Texas Judge’s Ruling Puts Free Preventive Care in Jeopardy

On September 7, 2022, federal judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the process used by the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. The Affordable Care Act is used to determine what kinds of preventative health care must be fully covered by private health insurance. This new ruling could restrict millions of Americans’ access to procedures like cancer screenings, alcohol abuse counseling, and drugs that help prevent H.I.V.

The kinds of preventative care that must be covered under the law is recommended by a volunteer panel of experts called the Preventive Services Task Force, and Judge O’Connor concluded that this panel violates the constitution because its members are not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate.

The case was brought into question when a lawsuit was filed by Christian business owners and employers with the argument that the preventive care mandate violates their constitutional right to religious freedom. The ruling took specific aim at the H.I.V. drug regimen known as PrEP, because this regimen “facilitates and encourages homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”

“It’s unfortunate to have it appear that there are some groups trying to politicize such an important health intervention,” said Jeremiah Johnson, PrEP program manager of PrEP4All, an advocacy group. Judge O’Connor’s ruling against the Affordable Care Act has primarily made him a target for progressives and gay-rights activists.

Overall, I think this was a well-written news article. The author did well with getting straight to the point and organizing facts in a way that makes sense for their audience. The author also includes statements from both sides of the argument, which portrays and attempt to give an unbiased explanation of the topic. While I think this article was well organized, there is a section towards the middle that explains Judge O’Connors background and previous statements, which I do not think is entirely relevant. Even with this unneeded information, the author is still able to portray an important political decision that could impact the access to healthcare for millions in the future.