Posted on 09/07/2022 4:58:16 PM PDT by karpov
A federal judge in Fort Worth agreed Wednesday with a group of Christian conservatives that Affordable Care Act requirements to cover HIV prevention drugs violate their religious freedom.
U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor also agreed that aspects of the federal government's system for deciding what preventive care is covered by the ACA violates the Constitution.
O'Connor's ruling could threaten access to sexual and reproductive health care for more than 150 million working Americans who are on employer-sponsored health care plans. It is likely to be appealed by the federal government.
This lawsuit is the latest in a decade of legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act, many of which have run through O'Connor's courtroom. In 2018, O'Connor ruled that the entirety of the ACA was unconstitutional, a decision that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
At issue in the class-action lawsuit is a 2020 mandate requiring health care plans to cover HIV prevention medication, known as PrEP, free of charge as preventive care.
In the suit, a group of self-described Christian business owners and employees in Texas argue that the preventive care mandates violate their constitutional right to religious freedom by requiring companies and policyholders to pay for coverage that conflicts with their faith and personal values.
The lawsuit was filed in 2020 by Austin attorney Jonathan Mitchell, the legal mind behind Texas' civilly enforced six-week abortion ban. In the suit, Mitchell also challenges the entire framework through which the federal government decides what preventive services get covered.
O'Connor threw out several of Mitchell's arguments but agreed that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's system for deciding what health care services are required to be fully covered under the ACA violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at houstonpublicmedia.org ...
by Paul King datedback Jun. 22, 2003
After years of claims by the AIDS establishment that a link between HIV and immune supression had been established a High Court found the claim without merit and a unfounded deception. This is the first legal trail of the HUV/AIDS hypothesis and a historic defeat for AID$ Inc.
by Paul King Jun. 22, 2003 at
https://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/66369.php
After years of claims by the AIDS establishment that a link between HIV and immune supression had been established a High Court found the claim without merit and a unfounded deception. This is the first legal trail of the HUV/AIDS hypothesis and a historic defeat for AID$ Inc.
You mean this guy?
“ My thesis is not complex: all claims about viruses as pathogens are false and are based on easily recognized, understandable, and verifiably false interpretations.”
https://greatreject.org/dr-stefan-lanka-claims-about-viruses-are-false/
I have a great test for him, let’s find a probable rabid raccoon and have Stefan walk up to it and provoke it so he is bit several times. And then get no rabies post exposure series.
I dunno about rabies? Rabies nor venoms not viruses either, if you simply orally ingest through the mouth as much pure rabies or venom nothing will happen to you right away, if they inject you, then there'd instant problem.
Thanks for the link, I'll read further.
I’m not even for requirements to cover AIDS/HIV drugs in health plans. It’s the same as encouraging irresponsible, destructive, expensive behavior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.