Obamacare is a criminal act from its very start. The Democrats played their control over media well, and as we now know, have the Chief Justice usually siding with the Left ever since Obama forced it into ‘law’
In a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a particular mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which requires insurance coverage for specific preventive services, was deemed unconstitutional. Despite this finding, the court refrained from instituting a broad prohibition against this mandate.
Affordable care act “Obamacare” deductibles are unaffordable. Citizens were forced to sign up or be penalized if uninsured. The American people want to know @CNN if you will ask Joe on Thursday why citizens are paying for illegals to receive free medical insurance? pic.twitter.com/XySPfUPgfR
— Star S.⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@DominguezH31015) June 24, 2024
The crux of the court’s decision revolves around the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a body responsible for issuing recommendations on preventive care services like cancer screenings and HIV prevention drugs. The ACA stipulates that insurers must cover services awarded an A or B rating by this task force. The controversy stems from the fact that this task force operates independently, without its members being appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate. Circuit Judge Don Willett, authoring the opinion, highlighted that the task force’s ability to issue binding recommendations without review equates them to principal officers of the United States, thus requiring proper appointment under Article II of the Constitution.
The response from the Department of Health involved an attempt by Health Secretary Xavier Becerra to rectify the constitutional issues with a retroactive approval of the task force’s ratings. However, this memorandum was found to be flawed, as the ACA does not grant the health secretary the authority to alter or officially approve these ratings.
The fight for reproductive freedom isn’t JUST about abortion — access to sterilization for those who want it and access to the Affordable Care Act are also intertwined with reproductive rights
(via life.of.jackie_ on Instagram) pic.twitter.com/HcJNXFu2vi
— NowThis Impact (@nowthisimpact) June 24, 2024
Representing Christian business owners in the lawsuit, attorney Gene Hamilton of America First Legal, declared the ruling a triumph for constitutional principles and the rule of law, emphasizing the importance of decisions on health coverage not being in the hands of unelected officials.
The Department of Health and Human Services did not comment on the ruling.
This specific ruling affects only the businesses that challenged the ACA’s mandate. However, the implications could potentially extend to a broader exclusion of the mandated coverage, pending further judicial decisions.
The lawsuit was initially prompted by a 2019 decision of the task force to endorse drugs preventing HIV transmission, which Christian business owners, including Braidwood Management, argued infringed on their religious freedoms by indirectly supporting behaviors contrary to their beliefs.
While U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor previously ruled that the task force’s mandates infringed on the religious freedoms of the plaintiffs, issuing a nationwide block on these recommendations, the appeals court halted this broad injunction. Instead, the court noted the necessity for more targeted relief and remanded certain unresolved issues back to Judge O’Connor for further consideration.
Hung Cao would certainly vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Don’t believe us? Take his word for it.
“No one in the United States is like ‘oh my gosh, I will die if I don’t have health care.’” #VASenpic.twitter.com/vEOSH83vh4
— American Bridge 21st Century (@American_Bridge) June 18, 2024
Additionally, the ruling did not touch on other ACA-mandated coverages, such as vaccines and services endorsed by other government-backed bodies like the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Health Resources and Services Administration, although the appellate judges acknowledged strong, albeit unaddressed, constitutional concerns raised by the plaintiffs regarding these mandates as well.
This ruling casts a shadow of uncertainty over some aspects of the ACA’s reach and underscores ongoing debates about the limits of delegated authority within federal healthcare mandates.
Major Points
- A U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the ACA mandate requiring insurers to cover preventive services is unconstitutional because the task force behind the recommendations is not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate.
- The court found issue with the unreviewable power of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to issue legally binding recommendations on preventive care.
- Despite the ruling on unconstitutionality, the court did not issue a broad injunction against the mandate, limiting the impact to only the businesses that filed the lawsuit.
- Health Secretary Xavier Becerra’s attempt to retroactively validate the task force’s ratings was deemed insufficient as the ACA does not authorize such ratifications.
- The case may have broader implications for other ACA mandates, as the court acknowledged significant constitutional concerns that require further judicial review.
James Kravitz – Reprinted with permission of Whatfinger News
