Latest news with #Christian-owned
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Christian-owned spa loses court battle over banning trans women in WA
This story was originally published on A federal appeals court ruled in favor of Washington after the state told a Christian-owned traditional Korean spa that barring transgender women from its services violates the state's anti-discrimination law. Olympus Spa is a women-only spa located in Lynnwood and Tacoma. In 2023, the owners of Olympus Spa filed a lawsuit against Washington, claiming their First Amendment rights would be violated by allowing trans women to enter. Olympus Spa's policy restricts entry to 'biological women,' excluding men and preoperative transgender women (those who have not had gender-confirmation surgery). The Washington State Human Rights Commission claimed the spa's barring of transgender women was a violation of Washington's Law Against Discrimination. Two years later, a federal appeals court agreed, stating that this ruling does not violate the spa's rights to the freedom of religion, speech, and association. 'The spa's religious expression was only incidentally burdened,' Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote in the majority opinion, claiming that the limits of the spa owner's free speech were essential to eliminate discriminatory conduct. This conflict between the state and Olympus Spa started in 2020 when the spa turned away a transgender woman, asking if she could receive the spa's services. The spa told the customer they excluded transgender women who had not undergone gender confirmation surgery. The Washington Law Against Discrimination was amended in 2006 to prohibit public facilities from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The Washington definition of sexual orientation includes gender expression and identity.
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
This Supreme Court Case Could Affect Your Mammograms — and Much More
This week, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could impact an untold number of Americans. What hangs in the balance, public health experts warn, are a range of critical services and treatments — from breast cancer screenings to statins — that are currently covered by insurance as mandated by the Affordable Care Act, but that could all change. 'We've made a lot of progress in getting breast cancers detected earlier and improving outcomes,' Molly Guthrie, the VP of policy and advocacy at Susan G. Komen, tells us. 'There's significant concern that this will undo that progress.' Here's a breakdown of this hugely consequential and complex case and the direct effect it could have on you. In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Christian-owned businesses and six individuals in Texas are challenging the ACA's requirement to cover preventive services. Their initial objection centered on covering a popular medication that prevents HIV called pre-exposure prophylaxis treatment (PrEP), claiming it's a violation of their religious freedom. In 2022, a district court sided with them. But it also took aim at the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), an independent panel of experts who develop the guidelines for cancer screenings and other recommendations, which nearly all private insurers and Medicaid must cover without cost sharing. The court's ruling deemed that panel unconstitutional, because members of the task force are neither appointed by the president nor confirmed by Congress. The Biden administration appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case just days before President Trump's second inauguration. And although our current president has notably not been a fan of the ACA, his administration has opted to continue the case — although some experts suspect that their real reason for doing so is to empower the administration to veto certain task force recommendations, STAT reports. Although this case started out as a fight over PrEP, a range of other crucial treatments and services have found themselves in the crosshairs. One of the major responsibilities of the USPSTF is to issue guidance over when and how regularly people should be screened for certain cancers. That means all types of tests — from mammograms for breast cancer to colonoscopies for colorectal cancer to CT scans for lung cancer — are covered by insurance with no out-of-pocket cost. But it's not only scans that are covered: risk-modifying medications like tamoxifen or certain aromatase inhibitors qualify, as does genetic counseling and testing for the BRCA gene, Guthrie says. The net benefit of that is 'hard to quantify,' according to Lynn Goldman, dean of the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University — but she tells us it's almost certainly saved lives. 'We know that when people have to pay out of pocket for services, that depresses the use of it,' she says. If this ACA provision were struck down, there's a real fear among public health experts that far fewer people will get screened, and cancers will be detected later, when they're far harder to treat. Beyond cancer, there's a long list of other services at risk, like statins, a widely used drug for cardiovascular disease, testing and vaccinations for sexually transmitted infections, and screening for diabetes. It's a long list that touches millions of Americans. That's why Susan G. Komen, the American Cancer Society, and other influential non-profits have submitted briefs urging the court not to overturn the ACA provision. 'It could really upend a lot of the progress we've seen and a lot of the good these services provide,' Guthrie says. The post This Supreme Court Case Could Affect Your Mammograms — and Much More appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
Washington Post
21-04-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
Challenge to ACA preventive-care panel draws skepticism from Supreme Court
The Supreme Court appeared skeptical Monday of a challenge to a section of the Affordable Care Act that requires health plans to provide no-cost preventive care such as cancer screenings, immunizations and contraception to millions of Americans. A lawsuit brought by a Christian-owned business and individuals argued that the mandates were unenforceable because members of the expert committee that decides what measures health plans must cover were improperly appointed.
Axios
21-04-2025
- Health
- Axios
Supreme Court seems likely to uphold ACA preventive services mandate
Supreme Court justices appeared inclined Monday to keep the Affordable Care Act's requirement that insurers cover certain recommended preventive services at no cost. Why it matters: At stake is access to no-cost screenings, tests, HIV drugs and counseling for the roughly 150 million Americans with private health insurance. Driving the news: Justices on Monday heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of the federal task force that decides which preventive services should be covered. The Trump administration, defending the task force, argued that the secretary of Health and Human Services has appropriate oversight over its members and recommendations. But lawyers for Christian-owned companies challenging the mandate argued that the task force is unconstitutionally imposing coverage requirements because its members aren't politically appointed. Where it stands: Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett appeared skeptical of the companies' reasoning. The companies' argument views the task force as a "massively important agency that operates with unreviewable authority to make really critical decisions that are going to affect the economy," Kavanaugh said. "Normally before that kind of thing would happen, Congress would have provided stronger indications that this task force is enormously important in the American economy, and would have treated it such," he said. "I just don't see indications of that."
Axios
21-04-2025
- Health
- Axios
ACA preventive care case reaches Supreme Court
Five years of legal battles over the Affordable Care Act's preventative services mandate will come to a head at the Supreme Court on Monday, in a case that will decide if millions of Americans will continue to have free access to certain screenings, tests, HIV drugs and counseling. Why it matters: It's the fourth time the high court will review the ACA, this time over a technical question about the constitutionality of the task force that decides which services fall under that requirement. The Trump Justice Department is defending the law, essentially taking the Biden administration position that there is no constitutional issue because task force members can't unilaterally render legally binding decisions. Catch up quick: The ACA requires most private health plans to cover certain services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a long-standing panel of volunteer scientists. That gives about 150 million people with private coverage access to no-cost cancer screenings, vaccinations, wellness visits and more. Many covered services allow earlier detection and treatment of chronic conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes. Two Christian-owned companies in 2020 sued the federal government, arguing that task force recommendation that requires them to cover no-cost HIV prevention drugs in their employer-sponsored insurance was unconstitutional and went against their religious freedoms. A federal appeals court last year sided with the companies, ruling that the required coverage provision is unconstitutional because task force members who dictate which services get no-cost coverage were not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Separate claims over the constitutionality of coverage requirements recommended by other Health and Human Services bodies are moving through lower courts and could wind up at the Supreme Court in the future, according to KFF. State of play: The federal government will argue that the HHS secretary has appropriate oversight over the task force because it can remove members at will and determine when health insurers must start covering its recommendations. The administration says that if that's not enough, the Supreme Court can "sever" the language in the law that requires the task force to be politically independent, which would allow the secretary to directly approve or deny the task force recommendations. If that's not enough, the Supreme Court can allow the secretary to directly approve or deny the task force recommendations, the administration believes. Meanwhile, the companies and individuals that initially sued over the coverage requirement will argue that the task force members should be appointed by the president. And they'll argue that because the law says the task force has to be politically independent, the court can't just edit the law to give the HHS secretary authority to decide which of the group's recommendations need to be covered. The decision, expected in June or July, could hinge on how much weight justices attach to language in the law stating the task force has to be free of political influence, said Richard Hughes, a partner at law firm Epstein Becker Green who wrote a brief in support of the government's position. If the Supreme Court sides with the companies, private health plans could charge beneficiaries co-pays or deductibles for services the task force recommended after the ACA was signed, including PrEP for HIV, statins to prevent heart disease, perinatal depression screening and colorectal cancer screening. Zoom out: A 2022 survey from the Employee Benefits Research Institute found that the majority of employers said they would still cover recommended services in full even if it wasn't required. Still, if some employers started scaling back coverage, out-of-pocket costs for preventive services could become more standard, due to competition between carriers and a need to reduce costs, according to Katherine Hempstead, senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "If any sort of action by the Supreme Court were to roll back that mandate [for no-cost coverage] in any form, even for just a certain number of services — we feel that that could really deter people from accessing care," said Eric Waskowicz, senior policy manager at the United States of Care. Between the lines: The Trump administration briefs so far emphasize the HHS secretary's ability to remove task force members and delay their coverage recommendations. Progressive advocacy groups remain concerned that the Trump administration could use its authority to limit coverage of vaccines, contraception and other scientifically backed preventive services. "We're going to have to remain very, very vigilant in seeing how the administration, which thankfully is defending the law now, behaves when the power is in their hands," Leslie Dach, chair of Protect Our Care, told reporters last week.
