Yeah, her argument is not compelling either. She is a lawyer not a policy person not an economist who can tell what is this policy's budget impact. Economists have said it does impact budget.
Also her argument seemed flawed as well as out of the box where she talks emotional sentiment over people coming to this country facing challanges, etc etc, why such argument? why not simply say it does not impact this or that? why so sentimental about those who are expected to be covered if coverage is not feasible under the rule?