What We're Reading - June 28
Big day today with the expected ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, so we’re skipping straight to today’s highlights. Here’s what we’re reading this morning…
No matter what happens with the Supreme Court ruling, House Republicans pledge to repeal the health care law. “John Boehner: If Supreme Court doesn’t strike down health-care law, ‘House will move to repeal what’s left of it’”—“ House Republican leaders reiterated Wednesday that they will move to repeal the entire 2010 health-care reform law if the U.S. Supreme Court fails to strike it down. ‘We’ve made it pretty clear and I’ll make it clear one more time: If the court does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal what’s left of it,’ House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters Wednesday morning. ‘‘Obamacare’ is driving up the cost of health care and making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers.’ House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) added that the health law ‘was a mistake. We would like to see the kind of health care that will allow patients to make decisions, not bureaucrats here in Washington.’ ‘As we know, this bill has also presented big problems for our employers,’ Cantor added. ‘Small businessmen and women are having a difficult time keeping the lights on, much less hiring new people. ‘Obamacare’ just makes it more difficult because it makes it more expensive for these business people to create jobs.’ Beyond their general comments, neither Boehner nor Cantor provided specifics on their path forward, waiting until the court rules before spelling out any further plans.”
Not only is Rand Paul holding up flood insurance over bill over the issue of abortion, but he’s holding up a bill for D.C. autonomy too. “Rand Paul’s situational principle”—“SEN. RAND PAUL (R-Ky.) came to Washington on the wave of the tea party movement to limit big government. ‘I think a lot of things could be handled locally . . . the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions,’ he said during his 2010 campaign. So how to explain his spoiling a move to give the District autonomy over its own tax dollars by — and this is really rich — injecting the federal government into local affairs? We thought we could no longer be surprised by congressional hypocrisy when it comes to the nation’s capital, but Mr. Paul’s willingness to turn his back on his supposed libertarian principles and devotion to local rule is truly stunning. A bill that would give D.C. officials the ability to spend local dollars — we repeat, locally collected, locally paid tax dollars — without congressional approval was pulled from consideration this week after Mr. Paul introduced a set of amendments that would dictate to the city policies on guns, abortions and unions. “The last senator I would expect it from,” said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), telling us that she has never seen so many amendments offered at one time by a single member to restrict D.C. rights. Ironically, Ilir Zherka, head of the advocacy group DC Vote, said that Mr. Paul initially had been seen as a potential ally for the District because of his views on small government.”
A bad law in South Dakota would question women’s ability to make their own decisions. “Federal Judge Says South Dakota Doctors Should Now Start Assessing Patients For Coercion Or Mental Health Problems”—“A federal judge has ruled that South Dakota can begin enforcing part of its onerous anti-choice bill, previously known as H.B. 1217 but then renamed H.B. 1254 after minor tweaks were made to the law. The bill enforced a 72-hour waiting period, a mandatory session with a crisis pregnancy center worker, and a mental health evaluation by the abortion provider all prior to a termination. Now, one of those three measures is going into effect.
Via The Associated Press:
U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier says the state can enforce provisions requiring that doctors who perform abortions must first assess women to determine if they have been coerced into getting abortions or are at risk of suffering psychological problems if they have an abortion.
There is still no ruling on the other part of the law, requiring women to wait three days between the point in which she meets with a doctor for an initial assessment, or that forces her to visit a religious-based crisis pregnancy center for a consultation before having a termination.”