Latest news with #GeorgetownLaw
Miami Herald
07-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Miami Herald
Tiffany Trump posted a photo of her baby — and a lot of people had the same comment
World, meet ATB. Those are the initials of the first family's newest member: Alexander Trump Boulous. On Friday, Tiffany Trump posted an Instagram picture of her first child, a baby boy with husband Michael Boulous, who was born in Palm Beach. She announced his birth on May 15 with a photo of his little foot. The Georgetown Law grad, Donald Trump's daughter with second wife Marla Maples, shared a few more recent snaps of the wee one, who has a shock of reddish-brown hair and wide, blue eyes. 'The love of our lives,' said the caption of the newborn, whose middle name is apparently mom's maiden name. A big theme among the 31-year-old's followers? Amid the mix of compliments and insults from obvious trolls, many thought ATB bore a striking resemblance to another member of the family. That would be his grandfather, the leader of the free world, who now has 11 grandkids in total. 'He looks like Grandpa.' 'Your son is the carbon copy of your dad.' 'I see it too. All of the Trump grandsons look similar.' 'He has eyes like his papaw.'
Forbes
01-07-2025
- Health
- Forbes
This Supreme Court Health Insurance Ruling Affects 150 Million Americans—What This Means for Cancer Patients
Editorial Note: We earn a commission from partner links on Forbes Advisor. Commissions do not affect our editors' opinions or evaluations. In a critical victory for patients on June 27th, the Supreme Court has determined that health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, must continue to fully cover preventative services, including cancer screenings, HIV prevention medication, and mental health counseling, without co-pays or deductibles. An estimated 150 million Americans will benefit from the ruling, according to the O'Neill Institute at Georgetown Law. These preventative treatments have been available to Americans under the ACA since the law went into effect over a decade ago—and advocates argued that eliminating access could pose significant health care risks to those who rely on them the most. Before the ruling, a New Orleans lower court had deemed the ACA's preventative services mandate unconstitutional, arguing that the members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force were not validly appointed. Had the decision stood, insurers could impose cost-sharing on screenings, meaning patients could have been forced to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs, potentially leading to skipped exams and life-threatening delayed diagnoses. A 2024 report published in Health Services Research revealed that with the implementation of ACA, patients receiving cancer treatment increased by 6.2%, with a noted sharp increase in 2016 when Medicaid expansion took effect in Pennsylvania. Another progress report by the American Association for Cancer Research found that the ACA shrunk other coverage gaps, including the rate of delayed surgery, which dropped from 9.8% to 8.4% after Medicaid expansion for patients belonging to ethnic minority groups. Although this ruling heavily impacts cancer screenings, it also preserves coverage for other preventative care like cholesterol, blood pressure checks, lung cancer screenings, HIV prevention (PrEP), medications to prevent breast cancer, and immunizations. Patients who face multiple health risks should use a holistic approach and capitalize on ACA's benefits for a robust safety net. Consumers should: Maintain regular screenings: The Affordable Care Act continues to fully cover routine cancer screenings at no cost. Make use of annual mammograms, colonoscopies, or lung-cancer risk to catch anything at an early stage. The Affordable Care Act continues to fully cover routine cancer screenings at no cost. Make use of annual mammograms, colonoscopies, or lung-cancer risk to catch anything at an early stage. Watch for policy changes: Though coverage remains solid for now, future reforms or appointee decisions under Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, could mean changes in the future. Stay alert to federal health updates. The Supreme Court's ruling is a significant win for cancer patients and public health. By guaranteeing continued access to free preventative care, it helps improve early detection, reduce treatment costs and barriers, and save lives. However, vigilance is key. Patients should stay aware of administrative changes that might shift the policy basis of covered services in the future.
Bloomberg
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Weekend Law: Final SCOTUS Decisions & Dogs Are Family
Constitutional law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, discusses the Supreme Court limiting judge's use of nationwide injunctions. First Amendment law expert Caroline Mala Corbin, discusses the Supreme Court bolstering the rights of religious parents. Christopher Berry, the Executive Director of the Nonhuman Rights Project, discusses a New York judge ruling that dogs are part of the family. June Grasso hosts.
Bloomberg
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Weekend Law: Final SCOTUS Opinions & Dogs Are Family
Constitutional law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, discusses the Supreme Court limiting judge's use of nationwide injunctions. First Amendment law expert Caroline Mala Corbin, discusses the Supreme Court bolstering the rights of religious parents. Christopher Berry, the Executive Director of the Non Human Rights Project, discusses a New York judge ruling that dogs are part of the family. June Grasso hosts.
The Guardian
28-06-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
US supreme court ruling sets stage for more politicized science under RFK Jr
A US supreme court decision affirming the constitutionality of Obamacare sets the stage for more politicized science in the future, health law experts said about the court's decision. The court's majority opinion in Kennedy v Braidwood Management found that an expert panel – the preventive services taskforce – convened under the Affordable Care Act is under the direct oversight of the health secretary. 'This is your classic good news, bad news,' said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown Law. 'In a sane world, with a secretary of health that believes in science and doesn't bring in conspiracy theories and agendas, you would applaud this decision.' With health policy now in the hands of the Trump administration, 'it gives Secretary [Robert F Kennedy Jr] complete power about what to recommend and what not to recommend,' Gostin said. The court issued the opinion only hours after an expert vaccine advisory panel (ACIP) handpicked by Kennedy subverted the scientific consensus by recommending against vaccines containing thimerosal, a preservative overwhelmingly considered safe. Thimerosal has been a subject of misinformation and anti-vaccine advocacy for decades. Much like the expert panel in question in the Braidwood case, the recommendations of the vaccine advisory committee are a key link in the treatment distribution pipeline. Recommendations from both panels are typically affirmed by the leadership of the health department, and then become the basis on which insurers base coverage decisions. In the case of the ACIP, those recommendations typically concern vaccines. In the preventive taskforce context, they include a wide range of treatments – from statins to cancer screenings to HIV prevention. It was widely recognized that Kennedy had the authority to hire and fire people for the vaccine panel – but legal controversy existed about whether health secretaries have the same power over the preventive services taskforce. 'The president and the Senate are accountable 'for both the making of a bad appointment and the rejection of a good one',' wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the six-vote majority. In other words, the court said, if you don't like it, go to the ballot box. MaryBeth Musumeci, an associate professor of health law management at the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, told the Guardian: 'We have that structure in place – and that is a really great structure if the folks in charge are actually deferring to the experts and the science and what the evidence says.' She added: 'To the extent that we are going to make decisions based on bad science – that has really serious public health implications.' The panel at the center of the vaccine decision is the ACIP vaccine panel. Until June, the advisory panel was made up of 17 experts vetted by CDC career scientists. Their recommendations, while not binding, were almost always approved by CDC leadership. Kennedy fired all 17 members unilaterally in June and stocked the panel with eight ideological allies – including vaccine skeptics and medical professionals with little experience in vaccines. One panelist withdrew after a government financial review, and after it was widely publicized that the secretary's claims about the panelist's affiliation with two universities was false. Wayne Turner, a senior attorney for the National Health Law Program, which advocates for the medically underserved, said that he and others were 'certainly breathing a sigh of relief with the court's decision today' because a key provision of Obamacare was found to be constitutional. 'But that sigh of relief is really short-lived,' Turner said. 'We have long anticipated with the appointment of RFK Jr, and certainly with his actions with the ACIP, that we can fully expect the preventive services taskforce to be the next battleground in the ideological war this administration seems to be waging. And the war is against science.' The subject of the Braidwood case provides a salient example. Plaintiffs were suing the government to claim that the taskforce was wrongly appointed. Although their legal argument was thorny, one treatment they specifically cited as wrong was insurance coverage of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an HIV prevention drug. Although the plaintiffs' claim that the taskforce was unconstitutional was swatted down, it provides activists with a roadmap to get what they want – if they can convince Kennedy to appoint more ideological allies to the taskforce. The preventive services taskforce may have one protective mechanism: a requirement that they be guided by evidence written into Obamacare, the legislation that impaneled them. Gearing up for another fight, Turner said: 'That's going to be an important thing for us to point to in the weeks and months ahead, and years, quite frankly.'
