The Supreme Court is set to decide on the constitutionality of a core component of Obamacare, dismantling another piece of the controversial healthcare law.
The case pits religious liberty against unelected bureaucrats who have forced employers to pay for morally objectionable treatments like HIV prevention drugs.
The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that could restore constitutional order and religious freedom for millions of Americans.
The case, Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, questions whether the government can force employers to cover preventive health services that violate their religious beliefs.
One such service is HIV prevention medication PrEP, which some Christians oppose because they believe it promotes behavior contrary to their faith.
The dispute’s heart is whether the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
Lower federal courts have already agreed with the plaintiffs that the task force’s structure is unconstitutional, recognizing that these unaccountable bureaucrats wield too much power over American healthcare.
Meanwhile, conservative Christian employers in Texas initiated the lawsuit, arguing that the ACA’s mandate forces them to violate their religious convictions.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with these employers, ruling that the task force is unconstitutionally structured.
This ruling represents a significant victory for those fighting government overreach, though the administration predictably appealed to the Supreme Court to preserve Obama’s signature legislation.
In addition, the challenge targets the bureaucratic structure that has allowed unelected officials to dictate healthcare decisions since 2010.
The plaintiffs argue that task force members exercise substantial government power but are not properly appointed as federal officers, as the Constitution requires.
This case represents another opportunity for the Supreme Court to rein in the administrative state that has grown unchecked for decades.
Surprisingly, the Trump administration defended the task force’s constitutionality, claiming the health secretary maintains sufficient oversight.
Nevertheless, many conservatives see this case as a chance to restore proper constitutional checks and balances while protecting religious liberty for business owners who should not be forced to fund services that violate their deeply held beliefs.
A victory for the plaintiffs would allow insurance companies and employers to make their own decisions about covering preventive services, restore market freedoms, and remove government mandates.
Although liberals claim this would reduce access to care, most insurers would continue covering truly necessary preventive services that save money in the long run, with the flexibility to respect religious objections.
Oral arguments are scheduled at the Supreme Court, and a decision is expected by June.
For faithful Americans who have been forced to subsidize procedures and medications that violate their religious beliefs, this case represents hope that the Supreme Court will finally acknowledge their constitutional rights and strike down this aspect of government healthcare overreach.
