Latest news with #Christian-owned
Yahoo
27-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
What the Supreme Court Obamacare decision means for RFK Jr.
The U.S. Supreme Court preserved a key element of the Affordable Care Act that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care at no cost to patients. The justices reversed a lower court's ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under the 2010 law has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, is composed of members who were not validly appointed. The suit started in Texas, where two Christian-owned businesses and individuals argued that health insurance plans they buy shouldn't have to cover medical tests and drugs they object to on religious grounds, such as the HIV-prevention drug PrEP. But the legal question at the heart of the Supreme Court case was whether the task force is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can remove task force members at will and can review their recommendations before they take effect. 'The Task Force members are removable at will by the Secretary of HHS, and their recommendations are reviewable by the Secretary before they take effect,' he wrote. 'So Task Force members are supervised and directed by the Secretary, who in turn answers to the President preserving the chain of command.' The Health and Human Services secretary has always appointed task force members and ratified their recommendations, said MaryBeth Musumeci, teaching associate professor of health policy and management at George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health. But the ruling expanded on that authority by clarifying that the secretary also could remove members and block recommendations, she said. Given that Kennedy had recently fired all 17 original members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, another expert panel that issues health recommendations, Musumeci said 'there is reason to be worried.' The secretary has never removed access to preventive services that have been proven to help people stay healthy, nor has the secretary "sought to shape the membership of our expert panel in any way," task force chair Dr. Michael Silverstein said in a statement emailed to USA TODAY. 'While the HHS Secretary has long had authority over the USPSTF, historically they have only acted to increase access to preventive care, occasionally going beyond the evidence to secure enhanced coverage for preventive services," he said. "Given our shared focus on preventing cancer and chronic disease, we certainly hope that the Secretary will allow our current work to continue unimpeded, as it has thus far.' Surprise move? RFK Jr.'s vaccine committee votes to recommend RSV shot for infants Katherine Hempstead, senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a health nonprofit, praised the high court's decision because it meant that millions of Americans still have access to preventive care such as mental health screenings, cancer screenings, STI testing and important medications. But she also called the ruling both an 'ending and a beginning.' 'It's the ending of the challenge, but now it's the beginning of something that's going to unfold where we're going to see someone exercise control over this expert panel that has very strong opinions about … many aspects of medical care,' she said. More details: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage If Kennedy plans to target the preventive services task force, it's unclear what preventive services could be at risk, Musumeci said. But insurance companies ultimately have the final decision. Even if the secretary vetoes a new recommendation or revokes an existing one, insurance companies can still decide to cover the preventive service. America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade association representing health insurance companies, plans to closely monitor the legal process but affirms that the court's ruling will not affect any existing coverage, according to an emailed statement sent to USA TODAY. Contributing: Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY; Reuters. Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Obamacare Supreme Court decision: What it means for RFK Jr.
Axios
27-06-2025
- Health
- Axios
SCOTUS upholds Obamacare free preventive care coverage
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to a section of the Affordable Care Act that designates a federal task force to recommend which preventive services insurers must cover at no cost to patients. Why it matters: The 6-3 decision will ensure continued access to free cancer screenings, vaccines, HIV drugs and counseling for the roughly 150 million Americans with private health insurance. The court said that the Health and Human Services secretary can still remove members of the task force. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurring. "This is a critical win for prevention," Michael Ruppal, executive director of The AIDS Institute, said in a statement. Context: The case stems from a 2020 lawsuit against the federal government filed by two Christian-owned companies. They argued that the task force recommendation requiring them to cover free HIV prevention drugs in their employer-sponsored health plans was unconstitutional because task force members are not confirmed by the Senate. The Trump administration defended the structure of the task force, echoing the Biden administration arguments that it's constitutionally sound because the health secretary can remove members at will and decide when insurers have to cover recommendations. Justices agreed that task force members are accountable to the HHS secretary. "In short, through the power to remove and replace Task Force members at will, the Secretary can exert significant control over the Task Force—including by blocking recommendations he does not agree with," Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion. The other side: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — the court's most conservative members — maintained that the task force members were not appointed in accordance with the Constitution. What to watch: The decision gives HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the opportunity to make big changes to the preventive service task force's membership and the services it endorses. He's already done something similar with the panel that advises CDC on immunization recommendations, removing all 17 of its members and replacing them with handpicked successors. "The potential for politicization and the rejection of scientific consensus under this administration pose an ongoing threat to the very services this ruling just preserved," Elizabeth Taylor, executive director of the National Health Law Program, said in a statement. Congress is also debating cuts to Medicaid, which could erode access to preventive care for millions of Americans.
Time of India
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court Key Rulings: All details about birthright citizenship, Obamacare task force, LGBTQ school books
On Friday, the US Supreme Court issued four major decisions. These rulings involved the Trump administration's birthright citizenship proposal, preventive health care coverage, rural internet funding and religious objections to LGBTQ-themed books in schools. Each ruling came through a 6-3 vote, mostly along ideological lines. Birthright Citizenship The Court allowed the Trump administration to take steps toward ending automatic birthright citizenship. In a 6-3 ruling, it limited the use of nationwide injunctions. Judges may now issue injunctions only for parties involved in the lawsuit. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that courts should not exceed their authority, even if they find executive actions unlawful. She added that lower courts must quickly decide how wide any injunction should be. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo This ruling does not decide the legality of the policy itself. The Trump order redefines birthright citizenship, making it available only to children of US citizens or legal residents. The 14th Amendment currently guarantees citizenship to almost anyone born in the country, except children of diplomats. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, called the ruling a threat to the rule of law. She urged plaintiffs to file class action suits, which the ruling still permits. Live Events The executive order remains blocked in New Hampshire due to a separate case. Still, the decision allows the proposal to move ahead in other states. Also Read: NYC Mayor Race: Will US deport Zohran Mamdani? See who wants to revoke his US citizenship and does law permit it Obamacare Task Force In another 6-3 ruling, the Court upheld the authority of a government task force under the Affordable Care Act. The task force recommends preventive services that insurers must cover at no cost. The challenge came from Christian-owned businesses. They argued that the task force held unchecked power because its members were not Senate-confirmed. The Court disagreed. About 150 million Americans currently receive free preventive services under this arrangement. These include screenings and medications related to cancer, HIV, and cholesterol. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. They questioned the structure and influence of the task force. Internet Subsidy Program The Court upheld the Universal Service Fund (USF), which supports phone and internet access in rural areas, schools and hospitals. The decision rejected a challenge from Consumers' Research, which claimed Congress gave too much authority to the FCC and a private company. The fund, started in 1996, distributes about $8 billion a year. It supports low-income users and underserved communities. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority. She said the funding structure does not violate the Constitution. Justices Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito dissented. The decision keeps the USF intact. Both the Biden and Trump administrations defended the program. Also Read: Reacher Season 4 Casting Update: Christopher Rodriguez-Marquette joins cast. See which role will he play LGBTQ Books in Schools The Court sided with parents who objected to their children reading LGBTQ-themed books in Maryland elementary schools. The 6-3 ruling found that the school board's refusal to offer opt-outs violated religious rights. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that denying opt-outs placed a burden on parents' right to exercise their religion. The books include stories involving same-sex marriage and transgender identity. The case arose after a school board revised its English curriculum in 2022 to reflect diverse families. Initially, opt-outs were offered but later withdrawn. The plaintiffs included Muslim, Catholic and Orthodox Christian families. A federal judge and appeals court had sided with the school board, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision. FAQs What did the Supreme Court decide about birthright citizenship? The Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed by limiting court injunctions, without ruling on whether the plan itself is constitutional. How did the Court rule on preventive health coverage? The Court upheld a task force's authority under the ACA to mandate no-cost preventive services, benefiting over 150 million Americans.
Washington Post
27-06-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
Supreme Court upholds Affordable Care Act's preventive care mandate
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a portion of the Affordable Care Act that requires health plans to provide free preventive care such as cancer screenings. In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled against a Christian-owned business and individuals who objected to being forced to offer medications intended to prevent the spread of HIV among at-risk populations. The plaintiffs contend the medications, which are administered before possible HIV exposure, 'encourage and facilitate homosexual behavior' in conflict with their religious beliefs. Health-care providers and nonprofit organizations say the case could have blocked critical health care for many Americans. A Stanford University study estimated nearly 40 million Americans use the act's preventive services. Friday's ruling in Kennedy v. Braidwood was one of six opinions expected from the justices on the final day of the Supreme Court term. The groups objected to the preventive care mandate on religious grounds, but their legal arguments before the high court involved a technical question about the expert panel that decides which measures health plans must cover. They argued that members of the Preventive Services Task Force were improperly appointed because they were not approved by the Senate. The mandate, the challengers said, was therefore unenforceable. The high court rejected that argument. The Constitution's appointment clause requires the president to appoint and win Senate approval for principal officers such as Cabinet secretaries, federal judges and ambassadors, but allows Congress to vest authority in department heads and other officials to appoint 'inferior officers.' Jonathan Mitchell, an attorney for the challengers, said during oral arguments in April that the 16-member task force wields significant independent power and its appointees therefore should be considered principal officers. Lawyers defending President Donald Trump in his classified documents case last year made a similar argument about special counsel Jack Smith, and convinced a federal judge appointed by Trump in his first term to toss the indictment. In the preventive care case, some justices seemed skeptical of the idea. 'Your theory, I think, depends on us treating the task force as this massively important agency that operates with unreviewable authority,' Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said. 'Normally, before that kind of thing would happen, Congress would have provided stronger indications.' The health and human services secretary has made appointments to the panel since 2023. Hashim Mooppan, principal deputy solicitor general, told the justices that task force members are inferior officers since they serve at will under the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The secretary also supervises the panel and decides when its recommendations take effect. The preventive care mandate covers dozens of services — from statins for to preventing heart disease to screenings for hepatitis B and HIV. This is a developing story. It will be updated.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Christian-owned spa loses court battle over banning trans women in WA
This story was originally published on A federal appeals court ruled in favor of Washington after the state told a Christian-owned traditional Korean spa that barring transgender women from its services violates the state's anti-discrimination law. Olympus Spa is a women-only spa located in Lynnwood and Tacoma. In 2023, the owners of Olympus Spa filed a lawsuit against Washington, claiming their First Amendment rights would be violated by allowing trans women to enter. Olympus Spa's policy restricts entry to 'biological women,' excluding men and preoperative transgender women (those who have not had gender-confirmation surgery). The Washington State Human Rights Commission claimed the spa's barring of transgender women was a violation of Washington's Law Against Discrimination. Two years later, a federal appeals court agreed, stating that this ruling does not violate the spa's rights to the freedom of religion, speech, and association. 'The spa's religious expression was only incidentally burdened,' Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote in the majority opinion, claiming that the limits of the spa owner's free speech were essential to eliminate discriminatory conduct. This conflict between the state and Olympus Spa started in 2020 when the spa turned away a transgender woman, asking if she could receive the spa's services. The spa told the customer they excluded transgender women who had not undergone gender confirmation surgery. The Washington Law Against Discrimination was amended in 2006 to prohibit public facilities from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The Washington definition of sexual orientation includes gender expression and identity.
