Below are some responses to the Jan. 31 court decision striking at the health reform law by a Florida judge. Notably, Judge Roger Vinson, the author of the outlier decision (14 other judges have ruled the law Constitutional), is a Reagan appointee and adopted the rhetoric of the Tea Party and other right-wing interest groups, practically plagiarizing his written decision from a statement by the hate group Family Research Council, according to ThinkProgress.org, rather than established law. Social Security, Medicare, and other important laws that even few Tea Partiers want to end were ruled unConstitutional in lower courts – by Republican judges – before becoming established law.
In its response to the ruling the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy noted:
Washington, D.C.— Today’s decision by a Florida District Court judge to strike down the Affordable Care Act is an “astonishing” deviation from decades of settled law that does not jibe with the understanding most legal experts and sitting Supreme Court justices have of the Commerce Clause and is very likely to be overturned, say leading constitutional experts.
“The idea that congress lacks the authority to regulate [the health care industry] is a truly astonishing proposition,” said ACS Board of Advisors member and former solicitor general Walter E. Dellinger during a press call hosted by the American Constitution Society and the Center for American Progress, adding that the only two prior decisions in which the Supreme Court has expressed concern about the Commerce Clause involved local regulation of crime.
“The regulation at issue here is part of a comprehensive scheme to regulate economic and commercial matters that affect one sixth of the national economy,” said Dellinger, chair of the appellate practice at O’Melveny & Meyers who also served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida decided today that the individual coverage provision of the health care reform law is unconstitutional, and that because this provision is not severable from the remainder of the statute, the entire statute must be struck down. President Ronald Reagan appointed Vinson to the federal bench in 1983.
“This is a decision with such radical implications that I’m confident it will be overturned,” Dellinger said, pointing out that major pieces of legislation including the Social Security Act and the minimum wage have routinely been struck down by courts before they have been upheld.
Tim Jost, a law professor at Washington & Lee School of Law, called the precedential value of the decision “very limited.” “I don’t think it’s going to stop implementation,” Jost said of Vinson’s decision.
Congress “made a rational decision to deal with a huge, the largest sector of our economy, that has very serious problems, and judge Vinson shows absolutely no deference to congress,” Jost added. “This is unelected activist judges deciding what is best for our economy.”
Simon Lazarus, author of an ACS Issue Brief, “Mandatory Health Insurance: Is it Constitutional?” pointed out in an ACSblog post written immediately after the Florida ruling that among those who have “joined in rejecting the century-old, long-defunct decisions on which Judge Vinson’s decision rests are Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Chief Justice Roberts. They will have to twist their prior decisions and statements into pretzels in order to rule the individual mandate or other ACA provisions unconstitutional.”
[This decision] would effectively shred the Constitution as it has been interpreted, applied, and endorsed across a broad ideological spectrum for the last three-quarters of a century – since the New Deal – and, actually, dating back to Chief Justice John Marshall’s expansive interpretations of the constitutional provisions directly at issue here.
Last week, more than 125 law professors signed a statement distributed by ACS calling Congress’ power to regulate the health care market “unambiguous.”
“Legal experts nationwide are worried about the bald-faced judicial activism of the lower court in Virginia,” UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said in a press call discussing the statement.
A statement from Planned Parenthood Federation of America explained what the consequences of actually overturning the law would be:
“Planned Parenthood strongly disagrees with U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional.
“Simply put, if Judge Vinson’s ruling is upheld, it would be a huge step backward for American women, many of whom have already begun to benefit from health care reform.”
“The new health care law represents the greatest single advance for women’s access to health care in 45 years. It will expand access to health insurance for millions of women, and it also includes measures to make primary health care, including annual exams, preventive care, and reproductive care, more affordable. These measures promote the health of women by guaranteeing coverage of preventive care, such as lifesaving breast cancer screenings and immunizations with no co-pays. The law will also increase access to contraception for women, and potentially allow for all FDA-approved prescription contraception to be available without co-pays and other out-of-pocket costs. Offering prescription birth control with no co-pays would enable women to choose the method that works best for them, and help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. The new law will also put an end to discriminatory practices such as routinely charging women higher premiums than men, and denying coverage for so-called ‘pre-existing’ conditions such as breast cancer or even pregnancy.
“Given the enormous benefit of the new law for women and women’s health, Judge Vinson’s decision to strike down the law would have a devastating impact on American women and their access to affordable, quality health care.
Among the key provisions of the health care law that benefit American women:
-guaranteeing that preventive care, including lifesaving screenings for breast and cervical cancer, and immunizations, are covered without co-pays;
-ending insurance abuses such as denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions and dropping individuals after they become sick;
-stopping the discriminatory practice of charging women more than men for health insurance;
-expanding coverage for young adults by allowing them to stay on their parents’ health plan until age 26;
-significantly increasing access to women’s health care, including lifesaving cancer screenings and contraceptive care;
-ensuring women have direct access to OB/GYNs and community providers they rely on for health care;
-providing $75 million annually for fact-based sex education and teen pregnancy prevention;
-potentially allowing for all FDA-approved prescription contraception to be available with no co-pays, enabling women to choose the method that works best for them, and reducing the number of unintended pregnancies;
-ultimately extending health care coverage to tens of millions of women and families who currently don't have insurance.
Planned Parenthood continues to oppose the unacceptable abortion provisions in the new health care law, which sets up a complicated system requiring two separate insurance payments from individuals, one for abortion coverage and one for all other health care coverage. Fortunately, the new health care law does not include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Planned Parenthood helped successfully defeat. Under the new law, health plans will still be able to offer comprehensive insurance coverage for reproductive health care, including abortion, as long as private funds are used to pay for such coverage.
