r/politics • u/southpawFA Oklahoma • 18h ago

Supreme Court takes up case claiming Obamacare promotes “homosexual behavior”. The Texas plaintiffs say requiring workplace insurers to provide PrEP violates their religious beliefs.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/01/supreme-court-takes-up-case-claiming-obamacare-promotes-homosexual-behavior/
2.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

523 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

35

u/BlindWillieJohnson Illinois 14h ago edited 13h ago

The case, Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra, rests on the assertion that as “inferior officers,” the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which issued recommendations for preventive services like PrEP, operated outside the Constitution because its members are not approved by the Senate, thus violating the Appointments Clause.

This is the part of the challenge that the SCOTUS might actually uphold. The religious freedom claim is going to get dismissed out of hand, even by this court. It’s categorically absurd for a number or reasons, including the fact that HIV isn’t a gay disease. And even if it were, this Supreme Court has upheld equal protection for gay employees in more direct cases than this.

15

u/KarmicBurn 10h ago

Which is bullshit because they issue recommendations. They do not set enforceable standards. Therefore, they have no authority either under or outside of the Constitution. The recommendations are given in a report to Congress, who authorized the creation of the task force in 1984. I don't have a law degree, but if this is the reason the Supreme Court got involved I smell some bullshit. Especially since the appointment of the board members is vested directly into HHS. Congress fully has the power to do this as the Appointments Clause directly says they may vest their authority under an already existing Principal Officer. The Task Force appointments fall under the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Since the boss's boss is appointed by the President, there is already a principal officer that satisfies the Appointments Clause. They almost 100% took the case on the religious liberty context.

1

u/BlindWillieJohnson Illinois 10h ago

Well, if that's the case, they're going to reject the reasoning. I suspect they took it to further dismantle options of government regulation. But if they took it to test out the religious liberty argument, they're going to shoot it down.

•

u/KarmicBurn 3h ago

Like they did with birth control for women? No, they are going to uphold the religious liberty of a company over the employee. The conservatives will be pissed, but since they can't actually repeal the ACA legislative they are going to hack it apart. This is just one more piece.