Several years ago, two babies at a rural North Carolina hospital were switched at birth. The switch was discovered after a North Carolina couple learns that the five-year-old child they were raising was not their biological child. The child had gone in for surgery; and, in typing the parents' blood for a transfusion, doctors determined that neither parent was the child's biological parent. After an ensuing investigation, officials concluded that misidentification of the babies had occurred shortly after birth, when both arrived in the nursery at the same time. It was not determined whether the misidentification was inadvertent or intentional.

In the intermediate aftermath of the media report, Congress passed and the President signed the Infant Protection and Baby Switching Prevention Act. The Act provides as follows:

Section 1. Whoever knowingly alters or destroys an identification record of a newborn patient with the intention that the newborn patient be misidentified by any person shall be fined not more than $250,000 in the case of an individual and not more than $500,000 in the case of an organization, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. 

The Senate Report accompanying the Act contained the following statement:

The birth of a child is one of the most sacred and emotional events in a family's life. The event is also fraught with financial consequences, as it changes parents' spending habits, investment strategies, and even career plans. The financial, emotional, and other commitment that this time symbolizes deserves the highest protection the law can provide. 

The Report also states that Congress enacted the Act under the Commerce Clause. 

Susan was recently arrested and indicted for violating the Infant Protection and Baby Switching Prevention Act by altering an identification record of a newborn baby. She contends a defense that Congress exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause. Would she prevail?