When the Democrat-controlled Congress, with the urging of the Obama Administration, passed a complex health care reform bill in the middle of the night, it signaled a continuation of a push toward a socialistic-leaning government in this country. It also woke a majority of Americans up.
Prior to the 2010 Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature, and amid the debate over the national health care issue, two bills were pre-filed by Republican House Members. Those bills were followed by two more, another in the House and one in the Senate, after the session began.
These state constitutional amendments would “prohibit any person, employer or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system.” They are all very similar to measures submitted in at least 30 other state legislatures by those wishing to signal opposition to the Democrats’ socialized health plan. Citizens in some states with initiative and referendum processes are currently collecting petition signatures to force the amendments to the ballot.
The House Republican Caucus officially requested that at least one of the bills be placed on the Health Committee agenda for consideration. Despite strong public sentiment across Alabama to the Obama plan, not one of the House versions has even been allowed to be considered.
In the Senate, after initially refusing to vote on the bill, with all Democrats either voting no or refusing to vote, political reality must have set in because the bill was actually placed on the calendar and passed. It remains to be seen if the bill will ever see the light of day in the House before the session is over.
I believe that proposing and passing these constitutional amendments is the right thing to do. Some will say that the states can’t trump a federal law, and that is true. But this is really a question of states’ rights and what authority the federal government actually holds by the U.S. Constitution.
Passing a state constitutional amendment, which would have to be voted on statewide by the people of Alabama, would send a clear signal that Alabamians do not want the federal government involved in every facet of their lives, including telling them which doctor they can use.
As Republicans, this issue goes to the core of our beliefs. We favor smaller government and less, not more, government influence over our daily lives. It is believed that these state amendments will assist in court cases questioning the federal constitutional authority of Congress to force citizens to purchase something they do not wish to purchase, a mandate which has never been previously demanded of the populace.
Congress passed the federal healthcare bill by an extremely thin margin in the middle of the night, a bill that was formulated in secret and not read or understood by the vast majority of those who voted for it. President Obama, who promised transparency during his campaign, had pledged to wait five days before signing any bill on his desk to give the people of America plenty of time to read it on the White House website. He signed this bill into law less than 12 hours following passage.
There are some serious, and I believe valid, concerns and questions over the issue of nationalized health care. Are we, as a nation, going down the path of socialism? Can we afford to put yet another entitlement program into place when others, like Social Security and Medicaid, are already close to insolvency?
I believe Alabama should wade into this issue and let the courts know our opinion.