The case grew out of a conservative religious challenge to the approval of HIV prevention treatments that insurers are required to provide at no cost to patients.

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to an Affordable Care Act provision that set up a panel to recommend preventive care services that insurers must provide at no cost to patients.

The court, split 6-3, ruled in favor of the Trump administration, which was defending the law, saying the task force members are lawfully appointed under the Constitution’s appointments clause.

The task force members are under the supervision of the health and human services secretary, a position held by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which addresses any concerns that it is not accountable to the executive branch, the court found in an opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Three conservative justices dissented.

  • Broadfern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    44 minutes ago

    Without reading yet I just know 2 out of those 3 dissenters are Alito and Thomas, fucking slimebags.

    EDIT: Weirdly, the article doesn’t mention who it was. Had to find a Guardian article that listed who did write in favor of the case, and by powers of deduction the dissenters were, in fact: Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    The case grew out of a conservative religious challenge to the approval of HIV prevention treatments that insurers are required to provide at no cost to patients.

    Read: “We hate queer people so much that we don’t want to prevent a mindless infectious disease that we believe primarily hurts them.”

    Now, the weird thing is that the Little t administration was defending part of the ACA. I have to think that it’s because “The task force members are under the supervision of the health and human services secretary, a position held by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,” and HHS will gut that panel and repopulate it with wackadoos like they did with the vaccine advisory panel, and the panel will simply revoke the previously given approval.