A ruling came down yesterday about a case that was brought against Obama’s Health reforms by a Christian public-interest law firm representing 4 uninsured people in Michigan, who claim that they don’t want to pay the tax penalties for being uninsured that they would need to pay under the new law because those funds can be used to fund abortions. The Christian law firm is challenging “Obamacare” on the basis that the healthcare law is exceeding the powers Congress has to control commerce, is infringing on people’s 1st amendment rights to practice their religion and is in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 5^th amendment.  The biggest issue at stake is the concern that upholding Congress’ right to force people to buy insurance will now give the federal government the ability to regulate citizen’s inactivity (their choice to refrain from acting).

The Michigan federal judge hearing the case upheld the healthcare law as constitutional. He said that although the Supreme Court hasn’t addressed whether congress can regulate inactivity, people’s opting out of insurance programs “substantially affect[s] interstate commerce” because it drives up insurance premiums and healthcare costs covered by taxpayers. Although the healthcare bill was upheld in this case, the ruling doesn't bind the courts in other districts so this is not the final word on the constitutionality of the law, which is still being challenged.

For the full article from the LA Times, click here

For more on Constitutional Law, take a look at The Basics of Civil Rights Litigation by Scott Michelman