VANCOUVER, Wash. — Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire asserted in a federal court brief that Attorney General Rob McKenna’s participation in a lawsuit challenging the federal health care overhaul does not represent Washington’s position.
The Columbian reported that McKenna, a Republican, is one
of 26 state attorneys general who are challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the 2010 Affordable Care Act — the requirement that all Americans enroll in a health insurance plan or pay a penalty.
But on Monday, Gregoire filed the brief, which aims to inform the federal judge ruling on the lawsuit that Washington state is already moving forward with implementing some provisions of the new law.
“The brief that he submitted says the whole act should be thrown out. I disagree with that. I want to move forward. I want to implement it,” Gregoire said Wednesday. “I’ve asked the court to remember he came in as attorney general, he does not represent the speaker, the majority leader or the governor. He does not represent the policy of the state of Washington.”
Among some of the provisions of the new law already in effect are requiring family policies to cover adult children to the age of 26; prohibit insurance policies from denying coverage to young children with pre-existing conditions; a $250 rebate to seniors to offset out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs under a Medicaid program; and require states to set up high-risk pools to cover adults who can’t find other insurance.
Gregoire’s office says the state has already received a $1 million federal grant to help with the cost of implanting the law.
The prospect that implementation could be halted “would be particularly inappropriate,” Gregoire wrote, “when the governor of Washington is not being represented by the attorney of the state here and, in fact, welcomes further implementation of the act in the state.”
“We’ve already implemented some very positive things when it comes to the Affordable Care Act,” said Karina Shagren, spokeswoman for the governor’s office. “We want to make sure the judge realizes what has been implemented, how the citizens of Washington have benefitted, and that it could be very disruptive to halt implementation now.”
Gregoire also tells U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson that McKenna does not represent her, or any other state official.
McKenna spokeswoman Janelle Guthrie says the state attorneys general want the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of the law as soon as possible.
“We are supporting expedited review by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Guthrie said. “We’re kind of wondering why the Department of Justice hasn’t moved forward in either requesting a stay or making a motion to appeal, so we can all continue the work of creating a health care system that’s affordable and accessible to all Americans without violating their rights.”
Three federal judges have upheld the constitutionality of the law, while two have struck it down.
The Obama administration has asked U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to clarify his Jan. 31 ruling striking down the health reform in its entirety. Vinson ruled that the whole law is unlawful because the mandate is central to its functioning.
The White House has appealed the adverse rulings to two appeals courts rather than asking the Supreme Court to review the contradictory rulings on an expedited basis.
Last week, Washington’s McKenna joined the other state attorneys general in opposing the administration’s request for clarification on whether Vinson’s ruling is, in effect, an injunction that would halt implementation of the law in every state.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
