![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/82980556007-20250227-t-191854-z-802028596-rc-233-dau-9-b-1-p-rtrmadp-3-usahealthmeaslestexas.JPG\"\/)
![\"play\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/icon-play-alt-white.svg.svg+xml\"){kind=icon}
<\/p>\nThe case focuses on Obamacare’s preventative care requirement. Religious opponents say HIV medications, for example, would make them \u201ccomplicit in facilitating homosexual behavior.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posts endorsement of measles MMR vaccine on X<\/p>\n
Health and Human Services secretary, and vaccine skeptic, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. supports measles vaccine after visiting West Texas.<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON \u2212 One of the most popular parts of Obamacare – free cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering medication and diabetes tests – is facing scrutiny in a Supreme Court<\/a> challenge to the landmark health insurance law that, 15 years in, continues to spark legal battles and political fights.<\/p>\n Two Christian owned businesses and some people in Texas argue that health insurance plans they buy shouldn\u2019t have to cover medical tests and drugs they object to on religious grounds. Having to pay for certain HIV-prevention medications, for example, would make them \u201ccomplicit in facilitating homosexual behavior,\u201d they\u2019ve said.<\/p>\n In a twist from the first Trump administration, which tried to kill Barack Obama’s landmark health insurance law, Trump’s Justice Department will defend the law when the high court takes it up on Monday.<\/p>\n While that shows support across ideological lines,<\/strong> increasing the likelihood that the Supreme Court won\u2019t side with the challengers, a victory could give the Trump administration the power to pick and choose the preventive measures it wants to cover and for whom.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat happens after the case might be more important than how the Supreme Court rules,\u201d said Laurie Sobel, associate director for Women\u2019s Health Policy at KFF, a nonpartisan health research organization.<\/p>\n `Folks will notice if this benefit is gone’<\/p>\n The requirement that health insurance plans cover – without copayments or deductibles – services that detect diseases and prevent illnesses from developing has been used by tens of millions of Americans since the 2010 Affordable Care Act<\/a> became law.<\/p>\n The legal issue at the heart of the Supreme Court Obamacare case is whether one of the three groups of experts that recommends services health insurance must cover is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.<\/p>\n If the Supreme Court agrees with the Texas businesses that they are, health insurers would not be required to cover any of the care recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force after the ACA was enacted. (Other services, such as vaccines, that are recommended by different experts, are in dispute under another aspect of the case that is still in the lower courts.)<\/p>\n For example, in 2021, the task force extended recommendations for colon cancer screening to people 45 and older, instead of 50 and up, because of increased diagnoses in younger people.<\/p>\n \u201cFolks will notice if this benefit is gone or if they\u2019re getting charged when they go to the doctor for their preventive care,\u201d said Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the O\u2019Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.<\/p>\n