Idaho doctor, patients sue over new law halting public benefits to immigrants in US unlawfully
Advertisement
Dozens of patients treated by one Boise-area clinic stand to lose access to HIV and AIDS medication under the law, according to the complaint, including several cared for by Davids.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'Withdrawing HIV treatment from her patients will not only have devastating consequences on their health, it raises the public health risk of increased HIV transmission,' the ACLU wrote in the lawsuit. 'When her patients are undetectable, they cannot transmit the virus. Without HIV treatment, however, they cannot maintain an undetectable viral level and therefore are able to transmit the virus to others.'
The new Idaho law takes effect July 1, and appears to be the first limiting public health benefits since President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to enhance eligibility verification and ensure that public benefits aren't going to ineligible immigrants.
Advertisement
The law requires people to verify that they are legal U.S. residents to receive public benefits like communicable disease testing, vaccinations, prenatal and postnatal care for women, crisis counseling, some food assistance for children and even access to food banks or soup kitchens that rely on public funding.
Federal law generally prohibits immigrants in the U.S. illegally from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security. But there are some exceptions for things like emergency medical care and other emergency or public health services.
Idaho's law still allows for emergency medical services. But in a June 18 letter to health care providers, Idaho Division of Public Health administrator Elke Shaw-Tulloch said HIV is a long-term condition and not an emergency — so people must verify their lawful presence in order to get benefits through the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program.
The HIV patients challenging the new law include a married couple from Columbia with pending asylum applications, a man who was brought to the U.S. when he was just 4 years old and has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status until next year, and a man from Mexico who has been living and working in Idaho since 2020.
One of the patients said she and her husband were diagnosed with HIV in 2019 and immediately started antiretroviral therapy, receiving the medications at no cost through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The medication has lowered the viral load in her body enough that it is now undetectable, she wrote in a court filing, ensuring that she won't transmit the virus to others.
'My medication protected my daughter while I was pregnant because it prevented me from transmitting HIV to her during pregnancy,' she wrote.
Advertisement
The treatment allows her to be with her child, watching her grow, she said.
Davids has been trying for weeks to get clarity from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about exactly what kind of verification her patients will have to show, and exactly which kinds of immigration status are considered 'lawful.' But the state has yet to provide clear direction, according to the complaint.
'I am really scared about what this means for many of our patients. Their lives will now be in jeopardy,' Davids wrote in a May 30 email to the Department of Health and Welfare.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elton John: We've made great progress on HIV/AIDS. Budget cuts threaten to set us back.
Ryan White was a spirited, bright kid who loved basketball, Nintendo and dreaming big. In 1984, 13-year-old Ryan contracted HIV through a contaminated blood transfusion used to treat his hemophilia. With widespread misconceptions about HIV/AIDS dominating the headlines, and fear overruling facts, Ryan was barred from attending his school and driven from his hometown of Kokomo, Indiana. His harrowing story suddenly thrust Ryan onto the national stage, where he transformed the attention into a powerful force for changing perceptions about those living with HIV/AIDS. He had no idea how far his message would reach. Yet he was determined to use it for the greater good. His courage inspired the creation of the Elton John AIDS Foundation, which continues to help people across America, and around the world, stay safe and well. At the time of his diagnosis, doctors gave Ryan only six months to live. On April 8, 1990, six precious years later, we sat together at Ryan's bedside and held his hands as he lost his young, heroic life to AIDS. First lady Barbara Bush attended his funeral, and businessman Donald Trump came to the family home to pay his respects. When Americans needed to take compassionate action, Ryan opened the door and urged everyone to take heart and to help. Four months later, in his name, Congress nearly unanimously enacted the Ryan White CARE Act – providing essential HIV care and treatment to Americans living with the virus. After years of fearmongering and paralysis, the U.S. government had finally committed to join the fight against our common enemy: AIDS. Ryan would be grateful for the progress being made. Today, more than 500,000 Americans living with HIV get lifesaving treatment through the Ryan White CARE Act. Opinion: The CDC won't fund local organizations' HIV prevention, ignoring KY health needs In 2019, President Trump proudly launched the End the HIV Epidemic initiative in his State of the Union address − a focused prevention effort to end the HIV epidemic in America by 2030. This evidence-based strategic initiative has achieved remarkable results, reducing new HIV infections by 21% in targeted communities and connecting people newly diagnosed with HIV to vital care and support services. This push to end AIDS is in full swing across America, but the work is not done yet – with young people, particularly in the South, now most severely impacted. We are grateful that the draft budget before Congress continues critically important funding for the Ryan White CARE Act and the End the HIV Epidemic efforts. That is an affirmation of these programs' effectiveness and bipartisan support. However, the proposal also would end federal funding to states for HIV surveillance, testing and education; for community-based organizations that reach those most at risk; and for substance abuse treatment and mental health programs that are crucial for driving down HIV infections. Attempts to cut Medicaid are also alarming, as more than 40% of people living with HIV have their care and treatment covered by Medicaid. Without this essential insurance, scores of people living with HIV won't get the care and medicines they need to keep them healthy. The president has said don't mess with Medicaid. We agree. Your Turn: What readers told us about Medicaid | Opinion Forum Programs that provide treatment, fuel prevention and fight stigma should be expanded, not eliminated, as we work toward eradicating the disease that ended Ryan's life. The game-changing opportunity of the moment is to scale up prevention medication that keeps people HIV-free. The recent American-led development of PrEP − a pill or shot that prevents the virus from taking hold − is just the tool we need to end AIDS, but only if we make it accessible to those who need it. The economics are compelling: 14,000 people can receive generic PrEP ($30 annually) for the lifetime cost of treating one person with HIV ($420,285) − keeping Americans healthy, HIV-free and productive. The moment of truth is here. As the administration and Congress consider their investment priorities for next year, we urge them to continue joining forces in the fight against AIDS in the United States and worldwide. Together, their investments over time have created this once-in-a-generation opportunity to end AIDS in America by 2030, as called for by President Trump. Together they can seize that opportunity by banking on prevention. Ryan would expect nothing less. Jeanne White-Ginder is the mother of Ryan White. World-renowned musician Elton John established the Elton John AIDS Foundation in 1992. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Elton John: US can end HIV, but Trump cuts threaten progress | Opinion
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A million kids won't live to kindergarten because of this disastrous decision
The deadliest country in the world for young children is South Sudan — the United Nations estimates that about 1 in 10 children born there won't make it to their fifth birthday. But just a hundred years ago, that was true right here in the United States: Every community buried about a tenth of their children before they entered kindergarten. That was itself a huge improvement over 1900, when fully 25 percent of children in America didn't make it to age 5. Today, even in the poorest parts of the world, every child has a better chance than a child born in the richest parts of the world had a century ago. How did we do it? Primarily through vaccines, which account for about 40 percent of the global drop in infant mortality over the last 50 years, representing 150 million lives saved. Once babies get extremely sick, it's incredibly hard to get adequate care for them anywhere in the world, but we've largely prevented them from getting sick in the first place. Vaccines eradicated smallpox and dramatically reduced infant deaths from measles, tuberculosis, whooping cough, and tetanus. And vaccines not only make babies likelier to survive infancy but also make them healthier for the rest of their lives. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., unfortunately, disagrees. President Donald Trump's secretary of health and human services (HHS), a noted vaccine skeptic who reportedly does not really believe the scientific consensus that disease is caused by germs, recently announced the US will pull out of Gavi, an international alliance of governments and private funders (mainly the Gates Foundation) that works to ensure lifesaving vaccinations reach every child worldwide. His grounds? He thinks Gavi doesn't worry enough about vaccine safety (he does not seem to acknowledge any safety concerns associated with the alternative — dying horribly from measles or tuberculosis). The Trump administration had already slashed its contribution to Gavi as part of its gutting of lifesaving international aid programs earlier this year, leaving any US contributions in significant doubt. But if Kennedy's latest decision holds, it now appears that the US will contribute nothing to this crucial program. The US is one of many funders of Gavi, historically contributing about 13 percent of its overall budget. In 2022, we pledged $2.53 billion for work through 2030, a contribution that Gavi estimates was expected to save about 1.2 million lives by enabling wider reach with vaccine campaigns. That's an incredibly cost-effective way to save lives and ensure more children grow into healthy adults, and it's a cost-effective way to reduce the spread of diseases that will also affect us here in the US. Diseases don't stay safely overseas when we allow them to spread overseas. Measles is highly contagious, and worldwide vaccination helps keep American children safe, too. Tuberculosis is becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics, which makes it harder and more expensive to treat, and widespread vaccination (so that people don't catch it in the first place) is the best tool to ensure dangerous new strains don't develop. It is genuinely hard to describe how angry I am about the casual endangerment of more than a million people because Kennedy apparently thinks measles vaccines are more dangerous than measles is. The American people should be furious about it, too. If other funders aren't able to cover the difference, an enormous number of children will pointlessly die because the US secretary of health and human services happens to be wildly wrong about how diseases work. But the blame won't end with him. It will also fall on everyone else in the Trump administration, and on the senators who approved his appointment in the first place even when his wildly wrong views were widely known, for not caring enough about children dying to have objected. Kennedy, it's worth noting, is not even a long-standing Trump loyalist. He's a kook who hitched his wagon to the Trump train a few months before the election. He doesn't have a huge constituency; it wouldn't have taken all that much political courage for senators to ask for someone else to lead HHS. A lot of his decisions are likely to kill people — from his decision to ban safe, tested food dyes and instead encourage the use of food dyes some people are severely allergic to because they're 'natural' to his courtship of American anti-vaxxers and his steps to undermine accurate guidance on American child vaccination. Trump could still easily override Kennedy on Gavi, if Trump cared about mass death. But if it holds, pulling out of Gavi is likely to be Kennedy's deadliest decision — at least so far. He reportedly may not believe that AIDS is caused by HIV, either, and he can surpass the death toll of this week's decision if he decides to act on that conviction by gutting our AIDS programs in the US and globally. But whether or not the Gavi withdrawal is the deadliest, it certainly stands out for its sheer idiocy. (The Gates Foundation is going to heroic lengths to close the funding gap, and individual donors matter, too: You can donate to Gavi here.) None of this should have been allowed to happen. Since Kennedy's confirmation vote in the Senate passed by a narrow margin with Mitch McConnell as the sole Republican opposing the nomination, every single other Republican senator had the opportunity to prevent it from happening — if they were willing to get yelled at momentarily for demanding that our health secretary understand how diseases work. I am glad the United States does not have the child mortality rates of South Sudan. I'm glad that even South Sudan does not have the child mortality rates of our world in 1900. I'm glad the United States participated in the worldwide eradication of smallpox, and I was glad that we paid our share toward Gavi until the Trump administration slashed funding earlier this year. I'm even glad that mass death is so far in our past that it's possible for someone to be as deluded about disease as Kennedy is. But I am very, very sick of seeing the greatest achievements of our civilization, and the futures of a million children, be ripped to shreds by some of the worst people in politics — not because they have any alternative vision but because they do not understand what they are doing.
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
From sports to birth certificates, Supreme Court to confront more anti-transgender policies
Just days after the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors in one of its most important cases of the year, the justices must now decide the fate of other anti-trans policies. As soon as Monday, the nine are set to confront six separate cases that have languished on their docket — some for over a year and a half — including several appeals that deal with whether transgender athletes can play on sports teams that align with their gender identity. The high court's 6-3 ruling this month in US v. Skrmetti delivered a significant legal setback for trans youth and their advocates, who have spent years litigating against health care bans that have been enacted in more than half the country. But the decision was ultimately limited to questions about health care and left other key legal issues for the trans community unresolved. 'The whole gamut of discrimination against trans folks really is at the place where it was before Skrmetti,' said Josh Block, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who represents plaintiffs in some of the pending appeals. 'Skrmetti resolves a hugely important issue, but they resolve it in a way that is narrow and doesn't have an immediate fallout for other types of discrimination.' The court could agree this week to hear arguments in the backlog of cases dealing with trans issues — putting transgender rights front and center for a second year in a row. It could also dispose of the cases summarily, which would mean requiring lower courts to review their decisions in light of Skrmetti. In addition to the sports issue, the justices are juggling appeals that deal with health insurance plans that deny coverage for gender-affirming care and an executive order signed by the governor of Oklahoma that bars the state health department from allowing anyone to alter the sex or gender on their birth certificate. If the Supreme Court summarily sends those cases back to a lower court, it would likely wipe out decisions that were favorable to transgender advocates. Whether the justices take up any of the cases for their next session is no small thing: The court has been reluctant in recent years to consider the extent to which the Constitution or other federal laws provide protection to transgender Americans. Before the Tennessee case, the last time the high court decided a major dispute dealing specifically with trans rights was 2020, when the justices said that federal civil rights law protects transgender workers. But that decision was limited to the workplace, and the court declined in Skrmetti to decide whether the rationale in that case can be applied elsewhere. Attorneys for the states of Idaho and West Virginia, which both enacted anti-trans sports bans in recent years, wasted no time responding to the Skrmetti decision, filing rush briefs at the Supreme Court arguing that the justices should not close the door on the other pending cases. The lower courts had concluded the laws at issue in those cases violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex at schools that receive federal aid. Because the court decided the Skrmetti case on the ground that Tennessee's gender-affirming care ban classified based on age and medical use, the states' lawyers argued, it doesn't help resolve challenges to the sports bans, which turn more directly on sex. 'While Skrmetti is a landmark decision, our specific question remains,' West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey said last week. Attorneys for Idaho also urged the justices to hear their case, arguing that simply sending it back down for a lower court to reconsider the challenge in light of the Skrmetti decision 'is unlikely to accomplish anything but more harm to women and girls.' 'Whether designating sports teams based on biological sex violates the Equal Protection Clause is a critically important issue that has been roiling the lower courts, frustrating female student athletes, and confounding every level of government for years,' they wrote in court papers. Research on trans people's athletic performance is scarce, and there have been no large-scale scientific studies on the topic or on how hormone therapies may affect their performance in specific sport categories. Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion in Skrmetti made no mention of sports bans, which have been enacted in more than two dozen Republican-led states. But conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett made clear in a concurring opinion that she's against adding transgender status to the short list of personal identities like race and sex that receive special protection under the 14th Amendment. And she pointed to sports bans to argue that courts shouldn't be over-policing decisions made by elected lawmakers. 'Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy — ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams,' she wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. 'But legislatures have many valid reasons to make policy in these areas, and so long as a statute is a rational means of pursuing a legitimate end, the equal protection clause is satisfied.' While bans on gender-affirming care for minors have become a political lightning rod in recent years, other restrictions on access to health care for trans Americans have garnered less attention, including ones impacting adults. Last year, North Carolina and West Virginia asked the high court to review an appeals court decision that deemed unlawful those states' exclusion of coverage for gender-affirming care in insurance plans they sponsor. The Richmond, Virginia-based court held that the exclusions in both state plans violated the Equal Protection Clause. When the states first asked the Supreme Court to step into the disputes, they pressed the court to take the cases up notwithstanding the justices' announcement that they would hear the Tennessee case, which presented similar legal questions. West Virginia, in particular, stressed the fact that the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals also decided that its plan violated various federal laws, making the need for further review more necessary because the Skrmetti case dealt only with an alleged constitutional violation. 'Skrmetti did not address the statutory questions that the Fourth Circuit resolved against West Virginia. As for the equal-protection analysis, the level of scrutiny, the importance of a state's interest, and the relative 'fit' between that interest and the state's solution are different in the Medicaid context. So lower courts and States will still need more help after Skrmetti,' they wrote. The court is also considering hearing an appeal over a challenge to a Kentucky law similar to the Tennessee ban. There's significant overlap between the two cases, but a key distinction lies in the fact that the challengers in the Kentucky case are asking the court to decide whether that state's ban also violates a parent's right to make medical decisions for their children. During oral arguments in the Tennessee case last December, Barrett appeared interested in whether a ruling in the state's favor would foreclose courts from considering any future challenge to the law based on the parental rights issue — signaling that there may be support on the bench for addressing that piece of the debate at a later time. Karen Loewy, an attorney with the LGBTQ rights group Lambda Legal, said that while the court's Skrmetti decision makes it harder for litigants to fight back against laws like Tennessee's, the conservative majority was careful to 'leave the door open' for other arguments to be considered by the justices in the remaining cases. She cited both the parental rights issue and the court's decision to not address whether the 2020 ruling had any application outside of the employment space. 'Those are all still tools and legal arguments that are very viable in challenging other kinds of discrimination,' Loewy said.
