Congress passed an imperfect health care bill, with mandates offending many people. Does Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott have the power to sue to stop the signed law?

Abbott claimed in the American-Statesman (March 30, "Abbott offers explanations on challenge to health law") that Congress has no power to regulate "inactivity," "failure" or "refusal to be involved" in health insurance purchase, defining the situation: " ... we have people who are refusing to participate in the stream of commerce by choosing not to buy insurance."

Abbott ignores the effect of the "choice" not to buy insurance. The attorney general must prove that the "choice" not to pay doesn't affect commerce. (Abbott might be incorrect that everyone makes a choice as to insurance purchase. Many folks can't afford it.

If "the choice" affects commerce, Congress might constitutionally regulate, if it has "rational basis." Under constitutional law, if Congress' findings demonstrate rational basis, the regulation will stand, even if it's not the best plan or imperfect.

Does "the choice" to be uninsured affect commerce? Congress spent many pages proving it does. The report from the Senate Committee on Finance concluded that "health reform is an essential part of restoring America's overall economy and maintaining our global competitiveness."

The report detailed 93 percent increases in average family premiums from 2000 to 2009. Rising health care costs play a huge role in bankruptcies affecting millions every year. Hospitals and clinics provide tens of billions of dollars yearly in uncompensated care. The result: a "hidden health tax" of larger medical bills and higher premiums. The average family pays $1,000 in increased premiums as a result of uncompensated care. Congress demonstrated uninsured persons affect commerce.

We live with federal mandates, including paying taxes. Congress mandated that health care providers in emergency departments and ambulances provide emergency care to anyone in need, including the uninsured and underinsured. The law applies in every hospital accepting federal payments, creating unfunded burdens on responsible units of government, taxpayers and corporations.

Congress mandated Texans donate gas tax dollars to the rest of the states. The 2005 Federal Transportation law resulted in Alaska receiving $1,500 per capita in highway benefits while Texas received $36.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, complained, "No state has a worse rate of return from the federal highway trust fund, as Texas continues to pay far more in federal gasoline taxes than they get back."

Former U.S. rep. Tom Delay's spokesman explained: "Texas has lost $5 billion over the last 20 years because of formula problems."

Why has the attorney general never challenged that mandate or the absence of federal funding of a VA hospital south of San Antonio?

Abbott's service as attorney general is notable for his long-standing embrace of federally imposed mandates in his federally supported child support program. As attorney general, he mandates certain parents provide medical payments or coverage. In January 2008, he championed even broader legislation. His vision: "A private insurance company would contract with the state to cover a pool of children; a court could order parents to buy the private insurance based on their ability to pay; the court could order the insurance premiums withheld from a parent's paycheck. Parents who provide proof of insurance could opt out."

Abbott's 2009 law mandated that the office of the attorney general "develop and implement a statewide program to address the health care needs of children for whom health insurance is not available to either parent at reasonable cost. Federal law requires parents in the child support system to provide health coverage for their children."

Our statewide elected officials now attack the policy and fact findings of Congress. While possessing the right to dissent and vote, Abbott cannot replace decisions made by an elected Congress with his opinions. Otherwise, he should have challenged the 2005 pork-laden transportation bill benefiting Alaska and its then-powerful Sen. Ted Stevens. Texans were forced to donate without setting foot on a bridge to nowhere.

Attorney general is a massively powerful position, but the attorney general lacks the power to stop the enacted federal health care bill.

His lawsuit diverts attention and resources from the causes he should champion to protect Texans on valid legal theories. The attorney general's job is to understand the law and be the people's lawyer. He poorly serves the people by pursuing loser litigation.

Radnofsky, 2010 Democratic nominee for Texas attorney general, is a Houston lawyer.