ABCNews.com - Appeals Court Judges Skeptical of Health Care Law's Defense

September 23, 2011
By Ariane de Vogue, ABCNews.com

Judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Friday, in a lawsuit brought by four individuals who said the law violated their religious freedom, expressed skepticism about  the constitutionality of a key provision of the health care law.

At issue before the three-judge panel was the individual mandate,  a central provision of the Affordable Care Act, which requires individuals to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Beth  S. Brinkmann, the lawyer arguing for the Obama administration, said that Congress was well within its authority to pass the law, because health care costs across the country had spiraled out of control, and the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate interstate economic activity.

But Judge Laurence H. Silberman,  appointed to the federal bench by President  Reagan, questioned the limits of the government’s authority.

“What limiting principles do you articulate?” he asked Brinkmann. “What kind of mandate could the government come up with that would be unconstitutional?” . . . .

. . . . Two of the four plaintiffs challenging the health care law on religious grounds said they didn’t want to be forced to buy health insurance because they believed that God would  take care of them, and they didn’t want to have to pay a penalty if they opted out.

In court, their lawyer, Edward L. White III of the American Center for Law and Justice, said that the Constitution did not have the authority to “force” his clients into a marketplace. One of the plaintiffs, Charles Edward Lee, said he believed in faith healing. White told the judges the mandate was “radical” and that while the Commerce Clause might allow Congress to regulate interstate economic activity, Congress did not have the right to regulate “inactivity” or the choice not to participate in the health care market.

You can read the entire story here.