State Senate urges lawsuit against federal health care

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 | 7:47 p.m. CST; updated 1:48 p.m. CST, Thursday, January 20, 2011

JEFFERSON CITY — On the day the U.S. House of Representatives voted to repeal the federal health care law, the Missouri Senate passed a resolution urging Attorney General Chris Koster to join a lawsuit against the federal government's health care law.

"Missouri was the first state in the entire nation to give its citizens the right to vote on (health care), and we received from our voters an overwhelming 71 percent majority that sent a megaphone message to Washington, D.C., that we want to make our own health care decisions, we do not want them coming from Washington, D.C.," said the resolution's sponsor, Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-St. Louis County.

"While other (attorneys general) in the nation have voluntarily joined this lawsuit as plaintiffs on behalf of their citizens in their states ... our (attorney general) has not stepped in to defend these citizens," Cunningham said.

The nonbinding resolution calls for Koster to join existing lawsuits with attorneys general from other states, team up with Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder — who filed a similar lawsuit in July — or to file his own separate lawsuit. The existing lawsuits challenge the constitutionality of the health care law, passed in March, which requires all adult Americans to purchase health care or face penalties for noncompliance.

Last week, the state House of Representatives passed a similar nonbinding resolution, calling for action from the lieutenant governor and Gov. Jay Nixon. The Senate passed the resolution with a voice vote.

Sen. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis, said the lawsuit defends the civil liberties and constitutional rights impeded upon by the federal health care law.

"These very limited powers that we've delegated to the federal government are just that — they're limited. This is what you have authority over, and everything else goes back to the people and the states," Lembke said.

"What the federal government is saying to the people through Obamacare is that we're gonna mandate what you do with your property. You're gonna take these resources, your property that you've gone out and worked for, and you're gonna buy this product," he said.

Sen. Jolie Justus, D-Jackson County, was the only one to speak against the bill. Justus said it was a waste of time to pass a nonbinding resolution to send a message to an independent branch of government and time would be better spent discussing economic reform and jobs. Regardless of Missouri's participation, the result of the lawsuit will still affect the state in the same way, Justus said.

"Whether Missouri gets involved in it or not, the result of the litigation will be binding on the state of Missouri," Justus said. "So for instance, if they decide that the federal mandate is unconstitutional, then Missouri's law that we passed in August of last year will stand. If they decide in that lawsuit that the federal mandate is constitutional then Missouri's law will be thrown."

To join the lawsuit would simply mean another expense to the state, Justus said.

"There is absolutely no sense in us as a state using taxpayer time and taxpayer money to join a lawsuit that we absolutely will have no effect over. It's gonna be won or lost, and it will apply to Missouri," she said.

Cunningham, however, defended the necessity of Koster's joining the existing lawsuit.

"If our attorney general gets in as a plaintiff, it gives him a seat at the table. He can change things. He has the ability to really have his input in there, which is our input, our citizens' input," Cunningham said. "Additionally, if he gets in, it could make a difference in the outcome of this lawsuit. So is it important, does it matter? You bet your boots it matters."

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Jeff Geesler January 22, 2011 | 10:46 a.m.

I am commenting from North Carolina.

Let me say that Missouri allowing voters to decide is remarkable in these times of excessive government control over the citizens of the nation. I wish NC would have passed a similar right to vote. (although the mid terms threw out over 100 years of state democratic control)

I'm sure the voters must have considered the additional cost of joining the FL suit. It is not a matter of principle or cost. The effects combined with the other 25 states (plus VA with its own suit) are and will be legal precedent and the FL judge has already hinted that the VA judges ruling would be in similar light.

Also note the importance of this suit also goes beyond the mandate clause, fines and imprisonment. It also reflects the constitutionality of inter-state trade. In addition, the issue of passing this law without the process of state approval and referendum is highly questionable as medicaid and medicare had to go through.

As you well know states can modify certain aspects of same to adapt to their particular needs. Not to coin the statement "rammed down our throats" as the reason of not passing or allowing a motion to have state wide approval on the house floor, but that seems the case.

The full impact of states joining the suit will also provide precedent in other ways including states authority being constitutionally upheld where similarities of common issue between states, inter-state trade and communication between state legislatures. This will provide an abundance of comparative measures shared to help all states improve public service and lower costs to the citizens and improve economic stability without raising taxes.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.