UPDATE: Democrat Robin Carnahan is against Proposition C. Here is a statment from her spokesman, Linden Zakula, in response to Blunt's position in favor of the issue:

“If the issue is approved by the voters, there is some question about what would be the practical implication since it would be an issue of state law pre-empting federal law.  But when it comes to this issue in general, as a breast cancer survivor she takes the issue of health care very personally, and thinks it makes a lot more sense to fix the things that still need fixing instead of repealing the entire bill, or opting out, and going back to insurance companies making out like bandits and denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.”

 

JEFFERSON CITY -- Further trying to burnish his conservative credentials before Tuesday's U.S. Senate primary vote, Congressman Roy Blunt today came out in favor of Proposition C, the statewide vote that will ask Missourians whether they want to "opt out" of a federal health-insurance mandate.

Blunt, a Republican, faces state Sen. Chuck Purgason, R-Caulfield, and 6 other primary opponents, on Tuesday. He is heavily favored to win, and will face Democrat Robin Carnahan, Missouri's Secretary of State, in November. 

Proposition C was pushed through the Legislature by conservative Republicans in response to President Barack Obama's federal health care law that passed Congress in March. In polls, Republicans have said overwhelmingly they plan to vote for Proposition C.

From a Blunt news release:

While he does not often weigh in on state issues that Missouri voters will ultimately decide, Roy Blunt is supporting Proposition C, the Health Care Freedom Act, consistent with his vote against the government takeover of health care in the U.S. House.

In the news release, Blunt repeats his stance that he will push for repeal of the federal health care law if elected to Senate. Carnahan has supported the federal law, though she says it needs some changes.

Several legal experts have said Proposition C will be destined for court because it would put state law in conflict with federal law, and would likely be unconstitutional.