I read the arguments in the state lawsuits mostly focus on the commerce clause, that Congress cannot overextend the regulation of interstate commerce to compel private citizens to purchase or participate in health insurance. My question is which groups or states are arguing about church-state issues concerning the bill, such as A. if federal funding is going toward companies that condone abortion (even if no money is going directly to abortion but is paid separately) can equal federal funding go toward a different option? such as medical proof of spiritual healing instead of stem cell research B. challenges to the limited restrictions of religious based exemptions (must be a member of a nonprofit 501(c)(3) in existence since 1999 where the members share medical expenses due to their religious beliefs) as unlawfully discriminating or regulating on the basis of religion and/or not protecting all individuals' diverse religious beliefs equally In general, does anyone else have a problem with the idea that A. on one hand, with Roe v. Wade, the federal government struck down the idea of laws criminalizing or penalizing the choice to have an abortion if people "don't believe" that life begins at conception and/or the unborn child has equal rights as a person under law B. on the other hand, the federal government would fine or possibly jail a person for choosing not to purchase health insurance, and thus does not recognize the right to believe in other options. Can anyone explain to me, preferably a fellow liberal pro-choice Democrat as I am, how the leaders of the Democratic party can justify criminalizing and penalizing someone's views against purchasing health insurance while demanding freedom to have abortion based on religious freedom. Can you please help me with any reasonable justification. I am having a moral dilemma with some of this bill, and trying to work out the reasons.