Next: The Affordable Care Act Back to the Supreme Court

The Republican Party, minus the effective veto-against-repeal from the most honorable GOP Senator of the lot – the late great John McCain, who really cared about average Americans – has done everything in their power to gut the ACA. Like: Judicial attacks that successfully undercut the core funding mechanism for the entire program (the “individual mandate”) even though Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion in the 2012 King vs Burwell case, otherwise upheld the ACA. Or the litany of Donald Trump executive orders or his administration’s agency rulings undermining the very core of the ACA, creating exemptions and interpretations of the act that decimate its most essential provisions. Or the new GOP bill pending in Congress that would prevent an insurance company from denying insurance coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions but would otherwise not require that same insurance carrier actually to cover treatment for such preexisting conditions. See also my August 29^th blog, The Explosive Legacy of O’Bomb-a-Care.

As the Trump administration is attempting to push the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to replace the retired Anthony Kennedy as Supreme Court Associate Justice, there’s a general sentiment that while Kavanaugh might not rule that the entire ACA is unconstitutional, he is going to have plenty of opportunities to push a conservative court to vitiate some of its most essential provisions. Here are the seminal cases, wending their way up the federal appellate ladder, that just could further undercut the ACA, perhaps even forcing a reevaluation of Roe v Wade (Italics below represent descriptions from the September 1^st Los Angeles Times):

Texas vs. Azar Twenty Republican governors and attorneys general are seeking to invalidate the entire healthcare law. They argue that the law no longer can work since last year Congress eliminated a penalty on those who lack health coverage.

Stewart vs. Azar A group of low-income residents of Kentucky challenged the Trump administration’s move to allow the state to impose work requirements on enrollees in Kentucky’s Medicaid insurance program.

New York vs. Acosta A group of 12 Democratic attorneys general are challenging a Trump administration regulation issued this year that makes it easier for individuals and small employers to band together to buy so-called association health plans that do not meet standards set by the Affordable Care Act. They argue the administration is violating the healthcare law’s aim of establishing minimum insurance protections. This particularly focuses on so-called “skinny” healthcare plans that limit or eliminate coverage and treatment for pre-existing conditions.

West Alabama Women’s Center vs. Miller The state of Alabama in 2016 passed a law barring a surgical technique known as dilation and evacuation, or D&E, which is commonly used to end a pregnancy in the second trimester. The ban was challenged in court by two abortion providers in the state… Alabama is among several conservative states that in recent years have passed new laws seeking to restrict access to abortion services. Other tactics have included limits on Planned Parenthood funding and additional licensing requirements for abortion providers. Some believe this case could give the Supreme Court the opportunity to revisit the broader issue of abortion rights set out by the court in its landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision.

Columbus vs. Trump The city of Columbus, Ohio, and a group of other cities and individuals are suing the president, alleging that he is deliberately undermining the Affordable Care Act, thereby ignoring his constitutional responsibility to enforce the law and subjecting individual Americans to higher healthcare costs.

Donald Trump’s appoint of a fairly young justice to the Supreme Court will color decisions from that judicial body for an expect thirty or more years to come. The appointments are solely from a list of social conservatives who favor corporations over individuals and are committed to reduce the impact of potential individual federal rights which courts would be required to enforce. The reconfigured court clearly would reinforce the accelerating income inequality that is ripping the country into incompatible and highly-polarized faction and move the United States even closer to become a de facto, full-on plutocracy.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the United States has not witnessed such a concerted effort against its founding principles in almost a century, and the United States has not been so polarized since the onset of the Civil War.