The brief was filed by the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative Christian legal outfit founded by televangelist Pat Robertson.

The amicus brief asks the high court to take on a case previously ruled on in Florida that said the new federal health plan’s individual mandate was unconstitutional. the ACLJ called the issue one of “national importance.”

The ACLJ said that the conservative Florida judge that ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional got that part correct, but the judge shouldn’t have singled the individual mandate out. It erred when it didn’t rule the entire new health plan unconstitutional.

“Even though the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit correctly held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, it wrongly severed only the individual mandate from the ACA,” the ACLJ wrote.”The individual mandate, by the Federal Government’s own admission, is the essential component of the ACA. Should this Court also rule the individual mandate unconstitutional, it should decide to what extent (if any) the individual mandate can be severed from the rest of the ACA.”

The ACLJ was created by Robertson as a response to the American Civil Liberties Union which Robertson said is “hostile to traditional American values.”

The group has been at the heart of many controversial cases including a successful effort in Minnesota’s Anoka-Hennepin School District to drive a transgender teacher out of her job. Though the group maintains that it defends religious liberties, the organization has also assisted local communities in attempting to stop the construction of Muslim mosques.

Jay Sekulow, leader of the ACLJ has made a lot of money in his activism. The Associated Press reports that he and his family have taken in more than $33 million in the last decade.

Bachmann, Kline and Cravaack are signers of the court document along with 102 other Republicans. Rep. Erik Paulsen was the only Republican member of Minnesota’s delegation to decline to sign on.

Here’s the full list:

Paul Broun, Robert Aderholt, Todd Akin, Rodney Alexander, Steve Austria, Michele Bachmann, Spencer Bachus, Joe Barton, Rob Bishop, Diane Black, Marsha Blackburn, Larry Bucshon, Michael Burgess, Dan Burton, Francisco “Quico” Canseco, Eric Cantor, Steve Chabot, Howard Coble, Mike Coffman, Tom Cole, Mike Conaway, Chip Cravaack, Geoff Davis, Scott DesJarlais, Jeff Duncan, Blake Farenthold, Stephen Fincher, Chuck Fleischmann, John Fleming, Bill Flores, Randy Forbes, Virginia Foxx, Trent Franks, Cory Gardner, Scott Garrett, Bob Gibbs, Phil Gingrey, Louie Gohmert, Bob Goodlatte, Tom Graves, Tim Griffin, Michael Grimm, Ralph Hall, Gregg Harper, Andy Harris, Vicky Hartzler, Jeb Hensarling, Wally Herger, Tim Huelskamp, Bill Huizenga, Randy Hultgren, Lynn Jenkins, Bill Johnson, Walter Jones, Jim Jordan, Mike Kelly, Steve King, Adam Kinzinger, John Kline, Doug Lamborn, Jeff Landry, James Lankford, Robert Latta, Billy Long, Cynthia Lummis, Connie Mack, Donald Manzullo, Kenny Marchant, Kevin McCarthy, Michael McCaul, Tom McClintock, Thaddeus McCotter, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Gary Miller, Jeff Miller, Randy Neugebauer, Alan Nunnelee, Pete Olson, Ron Paul, Steve Pearce, Mike Pence, Joe Pitts, Ted Poe, Mike Pompeo, Bill Posey, Tom Price, Ben Quayle, Reid Ribble, Scott Rigell, Phil Roe, Todd Rokita, Dennis Ross, Ed Royce, Steve Scalise, Jean Schmidt, Adrian Smith, Lamar Smith, Marlin Stutzman, Lee Terry, Tim Walberg, Joe Walsh, Daniel Webster, Lynn Westmoreland, Joe Wilson, and Don Young.

St. Paul Cathedral. Source: Wikipedia

Minnesota’s Catholic bishops sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Thursday urging her department to drop a mandate on health insurance companies to cover birth control as part of their health plans.

The bishops argue that entities like Catholic Charities would have to offer insurance plans to their employees that offer coverage for contraceptives or else stop providing health benefits to employees.“While we support providing access to those services which can truly prevent disease or disability for woman such as pap smears and mammograms, we join other persons of good will who strenuously object to mandatory coverage for contraceptives and sterilization procedures,” the bishops wrote in the letter (PDF).

In August, the Obama administration announced that it would mandate that private health insurance cover women’s health care services such as cancer screenings, domestic violence support and birth control. The Catholic Church believes that birth control methods other than the rhythm method are sinful.

The bishops said the rule would “require taxpayers and providers to act against deeply-held convictions regarding the sanctity of life, as the promotion and provision of drugs like “Ella” (ulipristal acetate) and other abortifacient agents are enabled by this mandate.”

Coverage of abortion services is not included in the mandate. Calling drugs like Ella abortifacients is not the legal definition; they don’t actually cause abortions. However, as Christianity Today noted, the Catholic Church and other conservative Christians view the drug as abortion-inducing from a moral perspective.

The bishops also object to the current “conscience clause” in the mandate.

A religious organization is exempt from the mandate so long as it “has as the inculcation of religious values as its purpose, primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets, and primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.”

The bishops worry that religious charities would either have to provide health coverage that offers birth control or opt not to cover their employees at all.

“By exempting only those who employ and/or serve persons of the same religious tradition from its mandates, Catholic health care providers—the safety net for many of our marginalized sisters and brothers—cannot enjoy the exception without abandoning our mission, to the significant detriment of those in need.”

“Requiring Catholic individuals and institutions to pay for and provide abortion drugs and contraceptives contrary to Catholic teaching in the name of ‘reproductive autonomy’ is an unprecedented attack on the cherished liberties of religious and associational freedom,” said Jason Adkins, executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Roman Catholic Church in Minnesota.

Minnesota’s Catholic bishops are the latest in a long list of Catholic institutions that have spoken out against the policy, as have Catholic hospitals. At least 18 Catholic institutions of higher learning have come out against the rule as well as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

But, as our sister site the Florida Independent recently reported, not all Catholics agree with the hierarchy. In fact, some see the exception for religious institutions as dangerous for women.

“In allowing religious institutions to refuse to include contraceptive services in the health insurance plans they offer their employees, the Obama administration has once again sided with the Catholic bishops over the needs of women and their families,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. “The multi-billion dollar Catholic health care industry has a lot of influence with this administration, influence that it has now used to allow religious institutions to ride roughshod over the needs of their workers. Not only that, it ignores the consciences of those who decide that to use a modern method of family planning is what is best for them and their families.”

In fact, recent polling suggests that most Catholic women could benefit from the mandate. A poll released in April showed that only 2 percent of sexually active women followed Catholic teaching on birth control. Ninety-eight percent of Catholic women have used some form of birth control that is banned by the Church.

Thirty-four members of the Minnesota Legislature signed a “friend of the court” brief in the lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA). A Florida judge ruled the ACA unconstitutional and the case is currently in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 11th District. The Minnesota legislators filed the brief in support for the ACA’s constitutionality, and they constitute one-fifth of the 154 legislators in 26 states that filed the brief. All are DFLers. The move comes as Republicans in the Minnesota House and Senate have included provisions in the health and human services omnibus bills that would ban the ACA from being implemented in Minnesota.

The legislators argue that the ACA is constitutional using the following arguments:

The Framers Wrote The Constitution To Give The Federal Government Legislative Power To Address National Concerns, While Preserving The States’ Ability To Act In Matters That Do Not Require A National Response. The Framers Included The Commerce Clause In The Constitution To Allow The Federal Government To Legislate Affairs Among The Several States That Require A Federal Response. Under The Text And Original Meaning Of The Necessary And Proper Clause, Congress Has Broad Latitude To Employ Legislative Means Naturally Related To The Lawful Objects Or Ends Of The Federal Government. The Affordable Care Act Respects The Federal-State Partnership On Health Care And Preserves Constitutional Federalism.

The Constitutional Accountability Center filed the brief on behalf of the legislators.

“The Affordable Care Act is not only a constitutional exercise of the federal government’s power, it is an example of cooperative federalism at its very best,” CAC President Doug Kendall said in a statement. “Our clients strongly disagree with the state Attorneys General and Governors, some from their own states, about both the constitutionality of the ACA as well as the wisdom of the law, which they believe will strongly benefit their states.”

Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature have offered legislation that would ban the implementation, saying that the ACA violates the 9th and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. DFLers have said the move to ban “Obamacare” — as Republicans call it — was reminiscent of 10th amendment battles earlier in American history including that of slavery and civil rights.

The letter was signed by: Sen. Thomas Bakk, Rep. John Benson, Sen. Linda Berglin, Rep. Lyndon Carlson, Rep. Bobby Jo Champion, Sen. Richard Cohen, Rep. Jim Davnie, Sen. Scott Dibble, Rep. Andrew Falk, Rep. Patti Fritz, Rep. Marion Greene, Rep. Mindy Greiling, Rep. Jeff Hayden, Sen. Linda Higgins, Rep. Bill Hilty, Rep. Larry Hosch, Rep. Tom Huntley, Rep. Sheldon Johnson, Rep. Phyllis Kahn, Rep. Tina Liebling, Rep. Diane Loeffler, Sen. Tony Lourey, Rep. Carly Melin, Rep. Rena Moran, Rep. Erin Murphy, Rep. Mike Nelson, Sen. Ann Rest, Sen. Katie Sieben, Rep. Nora Slawik, Rep. Linda Slocum, Rep. Paul Thissen, Rep. Tom Tillbury, Sen. David Tomassoni and Rep. Jean Wagenius.

Here’s the brief:

–

Republicans in the Minnesota House have included an amendment to the health and human services omnibus bill that would ban the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in the state of Minnesota because legislators believe it to be in violation of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. On Wednesday night, Republicans argued that “Obamacare” would “eviscerate” state sovereignty, while DFLers made comparisons to the Confederacy and the arguments used by secessionists during the Civil War. One legislator even proposed changing the state song to “Dixie.”

The amendment was offered by Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen, R-Glencoe. “This amendment is the Freedom of Choice in Health Act,” he said. “This bill attempts to say that Minnesota is not going to cooperate with imposing a penalty to purchase a particular product without a penalty being imposed.”

In a bid to keep the discussion civil, Gruenhagen urged the Republicans in the body to refrain from using “Obamacare.” “As we discuss this, there are those in the chamber who are offended by the use of the term ‘Obamacare.’ Please use Affordable Care Act, or as I sometimes refer to it, the Unaffordable Care Act.”

But few listened to Gruenhagen’s suggestion.

Rep. Kathy Lohmer, R-Lake Elmo, said, “Republicans have opposed ‘Obamacare’ for the simple reason it will destroy jobs. This [amendment] will allow doctors the freedom to practice the way they see fit.”

Rep. Doug Wardlow, R-Eagan, said the Affordable Care Act would “destroy the fabric of our system.”

“The Affordable… whatever it’s called, is a terrible piece of legislation that will eviscerate the private health insurance industry in America… It will push us past a tipping point where the federal government will come to usurp any meaningful role for state governments in our dual sovereignty system,” he said. “That’s why this amendment is so very important.”

Later he said, “For decades our country has been walking down a road to a cliff. What is the cliff? The cliff is the end of state sovereignty. The cliff is turning the 9th and 10th amendments into meaningless recitation that are ignored wholly.”

He added, “This is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional, but we don’t need to wait for the Supreme Court to tell us what we know is true.”

But, the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is very much an undecided issue. Republicans on the House floor offered court decisions in Florida and Virginia as evidence to back their claims about the unconstitutional nature of “Obamacare,” but did not mention the two cases that did rule it constitutional: Thomas More Law Center v. Obama and Liberty University v. Geithner.

DFLers made that point clear at several moments in the floor debate, but their strategy seemed to be to tie the ban on the Affordable Care Act to the 10th Amendment battles waged during the Civil War and Civil Rights Eras.

Rep. Steve Simon, DFL-St. Louis Park, compared the amendment offered by Gruenhagen to those arguments used by the South during those periods of American history.

“Reasonable people can disagree with the Affordable Care Act,” he said. “But what this amendment proposes is crazy, I just have to tell you.”

“We have a tradition in this country that we don’t just opt out of laws that we think are unconstitutional,” he added. “We had this debate in the 1860s with the Civil War. We had it in 1960s with civil rights.”

Simon said he didn’t want to assert that Republicans were arguing those same issues — that of slavery and discrimination — but that the 10th Amendment argument had been used in those cases as well.

“Everyone here wants equality. I don’t want to criticize anyone’s motives,” he said. “But this is procedurally indistinguishable from the arguments made by southern segregationists.”

“For us on any issue to simply opt our of laws we don’t like, it is an act of rebellion on par with Fort Sumter in the Civil War. To say we are going to essentially break away from the union on this issue I think is shortsighted. It makes us look, as a state, backward and ridiculous.”

Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, disagreed with that sentiment. “To call it crazy, Rep. Simon, is to argue that the U.S. Constitution and Minnesota Constitution are are in fact crazy, ridiculous or silly. That, to me, is frankly offensive,” he said. “Members we are not talking about seceding from the union.”

But it was Golden Valley Democrat Rep. Ryan Winkler who hammered home the comparison to Southern segregationists.

“Using the 10th Amendment is really a bogus argument. And it’s obviously very passionately followed by certain members of activist organizations in the United States today, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is legal hogwash.”

He said he had planned to offer an amendment to the amendment that “would make the official state song of Minnesota ‘Dixie,’ and take down that portrait of Abraham Lincoln and replace it with Jefferson Davis.”

He added, “That’s what this amendment stands for, and it has no place in this building.”

The amendment passed by 71 ayes to 60 nays and is included in the health and human services omnibus bill that also passed by a similar margin.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin introduced the Republican budget proposal on Tuesday, a budget that would spend $6.2 trillion less than President Obama’s budget, repeal funding for the Affordable Care Act, phase in a voucher system for Medicare, and cut $700 billion from Medicaid over the next decade. Minnesota’s political leaders were quick to respond to the proposal, with reactions falling along partisan lines.

Tim Pawlenty, a potential candidate in 2012, praised the budget:

Thanks to Paul Ryan in Congress, the American people finally have someone offering real leadership in Washington. President Obama has failed to lead and make tough choices his entire time in the White House. While the budget is going to be debated for several months to come, the more immediate issue we face is President Obama’s plans to raise the debt ceiling next month. That’s a really bad idea. With over $14 trillion debt already, we should not allow Washington’s big spenders to put us further in the hole. We must get our fiscal house in order with real spending cuts and with real structural reforms that stop the spending spree before it bankrupts our country.

In an email to supporters, Rep. John Kline called the budget “tough” and “responsible.”

Earlier today, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (Wis.) unveiled “The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America’s Promise” – the GOP FY 2012 budget resolution. The proposal we have unveiled is a tough, responsible budget that will help America’s job creators put our nation back to work, secure America’s future by stopping Washington from spending money it doesn’t have, and preserve benefits for today’s seniors while strengthening the safety net for our children and grandchildren. This budget will restore economic certainty and put our nation back on the path to prosperity.

Rep. Michele Bachmann was a bit measured in her reaction to the budget:

“The fiscal disaster that’s been perpetuated by record levels of government spending is threatening to ruin our country. We need a way out and this plan merits our full attention. House Republicans are offering a budget resolution that is focused on job creation and debt reduction; the two key issues that the American people sent us here to address. This plan is proof that the new majority is heeding the calls of the American people to cut spending.

“The choice before us could not be clearer. President Obama’s spending plan will batter our economy and destroy jobs by adding $9.1 trillion to our national debt over the next ten years and raising taxes by $1.5 trillion. In stark contrast, the Republican plan cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the President’s budget. The plan intends to fully repeal ObamaCare and cut spending for it. This is what I have been working towards all along.

“I look forward to reviewing this plan further. It is time to put our nation on a sustainable fiscal path.”

Rep. Keith Ellison, along with Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva, penned an opinion piece zt Politico criticizing the budget. Here’s an excerpt:

In fact, this budget that punishes working families, while putting more of our tax dollars in the pockets of the rich, is nothing more than a Republican Roadmap to Ruin.

We know what happened during the 2000s — when Republicans failed to protect U.S. consumers, let Wall Street police itself and rigged the tax code in favor of a fortunate few. The Great Recession isn’t a coincidence — it’s cause and effect.

What do we see after years of corporate handouts at the expense of working families? Millions of Americans have lost their jobs and can’t find new ones. Millions of Americans have been kicked out of their homes. Americans who work hard every day and play by the rules can’t afford to send their kids to college.

House Republicans passed a bill on Thursday that calls for a budget bill containing $61 billion in cuts to become law if the Senate does not pass a spending plan by Wednesday. Bachmann, along with all but 15 Republicans, voted for the bill that would “deem” the budget bill into law, also known as a “self-executing rule.” One year ago, Bachmann called a similar bill “violence to the Constitution” and suggested impeachment if Democrats “deemed and passed” health care reform into law.

The move was not unanimous among Republicans. Libertarians such as Rep. Ron Paul of Texas voted against it, as did fellow Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, who said the bill “violates my conscious and the Constitution, and I cannot vote for it.”

All of Minnesota’s Republican members of Congress voted for the self-executing rule.

On Sean Hannity’s Fox show last year, Bachmann said of the deem-and-pass strategy and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “That should laugh her out of the House and there should be people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this. That’s how bad this is. I mean, trust me, Dennis Hastert never could have gotten away with this.”

In fact, Bachmann took to numerous media outlets to oppose the strategy, which Democrats soon dropped in favor of an up or down vote. The measure at the time was being proposed by New York Rep. Louise Slaughter.

“They use the Slaughter rule in the House, something that hasn’t been done before,” Bachmann told NewsMax’s Ronald Kessler.

And on Fox’s Red Eye, Bachmann told the host, “It does great violence to the Constitution. We call it the ‘slaughter the House rule.’ It’s never been done before in the history of the Congress.”

Bachmann was rebuked by fact-checkers when she made the claim that deem and pass was never used before, and she quickly backtracked.

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, criticized Bachmann on the House floor on Thursday over the bill.

“But they pretend in their language what is clearly contrary to the Constitution. Because they say, if it doesn’t pass, the provisions of H.R. 1, the bill they’ve sent to the Senate, passed by the house on February 19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law. In other words, we’re going to deem it passed,” he said. “Michelle Bachmann, apparently may be a candidate for president said this, that deem and pass ‘ignored the constitution and warranted the impeachment of the House Speaker… there should be people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this.’”

Leaders on Capitol Hill have given indications that they are close to reaching a compromise that would prevent a shutdown of the federal government. The speculative compromise would include $33 billion in cuts, well below the $61 billion the Republicans in the House have proposed. Rep. Michele Bachmann criticized the deal saying that the Democrats want the government to shut down and that they would not compromise. Bachmann said she and the tea party would not compromise either.

The Blue Dog Democrats have been a target of negotiations with Republicans seeking to woo them to their side as a compromise takes shape.

Rep. Collin Peterson of the Blue Dogs said the talks of compromise weren’t “all that effective” in an interview with Talking Points Memo. He cited House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who Peterson said “talked down to” conservative and moderate Democrats.

And on the other side of the aisle, talks looked ready to break down on Thursday as House Speaker John Boehner balked at the $33 billion figure after pressure from tea party members. To make matters worse, Bachmann made several media appearances on behalf of the Tea Party Caucus to demand that any compromise include the defunding of health care reform, a provision that President Obama and the Democratic Senate are likely to reject.

In an interview with conservative website NewsMax, Bachmann said that Democrats want a government shutdown and would not compromise.

“That is that the Democrats’ political plan is to shut down government because they think they will benefit from doing that,” said Bachmann. “Now we know that if the government shuts down it’s not the tea party’s fault, it’s the Democrats’ fault, because they’ve made a decision they’re not interested in compromise. They just want to see the government shut down.”

“They aren’t interested in a practical solution, and I think people all across the United States are tired of political games.”

But while she criticized Democrats for allegedly being unwilling to compromise, she stated she wouldn’t budge either.

“What I’m going along with is to be able to have defunding of ‘Obamacare.’ I cannot vote for a budget bill unless it has the defunding of ‘Obamacare.’ We’re talking about well over $1 trillion over a number of years and this will break the bank in the United States.”

Bachmann repeated that at a tea party rally in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.

Here’s Bachmann speaking with CNS News:

On Wednesday, the Twin Cities Tea Party Patriots sent out an action alert demanding that House Speaker John Boehner ask for $100 billion in cuts.

Stand Up To Insure We Get Cuts. Call your Congressmen and Senators. 33 Billion is not enough. As of this writing the Drudge Report is reporting a deal between the House and Senate for 33 Billion in Cuts. What happened to the 100 Billion in cuts!!!!!!! We need to burn the phone lines in Washington. Please Call on 3/31 and Melt The Phone Lines… Call!!! Call!!! Call!!! Call!!! Melt the Lines!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips took Boehner to task for even suggesting a $33 billion cut.

Charlie Sheen is now making more sense than John Boehner. Early on, the GOP promised to cut $100 billion from the budget. The Republicans in the House quickly went squishy on that and had to be cajoled into cutting only $61 billion. Now, John Boehner is saying when the Senate comes back and they start negotiating…the $61 billion figure is not safe.

Rick Unger of Forbes quipped, “Charlie Sheen may be making more sense than Speaker Boehner, but unlike Sheen, the Speaker is clearly not winning.”

Bachmann has already started her push for adding a provision to defund health care reform to the mix. On Wednesday, she introduced a bill to defund the $105 billion she insists was “hidden” in the Affordable Care Act.

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s announcement last week that she’s mulling the idea of becoming a potential contender for the GOP nomination for president in 2012 has brought about a new round of fact-checking her statements this week. PolitiFact gave her a “Pants on Fire” rating on Tuesday, while Poligraph gave her an “inconclusive” on Wednesday. A member of Congress even used committee testimony this week to try and debunk one of her more frequent claims.

On the campaign trail in Iowa last weekend, Bachmann offered an assertion that PolitiFact, a project of the St. Petersburg Times, found completely false. Bachmann said, “Let’s look at the number one. Number one. That’s the number of new drilling permits under the Obama administration since they came into office.”

She continued, “Gee, maybe that has something to do with this next figure. Let’s take a look, $1.83. That is the price that gasoline was the day before Barack Obama took office as president of the United States. Is it time for a change?”

Obama put a moratorium on offshore drilling following the an explosion at a BP oil rig that killed 11 people and caused one of the worst man-made environmental disasters in U.S. history.

PolitiFact found that the Obama administration has approved numerous permits for offshore drilling, both deepwater (six permits) and shallow (39 permits). PolitiFact gave Bachmann its lowest rating, Pants on Fire.

As an aside, Sen. Al Franken signed on to the Use It or Lose It Act of 2011 directing oil companies to develop oil production on federal lands they currently lease or lose their leases in an attempt to ramp up oil production.

On Wednesday, Minnesota Public Radio’s Poligraph evaluated another of Bachmann’s statements during her Iowa campaigning: “From the day it passed one year ago until today, there hasn’t been one week that a majority of Americans haven’t said ‘kill that bill.’”

Poligraph notes, “Bachmann’s correct that there’s solid support for repealing some or all the health care bill. What’s unclear is whether the majority of Americans do, or if they have every week for the last year. One poll supports this claim, others don’t. As a result, Bachmann’s claim is Inconclusive.”

Bachmann’s office said the numbers she was referencing came from Gallup, but Poligraph notes that other pollsters have found that the number of Americans who support a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act varies widely.

Also on Wednesday, Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey grilled Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf about Bachmann’s infamous claim that $105 billion was “hidden” in the health care reform bill. ThinkProgress caught the exchange:

REP. FRANK PALLONE (D-NJ): We considered a bill that would repeal funding for section 1311, the health insurance exchange planning and establishment grants. Did you know about that funding stream?

ELMENDORF: Yes, Congressman.

PALLONE: Okay, so it wasn’t hidden. What about section 4002, the prevention and public health fund. Did you know about that?

ELMENDORF: Yes, Congressman.

PALLONE: So that wasn’t hidden either. And what about funding for school based health centers? Did you know about that?

ELMENDORF: Yes, Congressman.

After a heated discussion Tuesday evening, the House Health Reform Committee passed a bill along party lines that would halt implementation of the federal Affordable Care Act in Minnesota until the constitutionality of the law is considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. The committee meeting grew contentious as Republicans’ repeated use of the term “Obamacare” led Democrats to consider dubbing the eight-year Iraqi war the “Bush wars,” and DFLers trying to preserve key aspects of the act including a ban on rejecting patients — especially children — who have preexisting health conditions for coverage. Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen, the bill’s author, said that voting against his bill amounted to rejecting the “Creator.”

HF468 states that state funds cannot be used to implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act until the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional. In his statement in support of the bill, Gruenhagen said, “I realize people of good will can disagree on this.”

The Glencoe Republican spoke of natural law as being derived from a creator.

“Your vote today will indicate whether you primarily hold to the belief in a creator and the absolutes rooted in natural law which are found in the Declaration of Independence and preamble to the Constitution, or you believe in sociological law, which rejects a creator and replaces the creator with judges who become our king and nobility accountable only to themselves,” he said.

Democrats on the committee objected to the way the bill was discussed and how the committee meeting was handled.

Rep. Rena Moran of St. Paul said she would prefer the committee used the proper name for the bill and not “Obamacare,” a neologism crafted by Republicans.

“It would be really nice if you would use the proper term the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “I need to hear that.”

Rep. Tina Liebling of Rochester also objected to the use of the term. “It’s offensive in the way its used, and it’s used in a very partisan way,” Liebling said.

The chair of the committee, Republican Rep. Steve Gottwalt of St. Cloud, interrupted Liebling and said major media outlets use the term, so he would allow it. “I respect people’s sensibilities, but I think there is enough common usage in society right now around this to say that either term can be used.”

Liebling responded, “Mr. Chair, I think I had the floor. I’m sorry, but it’s quite unusual to be interrupted in the middle of a statement. I was about to end my statement by simply saying that from now on I think I will now refer to the Iraqi war as ‘the Bush war’ and say that over and over.”

“Rep. Liebling you’re out of order,” Gottwalt said. “That is so off-topic.”

That exchange was similar to one in Montana last month. A Republican legislator said he would only use the term “Obamacare” when referring to the Affordable Care Act, and a Democrat objected by saying, “We don’t call the Iraqi war ‘Bush’s War,’ and by that same reasoning, I don’t think it’s appropriate to call this ‘Obamacare.’”

Later in the meeting, Liebling made it clear she wasn’t finished with that line.

She mentioned that many testifiers noted the cost of the Affordable Care Act. “The Iraq war has caused the state of Minnesota $18 billion,” she said, prompting Gottwalt to declare her out of order.

“Rep. Liebling, I’m asking you to cease,” he said.

Liebling shot back, “I resent being censored. I have First Amendment Rights, and I have an election certificate. I think it’s entirely on topic,” she said, noting that many testifiers and committee members have cited the federal deficit in criticizing the Affordable Care Act.

Democrats had offered a series of amendments to Gruenhagen’s bill to retain certain parts of the Affordable Care Act, including allowing children under age 26 to remain on their parents’ health insurance plans, maintaining the act’s ban on dropping coverage for children who have preexisting medical conditions and maintaining tax breaks for small businesses.

Each amendment failed along party lines, and Gruenhagen’s bill passed the committee.

Before it passed, however, one committee member asked testifier Kim Crockett of the Minnesota Free Market Institute what would happen if the Supreme Court never ruled on the Affordable Care Act.

DFL Rep. Patti Fritz asked, “Would that bar Minnesota from forever participating in the Affordable Care Act?”

“You are right, they could decline to hear the case, though it’s unlikely,” she said. “Minnesota would be left with a legal quandary.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann hit the cable news circuit this week alleging that the Affordable Care Act contained $105 billion in “hidden” spending. She dubbed the revelation a “bombshell” and announced the news on Meet the Press, Fox’s Sean Hannity show, Fox’s “On the Record” with Greta Van Susteren and WCCO’s Sunday Morning with Esme Murphy over the last few days. Politifact found Bachmann’s claim to be “barely true,” but the Washington Post disagreed, giving Bachmann four of its “Pinocchios.”

Politifact said it was “deluged” with suggestions that the Pulitzer Prize–winning fact-checker rate Bachmann’s statements, and when it did, it found her claims to be barely true. Here’s why:

We added up the spending Bachmann was referring to and got $104 billion — very close to her number. Where our analysis diverges is her claim that the spending was “secret.”

We concluded that Bachmann has a point if you look at at the amount of media coverage the appropriations and transfers inspired. There was hardly any. However, she went further than that, charging that the provisions were passed “secretly, unbeknownst to members of Congress.” And that was not accurate.

The spending provisions were in the plain language of the bill; they did not vary dramatically from past congressional practice; and the bill was made public for 72 hours before the vote. On balance, we rated Bachmann’s statement Barely True.

The Washington Post, however, found Bachmann’s claims to be very false, giving her four out of four “Pinocchios,” a reference to the chronically lying puppet of children’s story fame.

“There is no ‘bombshell’ except Bachmann’s bombast,” wrote the Post. “She is correct that Congress already has appropriated some spending in future years, but her claim that this money was ‘hidden’ does not have credibility. The money for these programs was clearly described and analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office before the legislation was voted into law.”