MTV Movie Awards Pushing Limits

An interesting story from www.yaf.org about Elena Kagan. This follows this post about U.S. elections, such as the one on June 8. This follows this post about forced abortions in China. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

MTV Movie Awards Pushing Limits

An article from Jonathan McKee at TheSource4YM.com
I don't think anyone could have said it more true than New Moon star Peter Facinelli at the close of the MTV Movie Awards last night when he joked, "I've never heard the word 'f**k' used so many times in one evening." He wasn't kidding. Joe Pesci was covering his ears! The poor guy hitting the sensor button probably developed a callus in the first half hour! The sad fact is, the rampant use of f-bombs was probably one of the least worrisome elements of the evening. MTV provided girl-on-girl action, oral sex gestures, penis jokes, testicle jokes... and probably the icing on the cake, Christina Aguilera singing a song about receiving oral sex, complete with a close up of a little red heart-light lit up on her crotch at the end of the performance. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. MTV has put themselves in a bind. Each year they try to trump the previous year, and the easiest way to do that is to push the limits even further. It's difficult to even imagine the show 10 years from today. Second Guessing My Own Recommendation For years I've been recommending that parents and youth workers watch this show to harness just a glimpse at youth culture. I've said it year after year, "I only watch three of these shows a year: The MTV Movie Awards, The Teen Choice Awards, and the MTV Video Music Awards." Those three shows alone give anyone an accurate picture of exactly what our entertainment world is marketing to today's teenagers. Unfortunately, that little "taste" is starting to make me a little bit ill. Last night my wife and I were driving home when I remembered that I had to watch the show so I could write this article. I dreaded the chore. I could think of a hundred things I'd rather do. But more than that, I am just getting tired of MTV, and the CW, and ABC trying desperately to target teenagers to watch their trash. It's heartbreaking to me that adults are pimping this kind of content to our kids for one simple reason: ratings and money. Yes... it sounds like two reasons. But I assure you, they are one and the same. Jersey Shore and Katy Perry The show really began an hour before the show with the red carpet interviews. This year's red carpet interview was basically a giant infomercial for MTV's new reality show Jersey Shore, with Shore character Snooki on the mike helping MTV regulars interview the stars. In this pre-show, we got to hear Katy Perry joke about everything from doing a threesome to rumors of her performing naked. "I'm a tease," she offered. (Hmmmmm.... I hadn't noticed. Maybe next time she'll admit that she's a sellout too.) The pre-show showed us glimpses of Katy's racy music video with Snoop Dog, and then an exclusive, the first 10 minutes of Jersey Shore-Season Two. Wow! I'm going to sound like my grandpa here, but, "I can't believe they call that entertainment." One of the characters of the show described it like this: (imagine a thick jersey accent) "Lot's of fights, lot's of hookups, lots of drama. One minute you got three girls in a Jucuzzi, the next minute someone's in jail and you have to bail them out." The dialogue was unbelievable. Snookie is making meatballs with her new boyfriend Emilio. "How many balls do you want?" Emilio asks with a smirk. Snookie pauses, then smiles. "Two, in my face." Then we're blessed with Snookies keen insight about relationships. "Me and Emilio have been together for two and a half months. I really don't want to cheat. Like seriously, I don't want to. But you know, if you're going to hand me a bottle of freaking (she named a drink), something just comes over me. Like I just go crazy!" At this point, I couldn't wait for the actual award show to begin. The LowlightsThe show opened with Tom Cruise reprising his role from the R-rated 2008 movie Tropic Thunder. Uh... did I miss something? It's 2010, isn't it? The fat, bald, and harry Tom Cruise character Les Grossman gave the sensor guy a run for his money in the first 60 seconds. His speech was probably summarized in these three sentences:
"See movies are nothing but a marriage of picture and sound. My job is to get those two things drunk-get them "f**cking. The illegitimate baby they make is called entertainment."Unfortunately that wasn't the last we saw of Cruises "Grossman" character that evening. Grossman joined us again later to dance in a traditional crotch-grabbing and hip thrusting fashion to a Ludacris song. (Yes, that's the name of the artist, and yes, pun intended!) The opening words of the song:
[Chorus](Yeek-Yeek Woop-Woop) Why you all in my ear? Talkin' a whole bunch ash** that I ain't tryin to hear.Get Back! Motherf***er You don't know me like that.Get back! Motherf***er You don't know me like that!Then "Grossman" began dancing with J-lo, holding a walking cane up to his crotch like a penis pointed at J-lo. The host of the evening, Aziz Ansari, is a talented comedian. Unfortunately, like many talented comedians today, Aziz constantly grabs for the low hanging fruit of sexual humor and vulgarity. It was hard to watch Aziz cracking jokes about Taylor Lautner's "nuts" when the cameraman was showing us 11-year-old Jaden Smith in the audience cracking up. Think about that visual for a second-adults telling raunchy jokes and showing explicit material to 11-year-olds. If Jaden was walking through a park and a stranger approached him joking about testicles, erections and vaginas... my guess is that Jaden's dad, Will Smith, might have a thing or two to say to this individual. I wonder in the same situation if a lady came up to Jaden and started singing a song about people licking her vagina (as Christina Aguilera would do to the crowd later that evening)... I wonder how long Will would allow that to happen. But as long as Jaden is sitting in the Gibson Amphitheatre in Universal City, CA, and our kids are sitting in the popcorn-grease-saturated theatre seats, or on couches in front of big screen TVs... then it must be okay. It's obvious that MTV and parents all over the world just don't mind this kind of content. Because if they did, they probably wouldn't let kids watch the show. They probably wouldn't allow their kids to vote whether the R-rated movie The Hangover is the best movie of the year...
CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE

New States Join Courtroom Revolt Against ObamaCare

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com more states joining the court challenge against Obamacare This follows this post about Bart Stupak attacking pro-life groups. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

New States Join Courtroom Revolt Against ObamaCare


By Peter J. Smith WASHINGTON, D.C., (LifeSiteNews.com) –
Five more U.S. states have now joined the attorneys general of a dozen other states in a lawsuit aimed at toppling the federal government’s new health care law. The states assert that portions of the health care legislation signed into law by President Obama on March 23 amounts to constitutional overreach that infringes on the right of states and individuals to manage their own affairs.
"We welcome the partnership of Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona as we continue fighting to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens and the sovereignty of our states," said Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum in a statement.
“On behalf of the residents in Florida and the states joining our efforts, we are committed to aggressively pursuing this lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to prevent this unprecedented expansion of federal powers, impact upon state sovereignty, and encroachment on our freedom,” McCollum continued. The attorneys general of Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington had already banded together with Florida to file a lawsuit against the federal government with the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The lawsuit contends that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) infringes upon the constitutional rights of the residents of states by forcing all citizens and legal residents to carry qualified health insurance or pay a financial penalty.
The states contend that the insurance mandate exceeds the limited scope of the powers granted to the federal government under Article I of the US Constitution. Furthermore, they assert that the tax penalty for not carrying insurance violates the prohibition against the direct taxation of individuals outlined in Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution. The suit also contends that the PPACA infringes on the sovereignty of the states guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by forcing the states to abide by new operating rules and mandating that they spend billions of dollars to support the new health care system, when they already face severe budget crises.
Virginia has also filed its own separate lawsuit against the federal government, reiterating many of the concerns of its fellow states. Virginia has already passed a state law that expressly forbids the government from mandating that citizens carry health insurance or pay a penalty. The addition of the five new states brings the total number of states involved in the Florida-led lawsuit against the federal government over ObamaCare to nineteen, including Virginia.
A hearing for scheduling the Florida-led suit is set to take place April 14, 2010 at 9 a.m. central time at the Federal Courthouse in Pensacola, Florida.

See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:
States Consider Legislative Plan to Opt-Out of ObamaCare’s Abortion Mandate http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10032609.html
U.S. Medical Society Sues to Overturn ObamaCare http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040702.html
President Signs Health Care Bill into Law, 12 States Immediately Sue http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10032304.html

Bart Stupak Asked to Stop Attacking Pro-Life Groups on Pro-Abortion Health Care

An interesting story from http://www.lifenews.com about Bart Stupak attacking pro-life groups. This follows this post that shows the meaninglessness of the president's Executive Order. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Bart Stupak Asked to Stop Attacking Pro-Life Groups on Pro-Abortion Health Care
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Congressman Bart Stupak caused outrage within the pro-life community when he wrote an opinion column which appeared in the Washington Post on March 27. The article raised eyebrows as Stupak attacked pro-life organizations by saying they are more interested in politics than pro-life.
"The pro-life groups rallied behind me -- many without my knowledge or consent -- not necessarily because they shared my goals of ensuring protections for life and passing health-care reform but because they viewed me as their best chance to kill health-care legislation," Stupak wrote.
William Saunders, a vice president at Americans United for Life, issued a response to Stupak in an opinion column at the Daily Caller.
He said pro-life advocates were "deeply disappointed" to read Stupak's comments.
Stupak's column "contained an attack on the integrity of pro-life organizations, like mine, that fought to keep abortion out of health care reform" and "mischaracterized the bill and the executive order that President Obama signed."
Saying he had no desire to attack Stupak personally and admitting he didn't know the insider negotiations that led Stupak to vote for the pro-abortion health care bill, Saunders pointed out it would not have passed had Stupak and some of his pro-life Democratic colleagues not traded their votes for the executive order. Full story at LifeNews.com

Comprehensive USCCB Memo again Concludes: Abortion Executive Order Meaningless

An interesting story from http://www.lifesitenews.com about the executive order of Obamacare. This follows this post about polls that most Americans want it repealed. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Comprehensive USCCB Memo again Concludes: Abortion Executive Order Meaningless

By Kathleen Gilbert and John Jalsevac
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 1, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A detailed legal analysis from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops of the health care bill has reinforced the bishops' conclusion that the Executive Order that Rep. Stupak obtained in exchange for his vote does little to nothing to solve the abortion-related problems in the bill.
The USCCB memo concludes that “the Executive Order cannot and does not fix the statutory problems of direct funding of abortion at CHCs (Community Health Centers), and of funding insurance plans that cover abortions; it cannot and does not make up for the absence of conscience protections that are missing from the statute; and it does not strengthen the conscience protections that are there, though it could have in certain limited ways.”
It also points out that, “Where the Order purports to fix a shortcoming of the Act in these areas, it is highly likely to be legally invalid; and where the Order is highly likely to be legally valid, it does nothing to fix those shortcomings.”
In reference to the funding of CHCs, the memo points out that the bill (referred to as the PPACA in the memo) appropriates billions of dollars for the CHCs that could potentially be used to fund abortions.
Up until the passage of the health bill, the funding for the CHCs was governed by the Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother. However, the Democrats’ health bill introduces a new stream of funds that is not governed by Hyde. For this reason, says the USCCB, the “courts are highly likely to read PPACA to require the funding of abortions at CHCs in the absence of a statutory correction.”
In terms of federal funding of abortion, the USCCB memo points out that the health bill does not uphold Hyde-amendment restrictions, since, under Section 1303 of the bill, “tax credits are still used to pay overall premiums for health plans covering elective abortions.” In addition, they say, “This part of PPACA would also impose a serious burden on the consciences of millions of Americans."
"Any family having to buy such a subsidized plan—for example, because its coverage or provider network are necessary to meet the family’s health needs—will be forced by the Act to provide a separate payment, on a regular basis, solely to pay for other enrollees’ abortions.”
Any efforts that President Obama’s executive order purports to make to solve these problems, says the USCCB, are ultimately doomed to be struck down in court since the president “may not amend or otherwise contradict the legislative mandates expressed by Congress in the form of statutory law.” “Accordingly, if the President were to issue an Executive Order (and perhaps subsequent regulations) that purported to forbid the use of PPACA funds for abortions at CHCs, in a context where statutory terms like those describing the scope of CHC services have long been read by courts to require the use of the funds for that purpose, the Executive Order would almost certainly be struck down as exceeding the President’s authority," states the memo.
In reference to conscience protections, the USCCB memo points out five striking deficiencies, including most prominently the fact that the PPACA does not include the Welden amendment, which “forbids the federal government, or any state or local government receiving appropriated funds, from discriminating against any health care entity based on its refusal to participate in abortion.”
Hence, "the omission of the Weldon Amendment means that PPACA does not restrain government from discriminating on that basis."
The memo concludes, “Thus, the shortcomings of the Act remain, and correspondingly, the need for fixes remains. Only Congress, with the consent of the President, has the legal authority to make those fixes.
"Congress and the President should act promptly to do so; they should not await courts’ likely invalidation of the few provisions of the Executive Order that even purport to be fixes.”

Americans Want Pro-Abortion Health Care Law Repealed, Hope GOP Will Do It

An interesting story from http://www.lifenews.com about the contents of Obamacare. This follows this post about the anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Americans Want Pro-Abortion Health Care Law Repealed, Hope GOP Will Do It
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) --
Two new national polls show Americans want the pro-abortion health care bill President Barack Obama signed into law repealed. They also show voters want Republican lawmakers to keep fighting against the government-run health care system and to promote legislation to repeal it.
Just before the House passed and Obama signed the health care bill that funds abortions, Americans opposed it on a 54-41 percentage point margin, according to Rasmussen.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows 55 percent want the law repealed whiled 42 percent oppose that. Those figures include 46% who strongly favor repeal and 35% who strongly oppose it.
Republicans overwhelmingly favor repeal while most Democrats are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 59% favor repeal, and 35% are against it.
There is little divide between older and younger Americans as both favor a repeal of the pro-abortion health care law. Most senior citizens (59%) favor repeal but 58% of those 18 to 29 also support repealing it.
And when it comes to the November congressional elections, 52% say they'd vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.
Several states are already challenging the health care law in court and an earlier poll found 49 percent of Americans, a plurality of those polled, favor the lawsuits. Full story at LifeNews.com

ObamaCare Lowdown: What Exactly Will the Health Reform Bill Do?

An interesting story from http://www.lifesitenews.com about the contents of Obamacare. This follows this post about the anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

ObamaCare Lowdown: What Exactly Will the Health Reform Bill Do?


By Kathleen Gilbert and Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews.com) -

Now that President Obama has signed the Senate health care bill into law, pro-lifers and conservatives may still be wondering exactly what this massive piece of legislation will mean, not only for abortion, but other issues such as health care rationing, government expansion, a new health insurance mandate, and heavy taxation, including what amounts to a penalty for married couples. Following is a list of top concerns over the law as it stands.
Abortion Funding:
As compiled and explained by the National Right to Life Committee, several provisions in the bill present a major threat to the unborn through the expansion of funding for abortion.
- Separate funding stream bypasses Hyde amendment protections, Executive Order notwithstanding:
Backers of the Senate health care bill introduced to the House, H.R. 3590, have frequently dismissed pro-lifers' concerns over abortion funding in general. They have insisted that the current Hyde amendment, which bans Health and Human Services (HHS) funding of abortion except in cases of rape or threat to a mother's life, also applies.
Yet the language of the bill, as NRLC legal analysis points out, bypasses Hyde by creating a new direct-appropriation funding pipeline that lies outside of the annual appropriations process for the HHS Department.
Lawmakers' attempts to include explicit Hyde-like bans (Stupak amendment) were shot down repeatedly both in committee and the Senate floor. The Stupak-Pitts amendment sought to prevent federal subsidies from going to health plans that cover abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
Current restrictions in the health care bill say that federal funds cannot be used directly to pay for abortions; however that does not prevent federal dollars from propping up the bottom-line of insurance companies that can re-allocate private dollars to pay for abortions.
Although the Executive Order Obama signed following the bill's passage purports to apply the Hyde amendment to the bill, the White House's Robert Gibbs admitted that the president’s directive, revealingly titled "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion," merely "reiterates" what is already in the bill, and does not address its inherent flaws.
- Direct funding of abortion through the Community Health Centers program: The new law directly appropriates $7 billion for Community Health Centers (CHCs) into a separate fund. Since the funding does not fall under annual HHS appropriations, it is therefore unconnected to any restriction on the use of these funds for abortion.
Some backers of H.R. 3590 have asserted that none of the 1,250 federally funded CHCs provide abortions; yet, the website of the Reproductive Health Access Project strongly assures CHC operators that offering abortions is not only possible, but "important for the health of your patient."
The President himself defended “reproductive care” – a term typically used to imply abortion services – as “essential care.” Without a legislative statute to the contrary, it is possible that a court challenge launched by pro-abortion groups could open up CHCs to provide abortion.
- Other direct appropriations not covered by abortion restrictions: The Senate bill contains additional pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by any limitations regarding abortion, including $5 billion for a temporary high-risk health insurance pool program (Sec. 1101 on pages 45-52) and $6 billion in grants and loans for health co-ops (Sec. 1322, pp. 169-180). Only bill-wide, permanent language, such as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, could have ensured that none of these funds are tapped by pro-abortion political appointees and bureaucrats to pay for abortion.
- Federally administered abortion plans: The bill would create a new program under which the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would administer two or more national (“multi-state”) insurance plans. (See Section 1334.)
The bill provides that “at least one” such plan would be subject to limitations on abortion coverage. This implies that other federally administered plans could cover elective abortions, or perhaps even be required to do so by the federal administrator. This is a sharp break from longstanding federal policy, adopted by Congress, under which plans that participate in the OPM-administered Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program are prohibited from covering elective abortions.
Also, even the purported requirement (pages 2087-2088) that the OPM program offer one pro-life plan is rigged to expire each year; this requirement will remain in force only if pro-life forces prevail annually in preserving pro-life language on an unrelated annual appropriations bill.
- The "abortion surcharge": Section 1303, page 2069 of the bill contains the objectionable “Nelson-Boxer language,” under which private plans that cover elective abortion would qualify for the federal subsidy. However each enrollee in those plans that include abortion coverage would have to pay an "abortion surcharge" of at least one dollar per month. These funds would be used to pay for abortions.
This requirement applies to anyone who enrolls – or may have to enroll – in a subsidized plan that covers elective abortions. This will certainly include many people who would learn of the abortion surcharge only after enrolling, but who would also have no choice other than to pay the abortion surcharge, or see their entire health coverage lapse.
- Authorities for pro-abortion mandates: The new law contains a bewildering array of provisions that grant authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal entities to issue binding regulations on various matters.
Some of these provisions could be employed in the future as carte blanche for the HHS to issue pro-abortion mandates, requiring health plans to cover abortion and/or provide expanded access to abortion, unless there is clear language to prevent it. For example, under the Mikulski Amendment (Section 1001, pp. 20-21), the HHS could force every private health plan to cover elective abortions merely by placing abortion on a list of “preventive” services.
While the Senate bill does contain some anti-mandate provisions, NRLC's analysis finds that these clauses are worded in such a way that they control only specific provisions of the bill (e.g., the reference to “essential health benefits” on page 2070), or are ambiguous in their scope.
- Open door to future abortion funding in Indian health programs: The Senate-passed health bill revamps and reauthorizes all Indian health programs. In the House bill, these programs were permanently barred from providing elective abortions by the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. But in the Senate bill, no such prohibition exists, other than a mere policy-neutral clause (Section 10221, pp. 2175-2176) that “punts” the abortion policy, requiring that it be set annually on an appropriations bill.
The Senate omitted the necessary pro-life language even though a permanent Hyde Amendment had won approval by the Senate the last time that the Indian health reauthorization (S. 1200) was on the Senate floor in amendable form. (The House never acted on S. 1200.)
- Missing abortion conscience language: The House-passed bill contained a codification of the “Hyde-Weldon” language (H.R. 3962, Section 259), which would prevent government actors from penalizing health care providers who refuse to participate in providing abortions.
However pro-abortion senators blocked its inclusion in the Senate bill. The so-called conscience protections in H.R. 3590 (e.g., on page 123) are exceedingly narrow.
Other issues:
- Health care rationing: NRLC's health care blog points out that "Section 3209 of the health care bill ... effectively allows federal bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) of the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to bar senior citizens from adding their own money, if they choose, to the government contribution in order to get private-fee-for-service Medicare Advantage (MA) plans less likely to ration life-saving treatment."
What this amounts to, according to NRLC, is that "doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers will be told by Washington just what diagnostic tests and medical care is considered to meet 'quality' and 'efficiency' standards – not only for federally funded health care programs like Medicare, but also for health care paid for by private citizens and their nongovernmental health insurance.”
“Treatment that a doctor and patient in consultation deem needed or advisable to save that patient's life or preserve or improve the patient's health but which the government decides is too costly – even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it – will run afoul of the imposed standards. In effect, there will be one uniform national standard of care, established by Washington bureaucrats and set with a view to limiting what private citizens are allowed to spend on saving their own lives." Read more from the NRLC on health care rationing in H.R. 3590 here.
- Setup for government-run health insurance: The National Review's Veronique de Rugy posits a simple scenario of how the ObamaCare health insurance mandate could quickly dissolve into a single-payer system. Despite repeated denials, Obama declared support for single-payer in a 2003 speech to the AFL-CIO.
De Rugy points out that citizens, faced with a choice between expensive health insurance and a cheaper fine for failing to buy it, will "just get insurance once they need it, since people who are sick can no longer be denied health-care coverage."
Health insurance companies would, in turn, quickly buckle under the weight of the health needs of new customers - revenue would continue to dry up when newly-recovered patients simply drop the insurance again. "In this worst-case scenario, the government will use the opportunity, or as Rahm Emanuel likes to say, won't let the crisis go to waste, and will likely jump in and take over the insurance business," she writes.
- Health insurance mandate: At least 14 state attorneys general have filed suit against the federal government for a provision in the new law that mandates U.S. citizens to buy health insurance – or face a fine. Many believe the provision to be patently unconstitutional, as the Commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution has never been used to regulate “economic inactivity” by forcing people to buy a product. Some analysts say that if that premise is accepted, then Congress can theoretically force individuals to buy other products as well.
- Widescale job loss effective immediately: Several news outlets are already reporting that the new taxes imposed by the health care reform law are forcing companies to slash health care plans or raise premiums on their workers.
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, many S&P 500 businesses announced this week that health care legislation was forcing them to declare $4.5 billion in lost earnings.
Since taxes kicked in the first quarter, companies have had to adjust revenue earnings in order to pay for the health care bill’s new taxes that go into effect. AT&T reported a $1 billion tax hike, John Deere reported $150 million, and Caterpillar recorded $100 million.
The reason for this is that the government previously offered a tax refund of about $650 per retiree in order to keep Medicare Part D costs down. The new law, while it continues federal subsidies for Part D, does not allow companies to write off the cost as tax free anymore.
- The marriage penalty: A Wall Street Journal column pointed out in January that both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform legislation would force married couples to pay "thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together." The penalty results from the fact that guidelines for qualifying for health insurance subsidies rely on federal poverty guidelines; therefore, married couples would be at a disadvantage for receiving subsidies due to their combined income.
In effect, the law helps make pre-marital co-habitation look financially more attractive than marriage.