CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Wyoming voters will consider a health care freedom amendment to the Declaration of Rights in the state constitution on Nov. 6.
If Amendment A garners a 50 percent majority, the Wyoming Constitution will guarantee citizens of the state the right to make their own healthcare decisions with minimal governmental interference.
Article 1, Section 38 – Right of Health Care Access
(a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions. The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person.
(b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so.
(c) The legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.
(d) The state of Wyoming shall act to preserve these rights from undue govern-mental infringement.
Cheyenne based Republic Free Choice blogger Steve Klein points out that section (d) would compel Wyoming lawmakers and state officials to interpose for their citizens and block implementation of Obamacare, or any other federal health care mandates.
“It will make it a duty of all branches of the Wyoming government to respect health care freedom,” he said.
Not every liberty minded Wyoming citizens support the amendment. An organization called Wyoming Watchdogs urges voters to reject the amendment.
“This bill replaces federal encroachment with state encroachment upon individual rights. This amendment needs to be killed to protect and preserve healthcare freedom.”
Klein points out that passing the amendment is just the first step.
“It will not by itself protect health care freedom. After it is ratified, an active citizenry must ensure it is followed,” he said. “Amendment A, when ratified and utilized by vigilant Wyomingites, will be a powerful step against federal and state violations of health care freedom.”
The news sent Think Progress blogger Ian Millhiser into an apoplectic fit.
“The fact that these efforts violates [sic] the (U.S.) Constitution’s explicit text, which provides that duly enacted federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land” did not seem to bother them in the least.”
It would be nice if, just once, the folks who oh-so-smugly smack down the “supremacy clause” card would include the full text of the clause in their rants instead of concocting their own bastardized paraphrases, leaving out the key phrase in the clause.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.
In other words, no matter how large a congressional majority an act manages to garner, regardless of the stated opinion of five of nine federal employees working in the Supreme Court building, no matter the will of the president, if an act claims powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, it cannot stand up as a legitimate “law.” In fact, it is illegal, immoral and unjust.
And the Constitution does not delegate power to the federal government to manage a national health care system.
I always wonder about people like Millhiser, who so tenaciously defend “federal laws” and SCOTUS rulings as if they were handed down by Moses on stone tablets: would he have advanced an equally vigorous defense of the duly passed and Court approved Fugitive Slave Act of 1850? Would he have condemned state governments in virtually every northern state that passed personal liberty laws, protecting due process for black people and defying federal authority? Would Millhiser have written the following sentence?
“But their legal obligations under the Fugitive Slave Act will not change one bit, even if the proponents of this amendment deceive them into thinking they have.”
Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Wyoming voters will join citizens in Alabama, Montana and Florida considering health care freedom legislation in the general election.
For more information on health freedom legislation across the U.S., click HERE.
For information on health care nullification legislation, click HERE.
For model health care nullification legislation, click HERE.
And if you want to get involved in leading a health care nullification movement in your state, click HERE.
Latest posts by Mike Maharrey (see all)
- Federal Judge: Government “Special Needs” Trump Fourth Amendment - November 25, 2015
- Michigan Bill Would Place Limits on Drones, Hinder Federal Surveillance Program - November 24, 2015
- New Hampshire Legislative Committee Considering Bill to Reject Federal Militarization of Police - November 23, 2015