Ohio Senate introduces Health Care Amendment similar to the Ohio Project's

Yesterday, State Sen. Timothy Grendell (R-Chesterland) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 1, which would introduce an amendment to the Ohio Constitution forbidding the federal government from compelling anyone to purchase health care insurance. Like the Ohio Project and Bill Yarbrough, I give qualified support to the resolution.

In his Yarblog, Mr. Yarbrough observes the subtle difference in language between the Ohio Project's petition language (which is less than 100,000 signatures shy of their goal), and that of SJR 1.

From the Ohio Project petition amendment language:

Section 21 (A) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.
Section 21 (B) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance.
Section 21 (C) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance.

   From SJR 1 amendment language:

Section 21 (A) No law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.
Section 21 (B) No law or rule shall prohibit the purchase of health care or health insurance or sale of health care or health insurance.
Section 21 (C) No law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance.

The difference in language can easily lead to a court interpretation that limits "law or rule" to Ohio law, thus defeating its original purpose, to state that no federal law or rule shall compel, prohibit, or impose.

The Ohio Project Amendment and SJR 1 share another problem. They only address forced purchase of health care, an egregious violation of the Constitution, to be sure; but implicitly accepting the notion that the rest of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is Constitutional.

SJR 1 as currently written is too weak. Ohioans deserve better, something like Nebraska's LB 515, on which I reported Jan. 25. We have the most liberty-minded General Assembly in many years. It is not politically unrealistic to work for a tougher resolution; which is not to say we'll get it, or that it would be approved as a Constitutional Amendment by the requisite three-fifths majority in both houses.

Bottom line: Ohio is a sovereign state. Our General Assembly needs to remind both the federal government and the people of Ohio that we are a sovereign state. SJR 1 and HB 11, in combination, are better than nothing; but they are not what we should be striving for.