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.

Health care ruling: Victory or Trojan horse?

Judge Vinson's opinion has been published, and is available here. While many hail it as a victory for conservatives and liberty loving people, it is too soon to call it a victory. The decision, as I noted yesterday, is virtually certain to be sent up to the U.S. Court of Appeals and to the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, the Tenth Amendment Center adds another cautionary note in a news release issued today, reposted below in full. (The release was e-mailed to The Ohio Republic, but you may view a similar blog post on the Tenth Amendment Center site). The Center believes the ruling, by accepting federal authority over health care in general, is not going far enough to protect us from government intrusion, and may actually be a "Trojan horse:"

While many conservatives laud yesterday's ruling by U.S. District Judge declaring the federal health care bill passed last year unconstitutional, analysts at the Tenth Amendment Center displayed significantly less enthusiasm, calling the ruling a Trojan Horse.

“According to Vinson – and just about everyone else in the federal judiciary – the federal government actually does have the authority to control, reform, and regulate the health care industry. They’re just going about it wrong,” TAC executive director Michael Boldin said. “This is seriously dangerous for those who believe that the founders’ Constitution needs to be followed: every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.”

As James Madison explained, the commerce clause was intended to make trade “regular” between the states, primarily to prevent interstate tariff wars. Madison wrote:

“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

In other words, the framers never envisioned Congress regulating entire industries.

“The feds are authorized to make commerce in health care across state lines, 'regular' – that’s for sure. But this power is far less than anything that’s been proposed by either political party in….well, probably about forever,” Boldin said.  

The Center's director pointed out a "better option" for those yearning for just a little decentralized freedom.

“State nullification of the federal health care law – every single word of it, as it should be.”

In fact, 11 states have bills before their legislatures in an attempt to do just that.

As reported earlier, a bill has already been introduced requiring the Ohio General Assembly to approve any expenditures by a state agency in support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HB 11); and the Ohio Project continues to gather signatures on its petition.

Perhaps a sounder and more efficient strategy would be for the Ohio General Assembly to pass an act similar to the one introduced in those 11 states.

Ohio Project update

Commenters to my post on Wednesday about HB 11, to require General Assembly approval before implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") were disappointed that no bill in the Ohio General Assembly has yet addressed the mandatory purchase of insurance.

I anticipate that there will be several state sovereignty-related bills in this session of the Ohio General Assembly. There seems to be some opinion there that the Ohio Project should be left alone to complete its petition and place it on the ballot, which is shared by the Ohio Freedom Alliance, the lobbying arm of the liberty movement in Ohio.

As of Nov. 17, the Ohio Project has collected over 250,000 signatures, not including a blitz last Election Day. They are required to have 385,245 valid signatures, and have set a goal of 577,868. They have collected the minimum 5% of the vote from the 2010 gubernatorial election in the requisite 44 counties.

New General Assembly wastes no time asserting Ohio’s sovereignty

The 129^th General Assembly is barely a week old, and already State Representatives Barbara Sears (R-Sylvania) and Ron Maag (R-Warren County) have introduced a bill (HB 11) to prohibit Ohio departments from enforcing the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (inelegantly referred to as “Obamacare”), unless it is pursuant to an act of the General Assembly, and the affected agency submits a report to the General Assembly with the following information. [For brevity, the word enforce below means to “implement and enforce” in each instance.]

•  A citation from the federal Act requiring the department to enforce the provision,
•  A list of waivers or options available to the state under the provision,
•  The steps the department would have to take to enforce the provision,
•  What individuals would be affected if the department enforced (or did not enforce) the provision,
•  The cost to the State of Ohio or its citizens of enforcing the provision, and
•  A list of consequences to the state if the department or agency does not enforce the provision.

 This bill does not duplicate the Ohio Project’s proposed Constitutional amendment exempting Ohioans from the requirement to purchase health care coverage. The Ohio Project is still circulating petitions for that amendment, which it expects to place on the November 2011 ballot.

I have included HB 11 on a new legislative spreadsheet, which may also be accessed from the Legislative Action tab above..