HIV drug mandate violates religious freedom, judge rules

[zebo-the-fat]

HIV drug mandate violates religious freedom, judge rules

US healthcare plans that cover the main HIV prevention drug free of charge are in violation of the right to religious freedom, a judge has ruled.
Employers are required to cover certain preventive services and medications in their insurance plans under US law.

But a group of Texas Christians sued in 2020 over coverage of the HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, drug.
They argued the drug can "facilitate or encourage homosexual behaviour".

PrEP is recommended for adults who are at high risk of contracting HIV. It can reduce infection risk by as much as 99% when taken as prescribed, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62827615



Not sure how restricting someons freedom to take (or not to take) a drug gives you more religious freedom. If you think it's wrong to use the drug then don't use it!

[Foxaèr]

Yet another instance of theists being ignorant twats.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Actually, what the judge ruled is

But District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled on Wednesday that the government cannot require "private, religious corporations" to cover the drug "with no cost-sharing and no religious exemptions".

So, if a church offers insurance to cover the cost of HIV drugs for their employees, they can do so. They aren't prohibited from offering such coverage, they just can be forced to.

The ruling ONLY applies to religious organizations that hate gay people.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd hate to have to be the guy that explains their religiously limited benefits package to prospective employees. Just for clarity, that's what the judge ruled because the judge is a shameless loon, but the company is in no way or form a christian or religious company. Frankly, they just wanted a reduction on the costs of their employee insurance plan by scraping (real-and-feared) federally mandated minimum requirements.

One less homosex drug here, one less slut pill there, and pretty soon you're talking real money! And they knew they could count on the "religious liberty" people losing their shit if they had to believe that somehow, somewhere, some homosexer wasn't dying of aids. Therefore..ergo, and By Copy of this Truth - the employer can mandate what the employee does and doesn't do with their genitals in the off hours, compensation free!

These people, I swear to christ, make me feel my eliminationist roots on a constant basis. Wanna tell me what to do with my dick? Fine...but you're employing me as a sex worker and I think..in light of that, we need to renegotiate the hourly rate and the medical benefits package...or maybe just fuck off? If they wont voluntarily fuck off, then maybe just maybe, they're going to have to be made to. Plugged that into your p and ls to see if this shit is worth it, yet?

*If one of my many children contracted hiv through homosex or -gasp- regular ole p in v (which is, apparently, a thing..go figure......)...and the business they worked for said they weren't going to pony up any copay on the cost of this medication...I'd burn their fucking fast food emporium to the ground. No joke. I would snap. I'd still be there hands behind my back on my knees when Johnny Law and the firefighters showed up..smiling. I believe they call that a total loss....on the spreadsheets. Are they really ready to play chicken with the entirety of the us populace? When has that ever gone well for anyone, historically?

[Aegon]

It's so absurd that the plaintiffs explicitly claimed PrEP promotes homosexual behavior and promiscuity as the reason it shouldn't be included in the ACA's list of covered preventive care services. It's even more absurd that an actual federal judge agreed. We'll see what happens when HHS appeals. And Judge O'Connor (who is known as a hack who tries to overturn the ACA every chance he gets) has yet to decide how broad of a scope this decision will have. We should know by the end of the month.

This is a really big deal. PrEP is one of the ACA's preventive care services. Under current law, every health insurance plan must cover certain essential health benefits (EHB). The list of preventive care services under the ACA are a part of those EHB. If you want to legally be considered health insurance, you must cover all preventive care services at no out-of-pocket cost to the individual. (Meaning they're free.) Being able to remove the coverage of PrEP from that list of preventive care services may very well lead to further cases that dismantle this part of the law entirely. That sucks, there is a lot of good stuff on that list, from immunizations to cancer screenings.

I don't know how much people here care about administrative law, but this case is actually a huge deal for the regulatory process too. Article II of the Constitution vests the executive authority of the United States in the president but allows executive authority to be exercised by officers nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate or by other “inferior officers.” According to the judge's decision this week, the preventive services requirement violates this standard because members of the USPSTF, ACIP and HRSA (the HHS sub agencies that decide which preventive-care services are covered by the ACA) have not been nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate. This is actually CRAZY, because that's how every agency creates regulation. So if this part of the decision is not overturned, the government will have to fundamentally change how it regulates private industry.

Actually, what the judge ruled is

But District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled on Wednesday that the government cannot require "private, religious corporations" to cover the drug "with no cost-sharing and no religious exemptions".

So, if a church offers insurance to cover the cost of HIV drugs for their employees, they can do so. They aren't prohibited from offering such coverage, they just can be forced to.

The ruling ONLY applies to religious organizations that hate gay people.

Boru

No, this ruling does not apply to churches or religious organizations. Churches already have a religious freedom exemption from the ACA preventive care mandate, that was decided long ago when Obamacare first passed.

According to this decision, any private company that offers health insurance to their employees can refuse to cover PrEP now (and maybe any preventive care service depending on how broad of a scope the judge wants to use). "Religious organization" is not the same thing as a "religious corporation." The term "religious organization" is a legitimate legal term and it refers to a church or religious organization established "on the basis of a community of faith and belief, doctrines and practices of a religious character, and which engages primarily in religious activities." A "religious corporation," on the other hand, is literally any private company that considers itself religious. That's it. Chick-fil-A would be a good example.

You can imagine how many companies in the US might consider themselves "religious corporations."

[The Grand Nudger]

So would Bank of America. What, stop laughing, the courts have long held that they are not in a position to judge whether or not a persons religious affirmations are genuine or sincerely held. I guess that holds for corporate people too! Cynically speaking, creating a profit and privilege carve out for "religious corporations" is a strong incentive for every corporation to suddenly find jesus...a bit of data which the dominionists would gladly have as ammunition in their holy quest to install a theocracy with the backing of corporate donors.

[Divinity]

Some days you wonder why we don't have vigilantes.