TX extremist judge's ruling is really trying to destroy the ACA

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Unrolled thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1567536173853151232.html

There are so many bombs sewn into this ruling.

1. O'Connor says members of the Preventive Services Task Force—which requires insurers to provide preventive coverage, including vaccines and cancer screenings—are appointed illegally. Which may render their mandates unlawful.
Unroll available on Thread Reader

O'Connor wants "further briefing on the appropriate remedy." One fix would be for the Secretary of HHS to simply "ratify" the work of the Preventive Services Task Force.

But O'Connor says the secretary *cannot* ratify its work. So his remedy might just destroy the task force.

If O'Connor takes this step—which he gestures toward in today's ruling—private health insurers could refuse to cover huge range of preventive care, including vaccines, cancer screenings, STI tests, pregnancy care ... the list goes WAY beyond PrEP coverage.

https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation-topics/uspstf-a-and-b-recommendations

2. O'Connor also suggests that the *entire government infrastructure* currently regulating private insurers is illegal. Not just the Preventive Services Task Force, but also the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Health Resources and Services Administration.

Invalidating the PSTF, ACIP, and HRSA would undo a huge portion of the Affordable Care Act, freeing private insurers from the obligation to provide so much basic coverage—again, we're talking vaccines, pregnancy care, cancer screening and treatment ... The list is nearly endless.

Of course, Reed O'Connor is the same judge who tried to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act in 2018.

He was reversed 7–2 at the Supreme Court.

Now he's trying again. This approach is definitely iffy, but it has a better shot at success IMO.

The Texas Judge Trying to Invalidate Obamacare Issued a Second Opinion More Delusional Than His First

There could no clearer indication that this judge is living in a Fox News fantasy world.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/texas-judge-obamacare-struck-down-crazy.html

3. Turning back to PrEP:

O'Connor accepts that it "encourages homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity"—a contested claim backed by no empirical evidence.

But he says that if the plaintiffs believe it, the courts must accept it—they can't question its "correctness."

O'Connor says that courts must accept tendentious empirical claims backed by zero evidence if religious people believe them to be true. That goes a step beyond what the Supreme Court did in Hobby Lobby. It totally dismisses the value of provable facts in religious freedom claims.

Then O'Connor says that requiring insurers to cover PrEP—which radically reduces the risk of HIV infection—is not a "compelling government interest" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

No compelling interest in protecting as many people as possible against HIV? Really?
Today's ruling seeks to strip patients of guaranteed coverage for HIV prevention. That, in itself, is alarming.

But it's also Reed O'Connor's next effort to overturn much of the Affordable Care Act. It's about so much more than PrEP. This is an assault on the ACA, period. /end
• • •

[Mad_Machine76]

1. Trying to take another proverbial bite of the apple

to destroy the ACA (because Republicans in Congress haven't been able to)

[Frasier Balzov]

2. He thinks that the new composition of SCOTUS will uphold him.

[Nevilledog]

3. He might be right.

[In It to Win It]

4. +1

[Maraya1969]

5. Why don't they ever go after Viagra? That must encourage homosexual acts just as much as those

other drugs.

[crickets]

6. Yes, it's odd how Viagra never comes up in these discussions. nt

[gratuitous]

7. Remember when conservatives claimed they hated it when judges legislated from the bench?

Yeah, that was a lie, too.

[Nevilledog]

8. It's only bad when judges *give* people something.

Taking away rights and shit is okay.