Obamacare can't require coverage for certain HIV prevention drugs, federal judge rules

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Wed Sep 7, 2022, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: CNN

(CNN)A federal judge in Texas on Wednesday declared unconstitutional an Affordable Care Act requirement that insurers and employers offer plans that cover HIV-prevention drugs for free, saying it violates the religious freedom of a Christian-owned company. The ruling came as part of a broader decision that was a partial victory to Obamacare opponents who challenged the Affordable Care Act mandate for coverage of preventive services without charge. US District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled that the requirement that employers offer insurance plans that cover HIV-prevention pills, known as PrEP drugs, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Braidwood Management, a Texas-based company that employs 70 people, argued that the mandate facilitated behavior to which it has religious objections. The mandate, the plaintiffs argued in its initial complaint, "forces religious employers to provide coverage for drugs that facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity, and intravenous drug use." It remains unclear whether the ruling will apply only to Braidwood Management or will affect Americans nationwide. O'Connor did not issue a nationwide injunction or vacate the rule. He has requested both sides file additional briefs relating to the scope of relief by Friday.

"What happens next remains a wide open question as to whom it affects," said Tim Jost, emeritus professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. The decision could "cripple" HIV prevention efforts, particularly among communities of color and Americans in poverty, said Paul Kawata, executive director of NMAC, a national organization that works for health equity and racial justice to end the HIV epidemic. It could also set back the bipartisan effort to end the HIV epidemic by 2030. "For many people at higher risk of HIV, employer-provided insurance is often their only way to access these vital medications," he said. "This decision has the potential to cut off millions of Americans from the life-protecting medications they need."

O'Connor also asked both parties to file supplemental briefs on claims related to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, a longstanding target of conservatives. The Trump administration expanded exemptions for employers who have religious or moral objections to the mandate, which the Supreme Court upheld in 2020. The Biden administration has indicated it would amend the rule. The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing the opinion, a spokesperson said. Since a national injunction was not issued, the Affordable Care Act provisions remain in effect for now.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/07/politics/hiv-drugs-prep-affordable-care-act/index.html

---

Ruling (PDF) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.330381/gov.uscourts.txnd.330381.92.0_4.pdf

Original article and link (original source's newsfeed wasn't updated but newsfeed source's update now in the OP) -

A federal judge in Texas on Wednesday struck down an Affordable Care Act requirement that insurers and employers offer plans that cover HIV-prevention drugs. The ruling came as part of a broader decision that was a partial victory to Obamacare opponents who challenged the Affordable Care Act mandates for coverage of preventive care services without charge.

US District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the requirement that employers offer insurance plans that cover HIV-prevention pills, known as PrEP drugs, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The requirement’s challengers, employers in Texas, argued that the mandate facilitated behavior to which they have religious objections.

As part of the ruling, O’Connor declared unconstitutional part of the broader preventive services mandate, which requires insurers and employers to cover screenings for cancer and heart disease, as well as programs for smoking cessation, among many others. However, the judge upheld certain services for children and women, as well as immunizations.

The extent of the ruling remains to be determined. O’Connor has requested both sides file additional briefs by Friday.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

https://kvia.com/news/2022/09/07/obamacare-cant-require-coverage-for-certain-hiv-prevention-drugs-federal-judge-rules/

[bucolic_frolic]

1. I have religious objections to Republicans

Where do I file my brief?

[Xoan]

2. That's one sick judge.

[cbabe]

3. Ban blood transfusions as religious violation? Or...

https://www.medicalprotection.org › southafrica › casebook › casebook-may-2014 › the-challenges-of-treating-jehovah's-witnesses

The challenges of treating Jehovah's witnesses - Medical Protection

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is against God's will to receive blood and, therefore, they refuse blood transfusions, often even if it is their own blood. The willing acceptance of blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses has in some cases led to expulsion from and ostracisation by their religious community.

https://www.learnreligions.com › christian-science-church-beliefs-and-practices-700401

Christian Science Church Beliefs and Practices - Learn Religions

While believers routinely refused medical care in the past, recently relaxed guidelines allow them to choose between prayer and conventional medical treatment. Christian Scientists turn first to the church's practitioners, trained people who pray for members, often from a great distance….

(Stone cold bigotry.)

[NYC Liberal]

4. A Shrub appointee. Let's take a look at his history:

O'Connor has widely been described as conservative.[3][4][5][6] O'Connor has become a "go-to" favorite for conservative lawyers, as he tends to reliably rule against Democratic policies.[7][8] Attorneys General in Texas appear to strategically file cases in O'Connor's jurisdiction so that he will hear them.[9]

On February 11, 2015, O'Connor held that a portion of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 was unconstitutional.[10] This ruling was reversed on appeal.[11]

On March 26, 2015, O'Connor enjoined the federal government's definition of marriage as it relates to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.[12] He dissolved the injunction following the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.[13]

On August 21, 2016, O'Connor issued a ruling against the Obama administration dealing with the government's interpretation of Title IX rules. The guidance from the White House was issued in May 2016, and addresses the Title IX requirement that schools receiving federal funding not discriminate against students on the basis of sex. The ruling required that transgender students be allowed to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. O'Connor ruled that the new guidelines did not receive proper notice and comment prior to publication, and that Title IX and its implementing regulation are "not ambiguous" as to the "plain meaning of the term sex as used". He then issued a nationwide injunction preventing them from being enforced with respect to students' access to "intimate facilities."[14] The Obama administration appealed the decision, but the Trump administration rescinded the guidance and moved to dismiss the appeal.[15][16]

On December 31, 2016, in a separate case, O'Connor issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Obama administration's regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded health programs) as a likely violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and what he said was an improper inclusion of gender identity discrimination.[17]

In early 2018, O'Connor held the Certification Rule of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional in Texas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, finding it violated the nondelegation doctrine.[18] This ruling was reversed on appeal.[19]

On October 5, 2018, O'Connor ruled that the Indian Child Welfare Act was unconstitutional.[20]

On October 31, 2021, O'Connor ruled that the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act provide religious employers an exemption from Title VII of the Civil Right's Act ban on the discrimination "on the basis of...sex".[21]

In 2022, O'Connor issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Pentagon from enforcing a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for its Navy Seals. O'Connor said the U.S. government had "no license" to abrogate the freedoms of the Navy SEALs.[22] The preliminary injunction was partially stayed by the Supreme Court on March 25, 2022.[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O'Connor

[KPN]

14. Sounds like another great candidate for impeachment.

[speak easy]

17. Sounds like another GOP candidate for SCOTUS

[KPN]

19. That too. Which is why Republicans can never be allowed to regain the WH.

We need to do everything in our power to make sure of that at least until enough MAGAs and evangelicals have left the earth to render them irrelevant.

[PatrickforB]

5. Well, you all know how I feel...Medicare for ALL Americans!

That one thing would relieve so many people of so much stress it wouldn't even be funny, and it would also help US businesses across the board, because they would no longer have that giant cost center.

Just saying...

[Samrob]

6. Banning requirement for prevention medicine seems really evil.

Prevention care and screenings is a big part of healthcare. It would seem to me that insurers would be more than willing to pay for prevention and prevention care rather than waiting for their insured to get really sick and cost them much more money.

Was this a Federalist Judge again?

[Midnight Writer]

11. And stupid. Outcome for patients and expenses for insurers are lower if they can PREVENT illness.

No logic here. No legal justification. Just mean cruelty.

This judge has a personality problem and he is using his position of power to inflict it on others.

[elleng]

7. 'the mandate facilitated behavior'

Of course, and contraception similarly facilitates behavior!

[ck4829]

8. So a win for... HIV?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

9. He's saying their religion mandates people die

How fucking sick is that?

[jaxexpat]

10. An example of how cherry-picking for newsworthiness undermines important factual dissemination.

The facts:
US District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the requirements that employers offer insurance plans to cover many preventive services mandated in the Affordable Care Act are unconstitutional.
These services include:
screenings for cancer and heart disease
plans that cover HIV-prevention drugs
programs for smoking cessation
many others.

Seems, after a review of these facts, this judge is out to use the Republican's "Yea Hate" Act to gut Obamacare, a political goal of conservatives for almost a decade.

What you get from the way the article is framed:
Religious Freedom Restoration Act rules Obamacare coverage for HIV prevention drugs is unconstitutional. What is shoved off to the side is that the insurance companies will no longer be forced to cover screenings for cancer and heart disease.

Since so many read only the headlines and maybe a sentence or two of the body of the story the author put the "juicy" part up front. Many will read that and say, "good on you, judge, I'm tired of paying for homosexual's safety in their risky lifestyle". Most will never understand that this judge's ruling will cut their screening for cancer, heart disease and any help they may need to quit tobacco.

The message is (intentional or incidental):
The shitty insurance employers provide their employees just became a lot shittier but it's okay since homosexuals are discriminated against.

[SuperCoder]

12. I, too, have religious objections to republicans existing.

Where do I file?

[OneCrazyDiamond]

22. Class action coming soon...

[KPN]

13. Religious freedom? As in "my religion is your law whether you like it or not; you don't get to

choose what's right for you."

Jesus, Mary and Joseph!

[Warpy]

15. Yeah, because sex is icky doodle and gay sex even worse than that

What? You say nurses have gotten it from needle sticks? Well, they don't count.

Religious freedom, my flabby old ass. This is just more punitive horseshit from a bunch of sex phobic bluenoses.

[ificandream]

16. Why is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act even constitutional?

There are laws tied to religion and held as constitutional? (/sarcasm) Whatever happened to separation of church and state as dictated by the Founding Fathers for God's sake, he says ironically.

[Marthe48]

18. Ryan White

zealots refuse to see the larger picture. They want everyone to die.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

23. No one here gets out alive. nt

[imavoter]

20. So there goes my free colonoscopy 🤦‍♀️

It's not free...my premium and
coinsurance are already high.

[Samrob]

21. APPEAL! Then change the name and purpose of the drugs.

Nothing can stop a prescribed drug from being used for other purposes in the hands of a patient.

[NickB79]

24. The "Pro"-Life party

Unless you're gay, then just fucking die.

[BlueIdaho]

25. Texas...

Fucking Texas.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. That's outrageous. Insurance shouldn't mean "only insurance for what *I* think *I* might get"

and trying to use "religious freedom" for this is offensive. It does not hurt their "freedom" if other people are covered for beneficial drugs; it just means the premium is very, very, slightly higher for everyone. Just as it is for all kinds of cover. That these people think that "the wrong sort of people" are more likely to use these drugs again doesn't impinge on their actual religious freedom.