Right-Wing Texas Judge Rules ACA Preventative Care Requirement Unconstitutional

[AZDem]

What a pro-life and not at all surprising ruling:
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1641438679460872192?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwca...

These judges are hell bent on making America a Christo-Fascist Nation and they don't care how many people they kill dong it do they?

I guess Texas is where laws go to die if they don't conform to someone's narrow right-wing dogma.

[jojoju1998]

Wait; wouldn't this also call into question the bans on abortion as well ?

As it happened in Wyoming for example ?

[Landslide Lyndon]

This particular judge has made a number of anti-Obamacare rulings and always gets overturned by the appellate courts.

[AZDem]

Wait; wouldn't this also call into question the bans on abortion as well ?

As it happened in Wyoming for example ?

One could only hope but logical consistency is not a quality often valued in right-wing judicial rulings. It's all about satisfying the religious zealotry and power, nothing more.

[7,052,770]

This particular judge has made a number of anti-Obamacare rulings and always gets overturned by the appellate courts.

Yeah, he's a meme "judge" that Republicans always use when they want some hack to make a sweeping political decision like this.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Good of you to specify the judge was right wing, I might have thought he was left wing otherwise.

Would you mind elaborating on what specific tenets of Christo-fascism have lead this judge to strike down the ACA's preventative care requirement? What's the ideological relationship between these two things?

Why should whether or not this law is pro life matter? Does the constitution say that laws that are pro life (assuming the PC requirement is) are automatically constitutional?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Good of you to specify the judge was right wing, I might have thought he was left wing otherwise.

Would you mind elaborating on what specific tenets of Christo-fascism have lead this judge to strike down the ACA's preventative care requirement? What's the ideological relationship between these two things?

Why should whether or not this law is pro life matter? Does the constitution say that laws that are pro life (assuming the PC requirement is) are automatically constitutional?

Watch out or you might fall from that pedestal and hurt yourself.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Wait; wouldn't this also call into question the bans on abortion as well ?

As it happened in Wyoming for example ?

No, it doesn't have anything to do with that.

The basis for this decision is that the Court found that the Preventative Services Task Force, which the ACA gave the authority to determine which care should be considered "preventative" and thus required to be covered cost free, is an extra-constitutional body and so the government does not have the authority to enforce its decisions.

[President Johnson]

"Democrats are weaponizing the judicial branch and want to legislate from the bench through activist judges".

[Nyvin]

It's always a Texas judge.

[Skill and Chance]

Wait; wouldn't this also call into question the bans on abortion as well ?

As it happened in Wyoming for example ?

No, it doesn't have anything to do with that.

The basis for this decision is that the Court found that the Preventative Services Task Force, which the ACA gave the authority to determine which care should be considered "preventative" and thus required to be covered cost free, is an extra-constitutional body and so the government does not have the authority to enforce its decisions.

How is this possibly compatible with Seila Law and Collins v. Yellen?  SCOTUS (with all the current justices on it in the latter case, and it wasn't close) has consistently favored the narrow remedy of making the unconstitutionally appointed/designated officials accountable to the president/cabinet secretary.  So the HHS secretary would get to review and approve or reject the board's future recommendations, rather than pretending the board never existed.   I would think that's almost surely how this ends?

[Skill and Chance]

Good of you to specify the judge was right wing, I might have thought he was left wing otherwise.

Would you mind elaborating on what specific tenets of Christo-fascism have lead this judge to strike down the ACA's preventative care requirement? What's the ideological relationship between these two things?

Why should whether or not this law is pro life matter? Does the constitution say that laws that are pro life (assuming the PC requirement is) are automatically constitutional?

It doesn't, but I'm going to have to say the hypocrisy argument rings true here.  If we're going to be seriously pro-life, we should be lobbying to wipe out all out of pocket costs associated with pregnancy, not to reverse the few protections that already exist.  This is an awful look.  If abortion is going to be banned, birth and treatment of any associated illnesses should be free.

[Vosem]

It's always a Texas judge.

It's actually always this particular Texas judge.

Wait; wouldn't this also call into question the bans on abortion as well ?

As it happened in Wyoming for example ?

No, it doesn't have anything to do with that.

The basis for this decision is that the Court found that the Preventative Services Task Force, which the ACA gave the authority to determine which care should be considered "preventative" and thus required to be covered cost free, is an extra-constitutional body and so the government does not have the authority to enforce its decisions.

How is this possibly compatible with Seila Law and Collins v. Yellen?  SCOTUS (with all the current justices on it in the latter case, and it wasn't close) has consistently favored the narrow remedy of making the unconstitutionally appointed/designated official's accountable to the president/cabinet secretary.  So the HHS secretary would get to review and approve or reject the board's future recommendations, rather than pretending the board never existed.   I would think that's almost surely how this ends?

I think this is correct.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's always a Texas judge.

It's actually always this particular Texas judge.

There's also Andrew Hanen and that guy they drew on the student loans thing, although my understanding is that in the latter case they were trying to draw O'Connor and got the next-best thing instead.

[Skill and Chance]

It's always a Texas judge.

It's actually always this particular Texas judge.

Wait; wouldn't this also call into question the bans on abortion as well ?

As it happened in Wyoming for example ?

No, it doesn't have anything to do with that.

The basis for this decision is that the Court found that the Preventative Services Task Force, which the ACA gave the authority to determine which care should be considered "preventative" and thus required to be covered cost free, is an extra-constitutional body and so the government does not have the authority to enforce its decisions.

How is this possibly compatible with Seila Law and Collins v. Yellen?  SCOTUS (with all the current justices on it in the latter case, and it wasn't close) has consistently favored the narrow remedy of making the unconstitutionally appointed/designated official's accountable to the president/cabinet secretary.  So the HHS secretary would get to review and approve or reject the board's future recommendations, rather than pretending the board never existed.   I would think that's almost surely how this ends?

I think this is correct.

That would still introduce a political element to the decisions, but hopefully only around the edges (I would hope cancer screenings of all things remain nonpartisan).  Would the next Republican appointed HHS Secretary continue to require no-cost coverage for PrEP and Plan B?  Alternatively, would Biden's HHS put screenings for gender dysphoria on the list?  I could see certain screenings/treatments for substance abuse becoming a flashpoint as well, but IDK which way?

[Blue3]

I feel like this won't stand. But who knows.