Stupak Amendment meaning nothing. The government can decide what, if any, healthcare the elderly will receive, whether they are "worthy" of healthcare, or if they're took sick or too old. From opposingviews.com:
Supreme Court's Decision to Uphold Health Care Law is a Blow to Pro-Lifers Submitted by Baptist Press on Jun 29, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court has narrowly upheld the 2010 health-care law, dealing a disheartening setback to pro-life and religious liberty advocates who fervently oppose the controversial measure.
The Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and GuideStone Financial Resources have protested those provisions and others. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has led a charge against the abortion/contraceptive mandate and the failure to protect freedom of conscience and have been joined by pro-life and religious liberty organizations. Multiple lawsuits challenging the mandate have been filed in federal court.
"It is astonishing that the majority of the justices did not see the bill for what it really is: a blatant violation of the personal freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and perhaps a mortal blow to the concept of federalism," ERLC President Richard Land said in a written statement.
In addition to continuing to protest the "abortion/contraceptive mandate" and its insufficient religious exemption, Land said, "Greater government involvement in medical care also means that the sick, elderly and terminally ill will suffer." He suggested many patients will have to wait longer to receive treatment as the government determines how to allocate resources.
O.S. Hawkins, president of GuideStone Financial Resources, said in a written release, "As I told messengers at the Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans last week, we will never allow this Administration, or any other, to tell us that we have to provide abortive drugs like morning-after pills. ... We will maintain our advocacy on behalf of ministers we are privileged to serve."
The Supreme Court's decision quickly turned attention to the other two branches of government, especially the White House.
The Republican leadership of the House of Representatives announced it would hold a vote July 11 to repeal the health care law. The House is likely to approve the proposal, but the Democrat-led Senate undoubtedly will reject it. [Congress is playing a cruel game with the American public. They have no intention of overturning the health care law.]
United States. And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare. [How can we forget that Romney's healthcare bill in Massachusetts was the blueprint for Obamacare]
"Let's make clear that we understand what the Court did and did not do," he said. "What the Court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it's good policy."
President Obama said, "Whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold it."
The high court "upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance," he said. Obama added he is "as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now or 10 years from now or 20 years from now, we'll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward."
Barack Obama being sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts
without a Bible and in front of picture of famous freemason
People should recognize that Obamacare is not about healthcare. It is about controlling our lives. The government now has the ability to reach into every single area of our lives, including the most private and personal. It is about the government making every decision for us, including the right to live. The United States Constitution is dead and personal freedom is dead, and the US Supreme Court, led by Catholic Chief Justice John Roberts, put the final nail in the coffin.
Foes of the law undoubtedly grieved the fact Kennedy, the normal swing vote between the high court's liberal and conservative wings, agreed to invalidate the entire law, but Roberts, considered a staunch originalist when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, sided with the nominees of Presidents Clinton and Obama.
As an alternative to its Commerce Clause argument, the administration contended the requirement that a person who refuses to buy insurance must make a payment to the Internal Revenue Service serves as a tax, Roberts said.
[I don't know about you, but my mind just goes completely "tilt" at this statement. The government can tax us because we breathe? For that is what this tax is all about. Because we are alive, the government can tax us for not having healthcare. This mean we can be taxed for absolutely anything and everything. They can tell us what we can and cannot buy, exactly how we can spend our money. And if we don't do exactly what we are told, we will be fined with a tax and the IRS will come after us if we don't pay. We will then be subject to incarceration.]
That may not be the "most natural interpretation of the mandate," but it is a "fairly possible one" under the high court's precedent and the law should be granted the "full measure of deference owed to federal statutes." [In other words, the government is now in complete charge of our lives.]
[But isn't it their job to uphold the Constitution, in which they have failed miserably? In fact, they are guilty of murdering the Constitution and our rights as citizens of the United States of America.]
Joining Roberts in the majority were Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
If the justices had invalidated the "individual mandate," they would have addressed whether any of the law could survive minus a provision that appeared so integral to its existence.
And the first victims were the US Constitution
and personal freedom
The four dissenting justices charged the majority with saving a law Congress did not craft. [This is extremely important because only Congress can make laws, not the executive branch, which is the presidency. as happened in this case. Even the Supreme Court cannot make law, they can only interpret it.]
"The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty," they said in dissent. "It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult. . . ."