are cut off from government money that they would normally get and let see who the people of the state feels then.

[Iron Daddy]

12:12 AM on 04/11/2010

In the case of Nevada, a $5,000.00 filing fee is the only cost incurred as there are attorneys willing to do the suit pro bono. If Nevada can't come up with the 5 large I'll give it to them.