If elected governor, Republican Meg Whitman plans to add California to the list of states suing to overturn the new federal health care law. Or maybe she wont.
The most recent statements by Whitmans campaign are much more equivocal than the position she took in March, during the Republican primary. When supporters at a campaign event asked her whether she would force (her) attorney general to join the health care suit, she said yes.
Questioned by reporters later that day, Whitman acknowledged that a governor couldnt order the independently elected attorney general to sue, but said she would strongly encourage a suit.
Last week, however, campaign spokesman Darrel Ng said Whitman might not take either of those actions, even though she still objects to parts of the new law.
Whether she does a new (legal) effort, encourages the new AG (attorney general) to join an effort or not is really irrelevant, Ng said by e-mail. He said a pending lawsuit by Virginias attorney general will decide the issue. With the future of that case unknown, he said, it would be premature to make a decision.
The Virginia suit and a separate lawsuit by more than a dozen states in a Florida federal court challenge both aspects of the health law that Whitman opposes: its requirement that all Americans buy insurance by 2014 or pay a tax penalty, and the costs that it allegedly shifts to the states.
Whitmans Democratic opponent, Attorney General Jerry Brown, supports the federal law and has criticized Whitman for threatening to sue.
The candidates for attorney general also are divided: San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, favors the federal law, while Republican Steve Cooley, the Los Angeles district attorney, has some concerns but is undecided about a suit, according to a campaign spokesman.
Whitmans migration from yes to maybe on a health care suit is the latest of several apparent turnabouts on major issues.
During the Republican primary, for example, she stressed her toughness on illegal immigration and her endorsement by her campaign chairman, former Gov. Pete Wilson, who was the chief booster of Proposition 187, the 1994 initiative that sought to eliminate all benefits for illegal immigrants.
Spanish-language ads
Whitmans Spanish-language ads during the general election campaign, however, have emphasized her opposition to Prop. 187, which was ruled unconstitutional, and to Arizonas immigration law, which requires police officers to demand documentation from people they stop if they suspect them to be illegal immigrants.
But she recently told a conservative talk show host she thought the law, which has been blocked by a federal judge, was right for Arizona and that each state should set its own policy.
Whitman has also denounced the California law requiring cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from all sources and said she would suspend it for at least a year if elected. But Whitman said recently she was leaning against Proposition 23, a November ballot initiative that would suspend the law indefinitely. Conservatives at the state Republican convention over the weekend attacked her on both immigration and Prop. 23.
The health care law, which President Obama signed in March, is intended to extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. It will prohibit insurers from denying coverage based on a persons medical condition, require everyone to purchase insurance or pay a penalty, and provide subsidies to those who cannot afford the premiums.
The insurance requirement was designed to keep younger and healthier Americans in the insurance pool, offsetting the new influx of applicants who may need more costly treatment. But Ng, Whitmans spokesman, said Whitman questions whether Congress has the power to regulate - and tax - a citizens decision not to participate in interstate commerce.
Brown backs insurance law
The laws supporters deny that it will burden states financially and say the federal government will subsidize Californias anticipated increase in Medi-Cal beneficiaries through 2016. But Ng said Whitman projects an increased state cost of $3 billion and questions whether the federal government can require state participation.
Browns campaign spokesman, Sterling Clifford, said Brown, his staff and the attorneys general in most other states believe the federal law is constitutional.
When you weigh that against the uninformed ramblings of Meg Whitman, I cant imagine that there is much to debate, Clifford said.
Harris also considers the law valid and will fight to uphold and enforce it, said spokesman Brian Brokaw. The position of Cooley, her Republican opponent, is less clear.
During the Republican primary, the Sacramento Bee quoted Cooley as saying he would sue over the health care law if elected. But Cooleys campaign spokesman, Kevin Spillane, said last week that the candidate wasnt committed to a lawsuit.
Cooley has concerns about the requirement to buy insurance and the potential cost to California, Spillane said, but before joining a suit he first would consult with other state officials, legal scholars, the staff of the (state) Department of Justice and policy experts.
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San#xA0;Francisco#xA0;Chronicle
article source