Join or Renew Membership

Get Involved

Help our cause


Project Liberty-ObamaCare Action

Since 26 State Attorney Generals filed a lawsuit which included our grievances, it became impossible to get the number of people needed to take our case all the way through the appeals process and to the US Supreme Court.  People believed their interests would be covered in the States’ action and many were afraid to put their name on legal action against the federal government.  Although our attorneys work at a greatly reduced rate; it an expensive process.  Even though we could not achieve our own separate lawsuit, we did not give up.  Project Liberty plaintiffs will be represented in an amicus brief filed with the US Supreme Court.  The document is being prepared by some of the most notable Constitutional attorneys.  See this update.



Dear Grassroots Supporters of Project Liberty:

        When the “Obamacare” legislation called the Affordable Patient and Protection Act was passed, The Justice Foundation and you began “Project Liberty.” The goal was to find 10,000 Plaintiffs who were willing to sue. That number was never reached. However, 271 of you did join as Project Liberty Plaintiffs and you were assured your views would be made known where it counted, at the United States Supreme Court. It appears that time has now come. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the lawsuit brought by 26 State Attorney Generals, including Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, to declare the Act unconstitutional. Now is the critical time for amicus briefs to begin to be prepared and ultimately filed. The case will be argued in the Spring and a decision will most likely be rendered by June 2012. 

         We are preparing our amicus brief at this time. We are assembling a team of excellent lawyers, including myself, Allan Parker, President of The Justice Foundation, Steve Fitschen, the National Legal Center, Northwestern University Professor Stephen B. Presser, and Professor Morse Tan of Southern Illinois University. In addition Eric Welter, Kathleen Cassidy Goodman, Clayton Trotter, General Counsel of The Justice Foundation and John Lindsay Bower will also be working on the Brief. 

          I was in Washington, D.C. recently meeting with the Presidents of most of the conservative legal organizations in the United States. We meet every six months to see how we can cooperate with each other. 

          One of the major parties to the litigation indicated that they would be very receptive to receiving amicus briefs, and that they would like to see the issue of abortion addressed by Amici in order to hopefully influence the votes of Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Kennedy. This was encouraging news, since our plan was to write a brief focused on the abortion issue and Commerce Clause limitations. An Amici is supposed to provide something different from the parties’ main brief. A “me too” brief is not helpful. 

          Here is a summary of our amicus brief argument: 

       We are going to be arguing that the Commerce Clause does not allow Congress to force a consumer to buy insurance, and that the whole Act should be struck down, including funding for abortion which violates Conscience rights of individuals who believe abortion is murder. 

       The Amici consists of women who vowed never to have or pay for abortions again, and many other ordinary citizens who want the Constitution enforced. They believe abortion is killing a human being. Our nation has always granted a conscientious objection to prevent people from participating in killing against their will. 

         If the Obamacare statute is not struck down, since it includes abortion funding, it will be forcing millions of Americans, including Catholic Bishops, former abortionists who vowed never to perform an abortion again, women who have had abortions and vowed never to participate in abortion again, and others to violate their conscience and their religious beliefs. 

      There is no compelling governmental interest in funding abortion sufficient to force people to violate their religious or conscientious objections. 

     In addition, we agree that it is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause to force people to buy insurance and it is a violation of the separation of powers to sift and choose among the legislature’s provisions, when there is no Severability Clause. Congress’ intent was that the whole statute was a systemic reform and must rise or stand as a complete package. To create some other proposal is for the judiciary to violate the separation of powers’ doctrine and invade the legislative purview. 

         Please pray for us as the Brief is being prepared and pray for the Supreme Court that they will strike down the whole legislation.
                                                            Your Servant, 
                                                            Allan E. Parker
                                                            The Justice Foundation