Judge Reed O'Connor, a conservative Texas federal judge, earlier suggested this ruling was coming. Contraceptive care requirements remain. Update: DOJ is appealing.
How is it that conservatives get away, time and again, with forum-shopping so that they always get their way? They did it with the mask mandate on planes and in airports. They did it with the Mifepristone lawsuit. They did it here. Again and again, they get to pick their forum for the most desirable outcome possible.
I hope you will untangle this opinion, which I've tried to read and can only think "what hath Holly Lobby wrought?" One part really confuses me: the folks who don't want copays or deductibles for services they don't want or need. How does a copay or deductible for a service you don't use hurt you? I have NEVER had to face a copay for a prostate exam.
Basically, the whole thing hinges on whether objecting to something covered by a law makes you "complicit" in supporting that thing. (except for the non-religious plaintiffs who simply objected to paying for something they don't use like maternity care). How does treating an STD "encourage" people who get them? Would they rather people be untreated and spread the STD further? Possibly to the objector's own relatives.
I also have trouble how exactly use of the PSFT violates the appointments clause. Even if you assume that the members are "officers" of the United States, the Clause specifically says that "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. Is it that the ACA while approving the use of the PSFT didn't specifically vest one of those three with the power to appoint? Isn't the judge basically saying that Congress can't look to outside experts in deciding what laws to pass? So that to the extent that banning insider trading, for example, relied on the opinions of economists that showed its bad effects, that law violates the Appointments Clause?
PLEASE give us a reasoned analysis of this decision. Does it nullifiy ANY preventative care requirements the PSFT recommended? So that coverage aimed at preventing diabetes could also be left out of policies even if nobody has a religious objection to it?
Thanks, that was before I found you. But that discussion focused on the religious beliefs aspect. What about the "Appointments Clause" argument? That could lead to insurers whose offerings eliminate ALL preventative coverage. Would these folks buy that? Would it be religious discrimination by the insurance companies against those of a different sincere religious belief if they pick and choose coverages that are ONLY religion based?
Realistically, how many insurance companies would actually offer this kind of coverage? Would the market for it, even if based on some reduction of premium, be worth the hassle of issuing a whole "specialized" form of insurance? They'd have to go to EVERY insurance commissioner in each state to get approval of the new rate. The way to avoid THAT is to offer the "reduced coverage" at the same rate as is already approved. So much for the discrimination against a religious belief based on premium.
Scroll down. The Appointments Clause discussion is in there.
As to your other questions, it's not clear how or if it would actually happen. O'Connor has said they could potentially get it, so that's enough for him.
Fat chance. A judicious use of cookies to prevent those midstream ads from showing up on paid subscriber versions would be nice.
Far as I can tell, the Task force members are appointed by the head of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, one of 12 sub-agencies of HHS. (Google is too busy to let me see its actual website, so I have to go by Wikipedia) Far as I can tell, some of the heads of those agencies (the CDC for example) don't require Senate approval and some do. (Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, for example.) Does that mean that if the CDC has a taskforce on Long Covid, members appointed by its head, makes a recommendation that Congress then passes into law, the law would be void?
I don't have time nor energy to go through all the various organizational charts of various agencies. But it seems to me that this opinion creates absolute havoc in the ability of heads of agencies or subagencies to get information they need to protect the country from almost anything.
Well, maybe those who will not be covered and won't get the screenings will self-select out of the MAGAT pool. They've chosen the people who promote the judges. Their choices should haunt them.
How is it that conservatives get away, time and again, with forum-shopping so that they always get their way? They did it with the mask mandate on planes and in airports. They did it with the Mifepristone lawsuit. They did it here. Again and again, they get to pick their forum for the most desirable outcome possible.
It is a key part of GOP minority rule
I hope you will untangle this opinion, which I've tried to read and can only think "what hath Holly Lobby wrought?" One part really confuses me: the folks who don't want copays or deductibles for services they don't want or need. How does a copay or deductible for a service you don't use hurt you? I have NEVER had to face a copay for a prostate exam.
Basically, the whole thing hinges on whether objecting to something covered by a law makes you "complicit" in supporting that thing. (except for the non-religious plaintiffs who simply objected to paying for something they don't use like maternity care). How does treating an STD "encourage" people who get them? Would they rather people be untreated and spread the STD further? Possibly to the objector's own relatives.
I also have trouble how exactly use of the PSFT violates the appointments clause. Even if you assume that the members are "officers" of the United States, the Clause specifically says that "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. Is it that the ACA while approving the use of the PSFT didn't specifically vest one of those three with the power to appoint? Isn't the judge basically saying that Congress can't look to outside experts in deciding what laws to pass? So that to the extent that banning insider trading, for example, relied on the opinions of economists that showed its bad effects, that law violates the Appointments Clause?
PLEASE give us a reasoned analysis of this decision. Does it nullifiy ANY preventative care requirements the PSFT recommended? So that coverage aimed at preventing diabetes could also be left out of policies even if nobody has a religious objection to it?
Both of those elements were in the Sept 2022 decision, which I covered here: https://www.lawdork.com/p/the-prep-decision-is-bad-but-the
Thanks, that was before I found you. But that discussion focused on the religious beliefs aspect. What about the "Appointments Clause" argument? That could lead to insurers whose offerings eliminate ALL preventative coverage. Would these folks buy that? Would it be religious discrimination by the insurance companies against those of a different sincere religious belief if they pick and choose coverages that are ONLY religion based?
Realistically, how many insurance companies would actually offer this kind of coverage? Would the market for it, even if based on some reduction of premium, be worth the hassle of issuing a whole "specialized" form of insurance? They'd have to go to EVERY insurance commissioner in each state to get approval of the new rate. The way to avoid THAT is to offer the "reduced coverage" at the same rate as is already approved. So much for the discrimination against a religious belief based on premium.
Scroll down. The Appointments Clause discussion is in there.
As to your other questions, it's not clear how or if it would actually happen. O'Connor has said they could potentially get it, so that's enough for him.
Ah. I was misled by the perennial ad to subscribe to you (when I've already done so) as being the end of the discussion. Thanks.
If you would like to give me $1,000,000, I will get rid of the subscription notes. 😉
Fat chance. A judicious use of cookies to prevent those midstream ads from showing up on paid subscriber versions would be nice.
Far as I can tell, the Task force members are appointed by the head of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, one of 12 sub-agencies of HHS. (Google is too busy to let me see its actual website, so I have to go by Wikipedia) Far as I can tell, some of the heads of those agencies (the CDC for example) don't require Senate approval and some do. (Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, for example.) Does that mean that if the CDC has a taskforce on Long Covid, members appointed by its head, makes a recommendation that Congress then passes into law, the law would be void?
I don't have time nor energy to go through all the various organizational charts of various agencies. But it seems to me that this opinion creates absolute havoc in the ability of heads of agencies or subagencies to get information they need to protect the country from almost anything.
Can this be appealed? Horrifying.
It could be appealed. I am (still) waiting for DOJ comment on that question.
Well, maybe those who will not be covered and won't get the screenings will self-select out of the MAGAT pool. They've chosen the people who promote the judges. Their choices should haunt them.