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.
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.
https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1567525671391436800
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.
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. uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recomme…
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.
slate.com/news-and-polit…
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.
slate.com/news-and-polit…
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 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?
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
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
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
