Peter Kilmartin, on Thursday's District Court Ruling that the Federal Healthcare Mandate on Individuals is Without Precedent

The question below was asked to the campaign of Democratic Party Attorney General candidate Peter Kilmartin, following Thursday's District Court ruling allowing the challenge to the Federal healthcare law challenge filed by a group of state Attorney Generals to go forward...

In August, a spokesman for Mr. Kilmartin's campaign stated, in response to a question from Anchor Rising regarding the new Federal healthcare law, that Mr. Kilmartin was "confident that the Health Care Reform Law is constitutional". This past Thursday, Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District Court of Florida disagreed, stating that "at this stage in the litigation, this is not even a close call...The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent" in regard to allowing a challenge to the law by 20 state Attorney Generals to proceed. Does this court ruling impact Mr. Kilmartin's position on the actions he might consider taking on behalf of the citizens of Rhode Island, with respect to the new Federal healthcare law, if elected as their Attorney General?

Mr. Kilmartin remains staunchly opposed to joining this lawsuit. Much like there was political, and subsequently legal action against Social Security after it was signed into law, the new health care law is facing opposition. With that said, Mr. Kilmartin stands by his initial in-depth legal analysis of the bill -- it is constitutional. Additionally, he would not waste taxpayer dollars on a suit aimed at attacking the new health care law, which keeps insurance companies from taking away health care from kids when they are sick.