Federal District Court Rules Employers Can Refuse to Buy Health Insurance That Covers PrEP

Truvada for PrEP is an antiretroviral drug (courtesy of Tony Webster)

In the post-Dobbs Against what needs to be done to protect civil rights, many people are worried about overturning the Supreme Court’s protests protecting marriage equality, same-sex marriage, and birth control. But we also have to worry about the new poisonous weeds coming out of the ground Federalist Society‘s pile of dung and smothering new signs of progress in the law.

For example, earlier this month some of the worst people in Texas won in federal court in Ft. Suits against the US Department of Health and Human Services, as Judge Reed O’Connor ruled in Braidwood Management v. Becerra that the plaintiffs may refuse to purchase health insurance that covers them pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) medicines taken to prevent HIV infection. This means that HHS will not require this everything plans sold in the US cover PrEP, as it has been since 2020, following recommendations from its medical experts. That law has now been subsumed under what would become a permanent law.

Why do the singers want to do this? Because PrEP encourages boys to have sex, of course! (Maybe women too? The critics didn’t really say; they were more worried that girls would be driven out to have sex with HPV vaccine, which is a long-term source of the fear of conservative behavior that is somehow covered in this article.) Obviously, allowing people to avoid death from horrible diseases is a very high price to pay for maintaining anti-sex and especially anti-LGBTQ attitudes. code. It is therefore a violation of the religious beliefs which the appellants sincerely follow.

At first, this sounds like Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor lawsuits that overturned the Affordable Care Act’s guarantee of birth control. But in this case, they are brought, as it is Braidwoodto be protected under federal law Religious Freedom Restoration Act, there was no doubt that contraception itself was against the sincere religious beliefs of the people; good or bad. The Obama White House knew with the ACA mandate that it was choosing to create controversy; no one was surprised that the convent didn’t want to just walk with them even if it was just looking at the box. It wasn’t known until after the fact that SCOTUS would sympathize and side with the plaintiffs, but it wasn’t just a hypothetical argument.

This plaintiffs – different people and two companies, including Braidwood Managementa company of disgusting Houston sociopaths and homophobes Steven Hotze because of his various Christian meetings and side events – he is very concerned about messages and vibes. He is not being asked to sin; PrEP (and HPV) drugs come in packages, and they can avoid them if they don’t want to get the cooties. Hotze has previously stated publicly that he does not employ homosexuals, which is fine with this judge, so it is unclear what damages he may claim to face here.

At issue is HHS’s ability to mandate preventive health care services that have been proven to save lives, including those that protect against sexually transmitted diseases. But it’s not a fight that will win the Biden White House, so instead we get religious opposition… That seems like the top of a really slippery slope, doesn’t it?

The critics argued that since Hotze et al. He’s right – a lot of boys will have sinful boys if they can use PrEP – he needs to prove that he’s contradicting the evidence that has led to the law being passed. But O’Connor, who has previously tried to derail the entire ACA from his bench to return to SCOTUS, was sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ argument that asking them to show their work was unnecessary and inappropriate. Because their beliefs are “true,” it doesn’t matter if they are nonsense, and now employers and other interlopers can drop religious arguments on anything they wouldn’t see changed. An appeal is certain, but no time frame has been set.

Have something to say? The History welcomes suggestions on any community topic. Submit yours here at austinchronicle.com/opinion.