WP:EXCEPTIONAL 
 Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. 
 [My claim is not exceptional.  Most people that have followed this issue know that it is a true claim. I now have a second, academic, citation that quotes federal judges who say that the mandate is an "unprecedented exercise of Congress' power"]  
 Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: 
 surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources 
 ;[This was covered widely in many venues, and was a primary argument in some of the legal challenges] 
 challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;  
 [my sources are secondary sources] 
 reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended; 
 [Yea, I guess Heritage flip-flopped on this one, but if that is a disqualifier, then most of Washington needs to go home.]  
 claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. 
 [I'm beginning to think there is a conspiracy.  You guys are working my like a rented mule, and all I want to do is add a tiny bit of content that might lead an alert reader to think that there might actually be some valid reasons that about half of the American public want this act repealed;>)]''