Skip to content

South Carolina to criminalize implementation of Obamacare; showdown with feds inevitable

May 14, 2013
J. D. Heyes
Source …..

Obama-Point-AngryMore and more states are beginning to challenge the Obama Administration over what they view as unconstitutional abuses of power, especially regarding firearms and health care. The latest example comes from South Carolina, whose legislature has passed a measure declaring Obamacare to be “null and void” and criminalizing its implementation.

Lawmakers in the House passed the Freedom of Health Care Protection Act by a vote of 65-39, which seeks to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.”

According to reports, the measure would permit the state attorney general, with reasonable cause, “to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction” anyone who is believed to be causing harm to any state resident or business through implementation of the Obamacare law.

‘Not now, not ever’

House members appear to be following the lead of Republican Gov. Nikki Haley, who declared in her State of the State Address earlier this year that South Carolina neither wants nor can afford President Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment, “not now, not ever.”

“To that end, we will not pursue the type of government-run health exchanges being forced on us by Washington,” she said. “Despite the rose-colored rhetoric coming out of D.C., these exchanges are nothing more than a way to make the state do the federal government’s bidding in spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on insurance subsidies that we can’t afford.”

The measure moved to the state Senate May 2 and has been referred to the Committee on Finance, the Washington Times reported.

Obamacare has been declared constitutional by creative fiat, thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the law’s individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance (the first ruling of its kind requiring citizens to engage in commerce). Parts of the law are still in court, however, such as challenges to the law’s mandated coverage of contraceptives.

‘Not in South Carolina’

In March, Haley – during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference – said she does not support the law’s expansion of Medicaid coverage to low-income Americans; the nation’s highest court, in the same ruling, found that Congress did not have the authority to mandate that states expand the benefit program.

“Not in South Carolina,” she said. “We will not expand Medicaid on President Obama’s watch. We will not expand Medicaid ever.”

Other sections of the law are already showing signs of weakness or fraying:

The insurance exchanges called for in the law are not ready. “The Obama Administration now says a special system of exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses to provide insurance will be delayed an entire year – to 2015,” Fox News has reported. The exchanges were supposed to be up and running when the law fully took effect on Jan. 1, 2014.

“Lots of small businesses struggle with providing insurance for their workers so this was supposed to facilitate it and make it easier for small business to do this,” Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told Fox News in April. “It was a huge portion of the sale job. When they passed the law in 2010 there were many senators and members of Congress who were saying ‘I am doing this because it’s going to help small businesses.'”

Even the bill’s authors lack confidence. U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of Obamacare’s principal authors, has told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, whose department will oversee major portions of Obamacare implementation, “I just see a huge train wreck coming down.” Baucus is up for reelection in 2014; the six-term senator’s approval ratings tanked following his involvement in, and unwavering support for, Obamacare, The Associated Press has reported.

The law is already affecting employers and employment – negatively. For months employers have been voicing concerns that they won’t be able to afford the law’s requirements for employee health care coverage. In fact, many say they are considering busting full-timers down to part-time status in order to avoid the requirement to insure full-time workers (

Sources for this article include:

4 Comments leave one →
  1. May 15, 2013 12:36 pm

    If properly quoting the Constitution and accurately interpreting the words of our founders somehow offends the virgin ears of the left, then let them go deaf as well as brain-dead.

    No one here is fomenting armed insurrection, aka rebellion–yet.

    But, let’s not forget that nullification, secession, and rebellion against tyranny are foundational tenets of our Republic. They form the sacrosanct basis of our Republic’s existence and of our very liberties. So, if the unschooled or timid among us is irked or otherwise dismayed by someone freely and openly discussing these bedrock principles, it is THEY who are offensive and threatening.

    Just thought I’d weigh in your comment above. No bitterness intended.

  2. upaces88 permalink
    May 14, 2013 10:34 pm

    Since I am not a politician…allow me to just throw this out there for a possible answer.
    Is it necessary to make any type of “rebellion” against the Feds this public? Can it be done quietly without shouting through the roof?

    In other words, IS there a way to do this without drawing Federal attention?

  3. May 14, 2013 10:34 am

    Hands down, the several States are empowered by the Constitution to render and and all unconstituitonal federal acts unenforceable. That extends to unconstitutional acts by ALL branches of the federal government, inclusive of the judiciary. That’s the purpose of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the CONSTITUTION. And, as we should all know by now, We the People, who through their respective States created the federal government, are the final arbiters of what is and what is NOT constitutional; thus, once the people’s State representatives say NO, then that’s that. What the People give to the feds can also be taken away. And that is as our Founders would have it.

    As usual, the revisionists will erroneously and stupidly misinterpret the Supremacy Clause to trump We the People and our immediate fiduciary agents, that being our respective State representatives. The Constitution–not the feds nor the states–is supreme. Hope that sinks in on the right as well.

  4. upaces88 permalink
    May 14, 2013 9:53 am

    There is far too much written, literally, between the lines of the HCB that have absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. Example: The Dissolution of State’s Rights; his own private military, etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: