WASHINGTON—A key element of the Affordable Care Act hangs in the balance as a federal lawsuit in Texas is challenging the law’s requirement that most insurers cover an array of preventive health services that range from screenings for depression to mammograms.
A district court judge ruled in September that the way a federal task force determines which services are covered is unconstitutional and said the health-insurance requirement for HIV-prevention medications violated a company’s religious freedom.
Both sides of the case are waiting to see if the court issues a nationwide injunction striking down the requirements that most commercial insurers fully cover dozens of preventive-care services and screenings, with the timing of the judge’s next move still not clear and the case likely to end up at the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs objected to coverage of contraception, screenings for sexually transmitted diseases and drug use, and vaccination against human papillo-mavirus, the sexually transmitted disease known as HPV, according to the law-suit. They also objected to coverage of pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a medicine that helps prevent HIV infection.
Wall Street Journal 11-29-22
This is an expression of religious freedom? Gee, did they forget about Medicare?
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Healthcare is a moral issue. Just like whether a business wants to be open or not, a business should be free from the government from telling it what to do. So a one business will reflect its owner and should not be force to bake caked or design websites. How is healthcare any different on how a business decides to compensate its employees? This is a first amendment issue. As the Twitter releases are proving, the 1st Amendment has been trashed. The 2nd Amendment is trashed. The 4th Amendment is ignored by judges and the FBI. The Jan 6th defendants 6th Amendment rights have been taken away (speedy trial) while woke DAs free criminals without bail.
Everything needs to be looked at in the big picture of the US Constitution.
LikeLike
The legal decision focused on standing and the appointments clause of the US Constitution. The judge ruled that Congress’ decision to vest authority in the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to determine what preventive services should be covered AND should be exempt from any point of purchase cost sharing violated the appointments clause of the Constitution. The court dismissed Plaintiffs’ statutory interpretation claim for failure to state a claim, and it dismissed Plaintiffs’ religious objections to the contraceptive mandate.
However, the court ruled that:
“PSTF members occupy a continuing position established by law and exercise significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States. See Lucia, 138 S. Ct. at 2051. They are therefore officers of the United States.”
“Because PSTF members are officers of the United States, their appointments must comply with Article II (of the Constitution). Principal officers must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, while inferior officers may be appointed by the President alone, the courts, or the heads of departments, if Congress permits. U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.”
“PSTF members are principal officers”
“Because PSTF members are principal officers, they must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. The PSTF members indisputably fail that constitutional requirement.”
But …. with respect to religious freedom …
I’m from the government, and I think I should be able to force you to bake a cake with a message that you decide violates your religious beliefs, or create a website with a message you disagree with, too!
I personally don’t have a problem with these preventive services mandates, but, my opinion doesn’t matter when it comes to YOUR understanding of YOUR religious tenets.
I know the beltway idiots, particularly today’s Democrats (versus the Democrats I grew up with), now like to say that no constitutional right is absolute (well, at least when they discuss the 2nd Amendment).
However, seems pretty clear the founders intended an absolute right (or at least as absolute as it can be until it violates someone else’s absolute right). It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” What do the words “no law: mean to you? Sounds pretty absolute to me!
This isn’t snake charming, nor peyote – where religious practices clearly conflict with other fundamental rights.
Here, folks are arguing that the government is attempting to force compliance with requirements that some have long believed (for decades, centuries) violate their religious beliefs.
Tell me why the health plan for the Little Sisters of the Poor should have to comply with a contraception mandate because the USPSTF says so?
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
The Supremes decided, a few years ago that: “It is clear from the face of the statute (Health Reform) that the contraceptive mandate is capable of violating RFRA (The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993).”
More to the point, as Justice Kennedy famously said in Obergefell, in his majority opinion where the Supremes ruled that same sex marriage (the right to marry) was a fundamental right and could not be barred by state or federal laws nor by state constitutional provisions, “… it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, …”
LikeLike
Unrestricted access to contraception should lower the demand for abortion. Preventive vaccinations and screening for conditions which may then be treated reduces human suffering and premature death. I respect those who personally choose to refrain from using these medical interventions because of their religious beliefs. However, their efforts to impose those same personal restrictive religious beliefs on other members of society who do not necessarily share them in the name of religious freedom seems to me a curious use of the term “freedom”.
LikeLike
So you are saying that Chick-fil-a and Hobby Lobby should be forced to be open on Sundays too? What about forcing stores to be open on Christmas?
But your point is well taken. If your company or company owners beliefs are pro-life then they should encourage contraception to avoid abortions as a form of birth control. I also don’t believe that a church should be forced to provide these things either. But a corporation, who sole purpose is to make money for it’s shareholders is another story assuming that their business is not of a religious in nature. Unless the board of directors believe that being cheap will help retain quality workers and make the shareholders more money.
I also don’t understand why proven preventive vaccinations would be fought against since it would only lower your company’s overall healthcare costs by preventing a more costly treatments.
I do not support have one wide brush requiring somethings to go against your beliefs. We do have the Bill of Rights and people are always free to seek employment else where. They probably were not offered these things until passage of ACA so they probably knew this up front when they hired on.
LikeLike
Hardly a valid analogy. This is health care not running a business. There are thousands of state and federal mandates on health insurance and have been for years. In fact, because of that has caused insurance to no longer be insurance at all. They have also added to to cost of coverage while in some cases benefiting relatively few.
LikeLike
If you don’t like your employers religious beliefs, you are free to work elsewhere.
LikeLike