On Jan. 21, SB 1888 and HB1770 were introduced by Sen. Mae Beavers and Rep. Mark Pody. The legislation would ban the state from implementing or participating in the implementation of Obamacare, which includes the creation of an exchange. Leaving implementation to the federal government is not only on sound legal grounds, if passed in a number of states, Judge Andrew Napolitano has said this will “gut Obamacare.” (learn more about the bill here)

HB1770 – hearing and potential vote on 02-19-14 – House Subcommittee Insurance and Banking
SB1888, hearing and vote on 02-11-14 – Committee on Commerce & Labor

YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED NOW to make sure the legislation has the support it needs to move forward. TAKE 30 MINUTES AND COMPLETE ALL THESE STEPS. Call in the evening, and over the weekend. Committee members can be moved to vote YES if they start their week on Monday with a large number of messages in support.

1. Call the House subcommittee chair, Jimmy Matlock.  Politely thank him for scheduling the hearing for HB1770. Respectfully urge him to vote YES on HB1770.

Rep. Jimmy Matlock – (615) 741-3736

2. Call the Senate committee chair, Jack Johnson.  Thank Sen. Johnson for co-sponsoring SB1888 and for scheduling the hearing. Let him know that you support SB1888.

Sen. Jack Johnson – (615) 741-2495

3.  Call all the other House subcommittee members.   Be strong, but respectful. Urge each of them to take action to move the bill forward and vote YES on HB1770.  If they do not commit to a YES vote, ask them why.  If they’re undecided, let them know you’ll call back after they have a chance to review further.

JoAnne Favors (615) 741-2702
Curtis Johnson (615) 741-4341
Kelly Keisling (615) 741-6852
Steve McManus (615) 741-1920
Dennis Powers (615) 741-3335
John Ragan (615) 741-4400 – thank him for co-sponsoring HB1770
David Shepard (615) 741-3513

4.  Call all the other Senate committee members.   Be strong, but respectful. Urge each of them to take action to move the bill forward and vote YES on SB1888.  If they do not commit to a YES vote, ask them why.  If they’re undecided, let them know you’ll call back after they have a chance to review further.

Mark Green – 615-741-2374
Charlotte Burks – 615-741-3978
Dolores Gresham – 615-741-2368 thank her for co-sponsoring!
Steve Southerland – 615-741-3851 thank him for co-sponsoring!
Reginald Tate – 615-741-2509
Jim Tracy – 615-741-1066
Bo Watson – 615-741-3227
Ken Yager – 615-741-1449

5.  Call Back – any NO or UNDECIDED – in ONE day.  Ask if they’ve had a chance to review the legislation and what their opposition might be.   Comment below or contact us with any information you get.

6. Attend the Senate Committee hearing. Take pictures and get video if they allow it. Show your support for SB1888!

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:30PM
State Capitol, Location 12LP
get directions here

7. Attend the House SubCommittee hearing. Take pictures and get video if they allow it. Show your support for HB1770!

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 Time TBD
Call for verification – Theo Vallas, Executive Assistant
Phone (615) 741-3736

8.  on Twitter?  Retweet


9.  Write a letter to the editor Look up your local newspaper and submit a letter to the editor voicing your support for SB1680. Following strong legal principles, it’s essential that Tennessee no longer help the federal government carry out the Affordable Care Act. Passing SB1680 will start that process.

10. Report Back. Tell us how your actions went. Click the button below


There are four main steps that should be taken to nullify the Affordable Care Act on a state level. While each one of these steps alone won’t result in a nullification of the act nationally, they’re all an important piece of the puzzle. An act of resistance in one state leads to courage and doing the same in another. At the same time, some courageous types might get the notion that they can turn it up a notch and take a stronger stand in their state than you have in yours.

States have always held the prerogative of whether or not they will enforce or participate in federal acts or regulatory programs.  This legislative package seeks to ban the state from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.  It also seeks to ban the State, along with all its political subdivisions, from operating or participating in the operation of a health care exchange under the federal act.  It also provides for penalties for violations of the act.

FOUR STEPS (links open in new window)

Step 1: Ban State Enforcement, Participation and Material Support

Step 2: Reject Medicaid Expansion

Step 3: Protect Residents from Mandates

Step 4: Challenge the IRS’s illegal ObamaCare taxes


The “approach is on sound legal footing”
-Mercer University law professor David Oedel, part of the legal team that represented Georgia in its court challenge to Obamacare

There is a long-standing legal tradition which supports the choice of the State to determine whether or not they will participate in a federal act.

James Madison, writing in Federalist #46, recommended state responses to “unwarrantable” (unconstitutional) or merely “unpopular” federal acts which included “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.”

Supported by Supreme Court opinions spanning more than 150 years, the “anti-commandeering doctrine” is the legal principle that states are not required to help the federal government enforce federal acts or regulatory programs.

The cases are as follows:

* 1842 Prigg: The Court held that states were not required to enforce federal slavery laws.
* 1992 New York: The Court held that Congress could not require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
* 1997 Printz: The Court held that “the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”
* 2012 Sebelius: The Court held that states could not be required to expand Medicaid even under the threat of losing federal funding.

Anti-commandeering is virtually undisputed by legal experts from both the left and right.


A number of states following this plan will “gut Obamacare.”
-Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News, 12-10-13

It is our view that passage of this legislation will have great practical effect on the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 within the states.

The greatest impact will be a result of banning the State from implementing the federal act or participating in its implementation.

Banning state cooperation across the board will render the federal act the weakest as can be done by the state, setting the stage for other states to do the same.  Not only will this leave the proverbial “ball in the court” of the federal government, it’s widely acknowledged that the federal government lacks the manpower and resources to operate these exchanges in all 50 states.

Banning the operation of a health care exchange would also have practical impact by forcing the federal government to find ways to operate the exchange itself, and by creating a path for a strong lawsuit against the federal government.

The federal act authorizes Exchange subsidies only through state-established Exchanges, not the 34 Exchanges created by the federal government, or those created in a partnership.

Since those subsidies trigger penalties under both the employer mandate and individual mandate, those states have by law also exempted all of their employers and individual residents from those penalties.  The IRS, though, is still trying to impose those taxes and issue those subsidies in states which have banned the creation of exchanges, the basis for the current lawsuits.


Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, this legislative proposal stands on extremely strong legal footing.  The states are not required to assist the federal government.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states can, in essence, “opt-out” and leave enforcement to the federal government.

And, by following the advice of the “Father of the Constitution,” with “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” on federal acts considered unconstitutional or merely unpopular, the states would lead the nation in bringing an end to the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act of 2010.