An argument about cost-shifting between the states demonstrates the interstate costs of health care and would have helped make a dandy constitutional argument. Jeffrey Rosen, the legal affairs editor of The New Republic argues “when it comes to providing insurance guarantees for the uninsured, any state would be worse off if it tried to solve the problem on its own, because it would end up attracting uninsured people from other states seeking to take advantage of its benefits. . . Representative McGovern of Massachusetts. . . said that a national mandate would free Massachusetts from being “forced to subsidize through higher premiums and higher Medicare and Medicaid costs the uncompensated care of people in other states who do not have health insurance.’”
Reagan’s Solicitor General, who testified for Justices Roberts and Alito at their confirmation hearings, worries they may be prepared to embark on the path of judicial activism. If the court were to invalidate the healthcare law, “It would be more problematic than Bush v. Gore,” Fried* said in an interview, referring to the case that decided the 2000 presidential race. “It would be plainly at odds with precedent, and plainly in conflict with what several of the justices have said before.” [*Charles Fried, no relation]
A big shift by women puts Obama ahead in key swing states. Romney and Obama are basically tied among men, with a one point lead for Romney, while women favor Obama 54-36. It turns out that contraception issue has played out well for Democrats. With lots of pithy quotes available for advertisements (like Mitt Romney saying, “Planned Parenthood, we’re going to get rid of that”), the issue will stay alive into the fall.
This is what Planned Parenthood has put together. Undoubtedly the Obama campaign will do much more.
Powered by Facebook Comments