Supreme Court to Weigh Religious Freedom vs. HIV Prevention in Landmark ACA Case
Staff Editor Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging ACA Coverage of HIV Prevention Drugs
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could have far-reaching implications for healthcare coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The case, Becerra v. Braidwood Management, centers on the ACA’s mandate to cover HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PReP) drugs and other preventative services, which some conservatives argue violates their religious rights.
At the heart of the lawsuit is a challenge brought by Braidwood Management, owned by Republican donor Steven Hoze, against Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra. The plaintiffs contend that the ACA’s requirement to cover PReP drugs is unconstitutional, citing religious objections to what they perceive as the promotion of behaviors they oppose.
PReP drugs, such as Truvada and Descovy, have proven highly effective in preventing HIV infection, reducing the risk by up to 99% when used as prescribed. The ACA’s preventative care mandate also includes coverage for STI and cancer screenings, as well as the HPV vaccine.
Braidwood Management and other plaintiffs argue that the mandate infringes upon their religious beliefs by requiring them to facilitate behaviors they consider immoral, such as homosexual activity and extramarital sexual relations. Plaintiff Joel Miller claims his family does not require such preventative treatments due to their lifestyle choices.
The case has a complex legal history, with the Trump Administration initially defending the ACA’s preventative care requirements in 2020. The plaintiffs have garnered support from notable figures like Gene Hamilton and Jonathan Mitchell, the latter known for his role in crafting Texas’s controversial abortion law.
A Texas federal judge has already ruled partially in favor of the plaintiffs, striking down the mandate for free coverage of preventative services. The Justice Department has since appealed the decision, emphasizing the potential jeopardy to crucial healthcare protections.
Advocates warn that the case’s outcome could have broad implications beyond the LGBTQ community. Shelly Skeen from Lambda Legal stated, “This case has the potential to impact anyone seeking preventative care, not just LGBTQ individuals.”
The Supreme Court’s decision on this case could set a significant precedent, potentially affecting millions of Americans and their access to various healthcare services. It also represents the latest in a series of conservative challenges to healthcare mandates and preventative care coverage under the ACA.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments, healthcare providers, advocacy groups, and policymakers are closely watching the case, recognizing its potential to reshape the landscape of preventative healthcare coverage in the United States.
