Are you saying that Etc, is equal to severability?
No I am not saying that the so called Slaughter Rule (deeming something Passed that hadn’t been voted on) and other manipulations the Dems tried at the time were significant because they were to no avail. The Congress ended up having to have the House pass the Senate version to avoid a Conference Committee which would have had to have the support of the other house already barely hanging on for any changes made in conference.
The lack of the severability clause was discussed in the ruling and noted as telling but in and of itself did not require the Judge to find the whole law unconstitutional. The fact that the law would not work without the mandate (as argued by the Feds) was the main issue, the historical legislative record that the clause was omitted in the final voted version was viewed as intent confirming the fact it won’t work without the mandate, and the intent and belief of the legislating body that it won’t work without it all as confirmed by the Feds in argueing for its necessity.
The lack of a severability clause, in and of itself, does not automatically require the judge to throw out the whole law — never has, never will — and the judge in the ruling explains that if he could rule narrowly and throw out a single clause he would be prone to do that but that is not the case here.
I can’t copy and paste from the ruling but if you go to the ruling link on the previous page and get to the last six pages, the whole issue is laid out in detail in the ruling.