NASHVILLE – The Tennessee Center for Policy Research applauds the House of Representatives for passing the “Health Care Freedom Act” Monday evening. Once signed by the governor, the act will safeguard Tennesseans from the unconstitutional federal healthcare law that has become notoriously known as ObamaCare.

The “Health Care Freedom Act” protects the right of Tennesseans to participate or not in any healthcare system, and prohibits the government from imposing fines or penalties for that decision. It also protects the right of individuals to purchase—and the right of doctors to provide—lawful medical services without government fine or penalty.

“This is a very important day for Tennesseans, as the date draws near that the federal government will force them to purchase health insurance,” said TCPR president Justin Owen. “This new law will provide Tennesseans with additional recourse against what two federal judges have already ruled to be an unconstitutional mandate. We were honored to have played a role in securing this protection for our fellow citizens.”

TCPR congratulates the main sponsors of the legislation, Sen. Mae Beavers and Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver, as well as others who have worked tirelessly on the measure. The full list of co-sponsors can be viewed at www.capitol.tn.gov.

The Senate passed the final version of the bill in February by a bipartisan vote of 21-10. It passed overwhelmingly on the House floor tonight. The bill now goes to Governor Bill Haslam for final approval.

Tennessee joins Virginia, Idaho, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma as the first eight states to pass a law or constitutional amendment protecting the healthcare choices of their citizens.

“It’s refreshing to see Tennessee lawmakers take a stand against the unconstitutional federal healthcare mandate,” said Christie Herrera of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the main proponent of this and similar legislation across the nation. “We thank the General Assembly for addressing this important issue before the true implications of ObamaCare hit home.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through the ideas of liberty.

###

Media coverage of the Health Care Freedom Act:
FoxNews, Forbes, CNBC, BusinessWeek, Tennessean, Commercial Appeal, Clarksville Leaf Chronicle, Kingsport Times-News, Jackson Sun, Action News 5 (Memphis), WBIR (Knoxville) – TN House passes the “Health Freedom Act”
WGNS Radio – Group applauds House of Representatives for Passing “Health Care Freedom Act”
TN Report – TCPR: Health Freedom Act gives Tennesseans recourse against ObamaCare
Chattanoogan – State House passes Health Freedom Act

Related posts:

1. State Senate Passes Health Freedom Act
2. TCPR applauds healthcare ruling
3. Justin Owen discusses the “Health Freedom Act”

This article originally appeared in the Tennessean.

In an age where government regulation seems to be in vogue — and possibly inevitable — for both of America’s major political parties, the land’s highest court finds that even corporations have the right to free speech.

In Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation that said corporations — and by extension, labor unions — could not spend money directly to advocate for or against a political candidate.

At a time when corporations and “big business” are being actively reviled by the nation’s media and to some extent its citizenry, the ruling from a Supreme Court dominated by Republican-appointed judges seems out of step with the times. Fortunately for democracy, the ruling is very in-step with the spirit of the First Amendment.

Previously, under McCain-Feingold, speech advocating for or against a candidate could only come from a campaign committee, political-action committee or an individual. Of course, this law created a wild array of options for shadowy political operators from both sides of the aisle, advocacy groups and big business alike to see various streams of cash find its way into the political system.

Those interested in influencing U.S. elections began creatively using the IRS tax code to establish or use entities to promulgate thinly disguised attacks on candidates in the form of “issue” advocacy. At first, so-called 527 organizations were used for the initial independent expenditure campaigns of the 1990s, though those eventually had to begin disclosing their donors.

Still, McCain-Feingold did not address the numerous tax-exempt organizations and trade groups used by both parties to get that same, barely legal message out about candidates under the guise of an issue ad. These organizations are by law allowed to keep their donors private and can take corporate money.

This high court ruling does two things: It honors the true intent of the First Amendment, and it rips an intellectually dishonest fig leaf off a campaign finance system that discouraged transparency.

There are thousands of pages of explanation and administrative rulings from the Federal Election Commission interpreting and reinterpreting the country’s campaign finance laws. All of this comes in an effort to make our electoral system “fair.” Corporations and labor unions, though, are simply groups of Americans that choose to associate for the purposes of commerce. Rightfully, the court determined that having a fair election system also meant restoring the free speech rights to these groups of people.

The real answer to a campaign finance reform is transparency, not further regulation of speech. Use of the Internet, electronic filing and real-time reporting on fundraising and expenditures are all part of the answer to making campaign spending transparent to the voter and the system accessible to all citizens.

If members of Congress and our very concerned president want to focus their law-making powers on any portion of campaign finance law, they should start by making the flow of money easier for Americans to track and understand. Regulating speech for some groups and not others is not the answer, and the Supreme Court ruling was a blow for a freer society.

Clint Brewer is the executive director of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

Related posts:

1. Bringing back respect for free speech rights
2. May 4: Panel Discussion on Campaign Finance POSTPONED
3. Full disclosure

by Dr. Richard J. Grant

In Homer’s epic, The Odyssey, Ulysses knows that he, like other men, will not be able to resist the Sirens’ song and the temptation to get closer and turn his ship into the rocky shores of destruction. He wants to lead his ship and crew safely past the land of the Sirens, but he also wants to hear the Sirens’ song and to know when he has passed the danger.

So he orders his men to fill their ears with beeswax and to bind him tightly to the mast so that he can take no action that might endanger the ship as his men continue to row.

Each of us has lived a similar story in that we have adopted rules of conduct that might at times clash with our temptations but guide us safely through the challenges of life. Sometimes we adopt these rules consciously and take responsibility for living up to them. But for the most part we absorb such rules, as part of our growing up, from the example of those who were here before us. We might never know where the rules came from, yet in our present comfort imagine that we can do without them and suffer no ill consequences.

Today, we recognize this tale of Ulysses and his men as the timeless story of our need to bind our leaders to the mast of limited authority, to keep the ship of state on the straight and narrow. In its modern form we recognize it as our Constitution, which grants limited powers and responsibilities to states and branches that comprise the federal government.

The beeswax represents the “red tape” or rules that restrict the actions of government bureaucrats. Many of us are tempted to see this red tape as a tedious impediment to getting things done, as a source of inefficiency. But the rules we call “red tape” are not there to restrict citizens engaged in private endeavors. They are there to restrict those who would serve and regulate us, and to prevent them from taking on the powers of little kings.

Our constitutional rules, as intended by the Framers, maintain a practical conservatism with regard to the foundations of our society. The Constitution is hard to change, and it limits the way that we produce legislation. By maintaining a constitutional attitude we reduce our chances of frivolous action, stoked by the passion of the moment, or the terror of the crisis, or the urgings of the demagogue.

It is a part of citizenship to remember where we came from. There is no role for those who blurt, “We won. Get over it.” We have a way of doing things that has worked for over 200 years, and the tyranny of the majority has never been an acceptable part of it.

The essential history of Western civilization and this exceptional Republic began over 2,000 years ago, not far from Jerusalem. As men learned to envision a destiny that transcends this life, no man could rightfully claim ultimate authority over any other man. Each individual was important, and in those few countries where this idea was absorbed into the culture and rules of conduct, the people as a whole flourished and grew stronger.

Ultimately, moral rules are only as good as the people who live by them, and constitutional rules are only as good as the people who interpret and enforce them. That we were fortunate enough to inherit the rules at all could be attributed to luck or to grace. However it got here, and whether or not we understand it, the culture bequeathed to us by our ancestors contains more wisdom than any one of us could expect to figure out in a lifetime.

With the light of each day now growing brighter, let us take time to remember where we really came from, and have a happy Christmas.

Related posts:

1. State Constitution Should Reign Supreme When Seating Justices
2. Tennessee Plan Puts Politics Before the Constitution
3. The Current Plan on Judges is Ridiculous