I'm presuming that the version
here is the version that passed. What follows is my opinion
Sections 1 and 3 would be constitutional under a broad interpretation of section 1 clause 16 of the Powers amendment. Whether clause 16 can be interpreted that broadly is something the Court will need to decide. A broad interpretation of section 1 clause 9 of the Powers amendment would help support the constututionality of section 1 of the Act, but would not be enough by itself,
Section 2 is clearly constitutional under section 1 clause 14 of the Powers amendment, insofar as it related to the treatment of infectious disease. It would require a overly broad intrepretation of that clause to extend that clause to other forms of health care assistanc, especially given the explit narrow scope of clause 14.
Section 4 is constitutional to the extent that sections 1, 2, and 3 are found to be constitutional.
As written, section 5 is unconstitutional. If it were limited in scope, child care assistance could be constitutional, but I don't see anything that makes a generic child care subsidy constitutional
Section 6 is clearly constitutional under section 1 clause 15 of the Powers amendment.
