Continuing AMAC Founder Dan Weber’s Legacy Action Weekly Advocacy Update

Posted on Friday, June 20, 2025

|

by AMAC Action

|

0 Comments

|

Print

AMAC Members: Only US Citizens Should Vote in U.S. Elections

AMAC members have consistently been on the front lines for election integrity and have demonstrated their support for the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act over the span of two Congresses.

The SAVE Act requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship and identity, in person, to register for federal elections. It also directs states to remove non-citizens from voter rolls and empowers citizens to take legal action against election officials who don’t comply.

AMAC Action has been a leading voice advocating for the SAVE Act since its inception. Thousands of AMAC members contacted their representatives this year, resulting in nearly 7,000 messages sent to Congress to help get the bill passed on a bipartisan basis in the House.

The SAVE Act is now in the Senate and AMAC Action is standing by, ready to mobilize the AMAC Army again when debate begins on this important bill.

Click here if you’d like to watch AMAC Action Senior Vice President Andy Mangione’s update on X.

The HEALTH Act is Pro-Life

As a result of the sustained lobbying efforts put forth by the AMAC Action team, Delegates, and staff who participated in the May Fly-In to Washington, DC, Congressional offices contacted both our DC office and Representative Daniel Webster’s (FL-11) office to inquire about the HEALTH Act’s tax credits and abortion procedures. Those inquiring did not want abortions to be included in the tax credit, so Rep. Webster’s office added a pro-life section to the bill and sent it to legislative counsel. It is expected that the HEALTH Act will be introduced to the House of Representatives later this month.

This new pro-life section is a fitting addition to AMAC founder Dan Weber’s legacy, his inspiration for the HEALTH Act, and his work in crafting the legislation.

Legislation and Policy Support

H.R. 3864 – Protecting Healthcare for All Patients Act

The use of Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in federal health care programs is deeply concerning because QALYs are inherently discriminatory: the practice assigns lesser value to the lives of individuals with disabilities, chronic illnesses, and rare conditions – many of whom are seniors. Every life is equally valuable. No federal program, whether Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, or the ACA exchanges, should make decisions based on a formula that devalues someone because of age, disability, or health status. Click here to read AMAC Action’s letter of support.

H.R. 379 – Healthcare Freedom and Choice Act

Currently, due to the Biden Administration, Americans are limited to using short-term, limited duration insurance (STLDI) for four months. This legislation reinstates access to STLDI plans for up to 36 months. This represents a critical step toward restoring personal choice and health care flexibility for individuals who need it most. Click here to read AMAC Action’s letter of support.

Calls-to-Action

Update: Oklahoma SB 889

This call-to-action executed in April helped get hospital price transparency passed and signed into law in Oklahoma. Hospitals in the state are now required to make public certain files and lists; authorize compliance monitoring and enforcement; and importantly, prohibit certain collection actions. This patient-empowering law enables healthcare consumers to compare prices of non-emergency medical procedures with penalties for hospitals that do not comply.

Action ☆ Academy 

Marbury v. Madison: How Much Power Does the Supreme Court Have?

In the 5-minute video Marbury v. Madison: How Much Power Does the Supreme Court Have? Haley Proctor, Associate Professor of Law at Notre Dame, discusses the history of the role, responsibilities, and power of the U.S. Supreme Court. PragerU is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that promotes American values in short educational videos for people of all ages.

Term of the Week: Sugar Act

Sugar Act, (1764), in U.S. colonial history, British legislation aimed at ending the smuggling trade in sugar and molasses from the French and Dutch West Indies and at providing increased revenues to fund enlarged British Empire responsibilities following the French and Indian War. Actually a reinvigoration of the largely ineffective Molasses Act of 1733, the Sugar Act provided for strong customs enforcement of the duties on refined sugar and molasses imported into the colonies from non-British Caribbean sources.

Protests had been received from America against the enforcement of the Molasses Act, together with a plea that the duty be set at one penny per gallon. Although warnings were issued that the traffic could bear no more than that, the government of Prime Minister George Grenville refused to listen and placed a three-penny duty upon foreign molasses in the act (the preamble of which bluntly declared that its purpose was to raise money for military expenses). The act thus granted a virtual monopoly of the American market to British West Indies sugarcane planters. Early colonial protests at these duties were ended when the tax was lowered two years later.

The protected price of British sugar actually benefited New England distillers, though they did not appreciate it. More objectionable to the colonists were the stricter bonding regulations for shipmasters, whose cargoes were subject to seizure and confiscation by British customs commissioners and who were placed under the authority of the Vice-Admiralty Court in distant Nova Scotia if they violated the trade rules or failed to pay duties. As a result of the Sugar Act, the earlier clandestine trade in foreign sugar and, thus, much colonial maritime commerce were severely hampered.

(The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Sugar Act”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 16 Jan. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/event/Sugar-Act. Accessed 19 June 2025.)

Class for May and June

“It is in no way remarkable, and in no way a vindication of textual evolutionism, that taking power from the people and placing it instead with a judicial aristocracy can produce some creditable results that democracy might not achieve. The same can be said of monarchy and totalitarianism. But once a nation has decided that democracy, with all its warts, is the best system of government, the crucial question becomes which theory of textual interpretation is compatible with democracy. Originalism unquestionably is. Nonoriginalism, by contrast, imposes on society statutory prescriptions that were never democratically adopted.”