Judge Reed O’Connor, a former Republican Capitol Hill staffer who now sits on a federal district court in Texas, is one of the most notorious names in US health policy circles. He’s best known for a 2018 decision that attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety — before O’Connor was smacked down 7-2 by the Supreme Court.

So when a new attack on Obamacare arrived in O’Connor’s courtroom, this time on the part of the law requiring health insurers to fully cover certain preventive medical treatments, it appeared inevitable that O’Connor would deal yet another blow to the 2010 law. On Wednesday, that blow came. O’Connor’s order in Braidwood Management v. Becerra, effectively neutralizes part — but not all — of this requirement on insurers.

Yet O’Connor’s Braidwood decision is also more nuanced than his previous work suggested it would be. Though O’Connor makes a significant cut at the law, he does not go nearly as far as the conservative plaintiffs in this case urged him to go, conceding that a binding appeals court precedent prevents him from doing so.

The ACA empowers three different entities to determine which forms of preventive medical care must be covered by insurers at no additional cost to patients. O’Connor ruled that the members of one of those entities are not constitutionally permitted to wield such authority, but his opinion leaves the other two groups’ authority intact.

So, for the time being, some preventive care, like vaccines and free contraceptive care, will remain covered by insurers.

At the same time, O’Connor’s decision is likely to lead to needless health complications and preventable deaths. For one, O’Connor explicitly says that employers with religious objections may offer health plans that do not cover pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), drugs that are very effective in preventing the transmission of HIV.

Michael J. Stern
@MichaelJStern1

She was a "pro-life" Republican.

When she needed an abortion in her home state of Texas because of medical dangers, she could not get one. She had to flee to New Mexico.

Now she supports abortion rights.

She was a 'quintessential pro-life Texan' until she needed to flee her home to get an abortion

Five Hoosier women and a religious abortion-rights group filed a new lawsuit in Marion County on Thursday challenging Indiana's near-total abortion ban on the grounds of religious freedom.

Hoosier Jews for Choice and the five women — who are residents of Marion, Monroe and Allen counties — claim that the ban violates the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act from 2015, also known as RFRA. The act, which was signed into effect by then-Gov. Mike Pence, prevents the government from impeding someone's religious exercise unless there's a strong argument in favor of the state's interest.

The defendants in the case include members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana and prosecutors in five counties, including Marion County. IndyStar has reached out to the licensing board and the Indiana Attorney General's Office for comment.

The lawsuit states the belief that life begins at conception, which is widely shared by Christian anti-abortion advocates, "is not a theological opinion shared by all religions or all religious persons."

"For example, under Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a living person only at birth," the lawsuit states. "Jewish law recognizes that abortions may occur, and should occur as a religious matter, under circumstances not allowed by (the near-total abortion ban) or existing Indiana law." That would include when an abortion could prevent a "mother's mental anguish" from severe physical or mental health issues.

At 71, Lizzie Pugh thought the days of Jim Crow and getting bullied for being the only Black kid in school in 1960s Alabama were far behind her – until she wound up in a bank with a fat check in her hand.

The Detroit public schools retiree had won a five-figure slot machine jackpot during a church outing at a casino, and went to the bank to deposit it.

But three white bank employees told her the check was fraudulent, Pugh said, and refused to give it back to her.

"I couldn’t really believe they did that to me," Pugh said in a recent interview. "I was devastated. I kept asking, 'How do you know the check is not real?' ... And they just insisted that it was fraudulent ... I was just terrified."

Pugh still gets emotional when she talks about that April day, only now she is armed with a federal lawsuit that she hopes will shed light on what she alleges was blatant racism by employees at Fifth Third Bank in Livonia, Michigan.

According to her lawsuit filed Aug. 29 in U.S. District Court, Pugh's check was good: She got it back after much persistence that day, drove to a nearby Chase bank and deposited it there.

President Biden
@POTUS
United States government official

Barack and Michelle, welcome back.

Rewire News Group
@RewireNewsGroup

UPDATE: A judge ruled that Michigan's 1931 abortion ban violated the state's constitution, striking down the law that had previously been blocked.

(Reuters) - A 1931 Michigan law banning abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest violates the state's constitution, a state court judge ruled Wednesday, barring any prosecutors from enforcing it.

Judge Elizabeth Gleicher of the Michigan Court of Claims found that Michigan's constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy including abortion. The ruling is a victory for providers including a Planned Parenthood affiliate, which had sued to block the law.

"A law denying safe, routine medical care not only denies women of their ability to control their bodies and their lives - it denies them of their dignity," Gleicher wrote.

Leaders of the state's Republican-controlled legislature, which defended the law, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The ruling came as Michigan's Supreme Court was facing a Friday deadline to decide whether an amendment to legalize abortion statewide will appear on ballots in November.

Rewire News Group
@RewireNewsGroup

UPDATE: A judge ruled that Michigan's 1931 abortion ban violated the state's constitution, striking down the law that had previously been blocked.

(Reuters) - A 1931 Michigan law banning abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest violates the state's constitution, a state court judge ruled Wednesday, barring any prosecutors from enforcing it.

Judge Elizabeth Gleicher of the Michigan Court of Claims found that Michigan's constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy including abortion. The ruling is a victory for providers including a Planned Parenthood affiliate, which had sued to block the law.

"A law denying safe, routine medical care not only denies women of their ability to control their bodies and their lives - it denies them of their dignity," Gleicher wrote.

Leaders of the state's Republican-controlled legislature, which defended the law, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The ruling came as Michigan's Supreme Court was facing a Friday deadline to decide whether an amendment to legalize abortion statewide will appear on ballots in November.

TALLAHASSEE — Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office said late Tuesday that it thinks the Florida Supreme Court should reverse a decades-old position that a privacy clause in the state Constitution protects abortion rights.

Lawyers in Moody’s office addressed the issue in a 44-page document arguing that the Supreme Court should reject an effort by abortion clinics and a doctor to block a new law that makes abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy illegal.

The privacy clause has played a crucial role in bolstering abortion rights in Florida since a 1989 Supreme Court ruling. Abortion opponents have long argued that the clause was not meant to protect abortion rights — a position that Moody’s office took in Tuesday’s filing.

The filing said the 1989 decision, in a case known as In re: T.W., was wrong “from the start.”

“It ignored that the (constitutional) provision’s plain text says nothing of abortion, that its drafters publicly disavowed guaranteeing abortion rights and that the provision was ratified in response to decisions restricting informational privacy,” said the document, filed by state Solicitor General Henry Whitaker and other lawyers in Moody’s office. “Were this (Supreme) Court to address the meaning of the Privacy Clause here, it should therefore recede from its precedents and clarify that the original meaning of the clause has nothing to say about abortion— and certainly that the Privacy Clause is not so clear as to pry the abortion debate from the hands of voters.”

At another point in the document, Moody’s office expressed confidence that the court “is likely to hold that the Privacy Clause of the Florida Constitution does not limit the Legislature from regulating abortion.”

Such a ruling would be a seismic legal shift about abortion rights in Florida and would come after the U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

TALLAHASSEE — Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office said late Tuesday that it thinks the Florida Supreme Court should reverse a decades-old position that a privacy clause in the state Constitution protects abortion rights.

Lawyers in Moody’s office addressed the issue in a 44-page document arguing that the Supreme Court should reject an effort by abortion clinics and a doctor to block a new law that makes abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy illegal.

The privacy clause has played a crucial role in bolstering abortion rights in Florida since a 1989 Supreme Court ruling. Abortion opponents have long argued that the clause was not meant to protect abortion rights — a position that Moody’s office took in Tuesday’s filing.

The filing said the 1989 decision, in a case known as In re: T.W., was wrong “from the start.”

“It ignored that the (constitutional) provision’s plain text says nothing of abortion, that its drafters publicly disavowed guaranteeing abortion rights and that the provision was ratified in response to decisions restricting informational privacy,” said the document, filed by state Solicitor General Henry Whitaker and other lawyers in Moody’s office. “Were this (Supreme) Court to address the meaning of the Privacy Clause here, it should therefore recede from its precedents and clarify that the original meaning of the clause has nothing to say about abortion— and certainly that the Privacy Clause is not so clear as to pry the abortion debate from the hands of voters.”

At another point in the document, Moody’s office expressed confidence that the court “is likely to hold that the Privacy Clause of the Florida Constitution does not limit the Legislature from regulating abortion.”

Such a ruling would be a seismic legal shift about abortion rights in Florida and would come after the U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.