Texas Court Rules Obamacare Mandate For HIV Meds Is Unconstitutional - Gays Are Triggered, LOL

[Harpy Eagle]

I guess the same way you loons refused organ transplants to the unvaccinated.

I did that?

When did I do that?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

the heathen company does not have to now. the dems law was illegal it violated the Constitution.

There is an old saying that goes like this....Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

You really should take this to heart when you post

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Texas judge deems Obamacare HIV prevention drug mandate unlawful

A requirement under the U.S. law known as Obamacare that private insurance plans cover drugs that prevent HIV infection at no cost to patients violates both federal law and the Constitution, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday, siding with conservative lawyers who had challenged the measure on...

www.reuters.com

"The U.S. Affordable Care Act's (ACA) requirement that private insurance plans cover HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, at no cost to patients is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday, siding with conservative lawyers who had challenged the measure on religious grounds. O'Connor had once ruled the entire landmark U.S. healthcare law popularly known as Obamacare unconstitutional. A group of business owners sued the government in 2020, arguing that the free PrEP requirement, as well as free coverage requirements for contraception and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, made them "complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman."

Lol, libs are so triggered now that employers are no longer obligated to subsidize the lives of fags and Anti-Christian God-hating hedonists...if you insist on living an ungodly life filled with drug use, having sex outside of marriage or living a gay lifestyle, you can no longer use government to compel others to finance your demonic desires.

This is a victory for freedom and for small government...this will also help bring down healthcare costs since we all know, fags drive up the cost of healthcare by 95% in most cases....This is something that I hope to see more Republicans campaign on.....the morewe strip these tranny queers of their sense of entitlement, the better it is for the rest of us who value our personal freedom and liberties....

Don't get fucked up the ass, Biff.

 

[jknowgood]

I did that?

When did I do that?

Liberals did and you're a liberal or a liar. Oh, I forgot you're both.

 

[Dekster]

And it is BS. It is wrong that the heathen company has to pay for this and a Christian does not. That is not equal treatment under the law

Good luck with that argument, especially before the current SCOTUS. 0I really have no idea if they will ever be able to draw many "bright-line" rulings when it comes to religious freedoms once you move beyond the individual basis. Can't draw the line at corporations because so many churches are incorporated today.

 

[struth]

There is an old saying that goes like this....Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

You really should take this to heart when you post

haha did you not read the opinion?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

As long as folks with limp dick issues still get Viagra .....whether they are unmarried or not......
Because we all know sex outside of marriage isn't really the evil kind of sin like faggotry is

 

[scruffy]

This is a strange decision. Doesn't seem wise, and also seems there's already precedent against it.

I haven't checked into this in detail, but FedGov IS allowed to attach conditions to money

This smells like some kind of rightie moralism, which I detest every bit as much as the snarky moralism from the left

 

[Care4all]

Religious employers need not cover PrEP in their health plans, federal judge rules

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor’s ruling could threaten access to sexual and reproductive health care for more than 150 million working Americans on employer-sponsored health care plans. The ruling will likely be appealed.

www.texastribune.org

oh good grief. this is about employers who don't want this coverage that they MUST pay for on their plans when they don't even HAVE homosexual/drug using employees ON THE PAYROLL. I think this is reasonable...and here biff was making out it was these wicked evul Christians.

and you KNOW that the pervey Biden Regime is going to challenge it.

But isn't that how the insurance model works?

Those who aren't sick or don't need a drug or procedure, pay for those who do?

When you start plucking groups out that claim they will never need the drug and say they won't ever need it and shouldn't have to pay blah blah blah, then the entire insurance model falls apart???

 

[struth]

But isn't that how the insurance model works?

Those who aren't sick or don't need a drug or procedure, pay for those who do?

When you start plucking groups out that claim they will never need the drug and say they won't ever need it and shouldn't have to pay blah blah blah, then the entire insurance model falls apart???

the issue is forcing someone to pay for something that violates the 1st amendment rights

if an individual wants this coverage they can pay for it themselves, or find another employee willing to pay.

the govt however doesn’t have the authority to force an individual to pay when it violates their first amendment rights

 

[Harpy Eagle]

haha did you not read the opinion?

Yes, I did. You should also so we can discuss the ruling

 

[Harpy Eagle]

the govt however doesn’t have the authority to force an individual to pay when it violates their first amendment rights

And this is the problem with the ruling. If one company does not have some religious objection to it they are stuck paying it while the one with the religious objection does not have to. That is bull shit.

 

[struth]

And this is the problem with the ruling. If one company does not have some religious objection to it they are stuck paying it while the one with the religious objection does not have to. That is bull shit.

Not if they don't want to...the entire mandate was deemed unlawful.

" A requirement under the U.S. law known as Obamacare that private insurance plans cover drugs that prevent HIV infection at no cost to patients violates both federal law and the Constitution, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday"

 

[Calypso Jones]

But isn't that how the insurance model works?

Those who aren't sick or don't need a drug or procedure, pay for those who do?

When you start plucking groups out that claim they will never need the drug and say they won't ever need it and shouldn't have to pay blah blah blah, then the entire insurance model falls apart???

no. COMPANIES who want to offer this benefit or any benefit to their employees have the choice of different plans depending on what they need and what they want to pay for. When that was the case the gov't should not be forcing insurance companies to force small business or large business for that matter coverage that is not wanted and therefore an extra unnecessary expense for the employer. That is how IT DID work. I never thought of this but it makes me wonder if Obama didn't set some kickback for insurance companies to do this for that extra income. The Feds have wanted a long time to get their hands on the Billions and i do mean billions that insurance comapnnies have to keep in reserve in the event that all their clients at one time have a loss. THIS was made a law by feds years ago. I know the insurance companies went along with Obama because it was a life or death situation...for them.

 

[dblack]

Not if they don't want to...the entire mandate was deemed unlawful.

" A requirement under the U.S. law known as Obamacare that private insurance plans cover drugs that prevent HIV infection at no cost to patients violates both federal law and the Constitution, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday"

But all the other mandates in the law are ok?

 

[dblack]

And this is the problem with the ruling. If one company does not have some religious objection to it they are stuck paying it while the one with the religious objection does not have to. That is bull shit.

Agreed. The religion clause of the First Amendment was meant to prevent government from mandating religious practices. It wasn't meant to be a "Get out of jail free" card. The Courts have turned it inside out.

But the mandates on insurance coverage violate much more fundamental rights, rights so fundamental they weren't even mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[struth]

But all the other mandates in the law are ok?

that was the on challenged here.

 

[Blaster]

And it is BS. It is wrong that the heathen company has to pay for this and a Christian does not. That is not equal treatment under the law

Not everyone gets equal treatment under the law. If they did then all these 1/6 protesters would not have been charged with a crime and all those Trump associates would not be facing prison time. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[struth]

Not everyone gets equal treatment under the law. If they did then all these 1/6 protesters would not have been charged with a crime and all those Trump associates would not be facing prison time. Wake up and smell the coffee.

demafasict don’t believe in equality before the law

 

[Blaster]

demafasict don’t believe in equality before the law

You are correct. They only believe in equality for people that think like them.