AcidicBasicGlitch

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/62613937

Companies' in-house lawyers are also nervous. They want to make sure their outside counsel is willing to fight the government if necessary. One lawyer working in a company's general counsel office told Business Insider that her company's advisors at a law firm that made a deal with Trump said it was necessary to hold onto influence with regulators.

"It just feels very cynical," said the in-house lawyer, who wants to redirect work to other firms. "I don't feel comfortable, if you're going to cave in front of the government, that you're going to represent me in front of the government."

Even if you're used to getting fucked over, why roll over? Fight back!

Companies' in-house lawyers are also nervous. They want to make sure their outside counsel is willing to fight the government if necessary. One lawyer working in a company's general counsel office told Business Insider that her company's advisors at a law firm that made a deal with Trump said it was necessary to hold onto influence with regulators.

"It just feels very cynical," said the in-house lawyer, who wants to redirect work to other firms. "I don't feel comfortable, if you're going to cave in front of the government, that you're going to represent me in front of the government."

Even if you're used to getting fucked over, why roll over? Fight back!

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/62591065

President Donald Trump has a long history of treating women like property.

From 1996 to 2015, he was the owner of the Miss Universe Organization. Many of the contestants complained about his inappropriate behavior towards them, such as entering the dressing rooms while they were naked. Tasha Dixon (Miss Arizona 2001) reported, “He just came strolling right in. … Some girls were topless. Other girls were naked.” Many of them were teenagers. In an interview with Howard Stern, Trump defended this behavior saying, “I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant.”

Since the 1970’s, no fewer than 26 women have accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct, ranging from harassment to sexual assault and rape. In a conversation with television host Billy Bush in 2005, Trump infamously stated that his celebrity status entitled him to do anything he wants to women without consent: “I just start kissing them,” he said, “I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” He was subsequently convicted of sexual assault against E. Jean Carroll and directed to pay over $86 million in damages for assault and defamation.

Now, as Trump enters his second term in office, his rapaciousness seems to have found a new outlet of expression on the global stage. In an interview with Fox News, he stated that Ukraine should not have fought back against Russia when they invaded because Russia was “much bigger, much more powerful.” The following month, in a White House press conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump said that Ukraine “never should have started it”—as if they were somehow responsible for having caused themselves to be invaded.

Feminist writers have long argued that there is an intrinsic relationship between patriarchy, rape and colonialism. The seizure of land by force is comparable to the seizure of a woman’s body—and historically rape and war have often gone hand-in-hand.

In order to get a better understanding of how Trump’s attitudes towards women might be related to his foreign policy, I reached out to Dr. Judith Herman, a world-renowned expert in trauma studies. Herman is a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, director of training at the Victims of Violence Program at Cambridge Hospital (Massachusetts), and a lifelong feminist activist. Her pathbreaking 1992 book Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence from Domestic Abuse to Political Terror has been described as “almost singularly responsible for the legitimization of rape trauma in the psychiatric field.”

The legal argument is highly technical, and oral arguments on Monday barely touched on the case’s potentially vast consequences for public health. If the justices agree with the plaintiffs, the task force and its recommendations for the last 15 years could be thrown out, and insurers could start denying coverage or imposing out-of-pocket costs on dozens of currently free preventive screenings and services—meaning many fewer patients would choose to get them.

“The people who are going to be hurt most are the people who can’t just pull out a credit card and pay full cost for a service, or pay a $50 co-pay or an $80 co-pay,” says Wayne Turner, senior attorney at the National Health Law Program. “It is a literal lifesaver for people to be able to have some early detection.”

Among the threatened services are free HIV screenings for all, and PrEP for those at increased risk of contracting the virus. While HIV has become much less deadly since the mid-1990s, when more than 40,000 people in the United States were dying of related causes annually, there are still nearly 32,000 new infections and 8,000 HIV-linked deaths in the US every year, according to the health policy think tank KFF. PrEP—first approved by the FDA as a daily pill in 2012—lowers the risk of acquiring HIV through sex by 99 percent, and through injection drug use by 74 percent.

But the drug can cost up to $1,800 per month, so when the Preventive Services Task Force gave it an “A” rating in 2019, making it 100 percent covered by insurance, use of the drug appears to have soared. In 2015, 3 percent of people recommended for a PrEP prescription got one; in 2022, 31 percent did, according to the HIV and Hepatitis Policy Institute. Kennedy v. Braidwood threatens to reverse this progress.

At the center of the lawsuit are a trio of Texans who have become conservative heroes in the culture wars against LGBTQ and reproductive rights: A powerful anti-LGBTQ activist, a lawyer known for masterminding Texas’ abortion vigilante law, and the judge they like to bring their cases to.

The lead plaintiff, Braidwood Management, is owned by 74-year-old doctor Steven Hotze, a Houston-area alternative medicine guru, conservative powerbroker, far-right activist, and Republican megadonor.

In 2020, Braidwood Management and other plaintiffs sued over the ACA again, this time claiming their religious freedom was being violated by the law’s zero-cost preventive services requirement. Hotze specifically objected to mandatory insurance coverage for PrEP medications, which the lawsuit claimed “facilitate behaviors such as homosexual sodomy, prostitution, and intravenous drug use, which are contrary to Dr. Hotze’s sincere religious beliefs.”

“Our first and most immediate goal is to save this Affordable Care Act provision, which is so important for so many people.”

Representing Hotze and the other plaintiffs was none other than Jonathan Mitchell, the legal strategist and former Texas solicitor general known for crafting Texas’s “bounty hunter” anti-abortion law, SB 8, which cut off most abortion access in his state even before the fall of Roe v. Wade. Last year, Mitchell served as President Donald Trump‘s lawyer in front of the Supreme Court, arguing (successfully) against Colorado’s attempt to exclude Trump from the 2024 ballot.

Mitchell has represented Braidwood Management before, in a case claiming that Title VII, the federal law banning discrimination in employment, violated Hotze’s religious beliefs. In both that case, and in the current ACA one, Mitchell filed the lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas, where it was duly assigned to yet another Texas conservative hero, federal Judge Reed O’Connor. In a 2018 ruling involving the constitutionality of the ACA’s individual mandate, O’Connor had already proved willing to strike down the law altogether. The 2018 decision was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court, which said that O’Connor should have dismissed the case from the get-go.

In the Braidwood case, O’Connor handed Mitchell and Hotze a partial win—ruling that the PrEP insurance mandate violated Hotze’s religious freedom, and exempting Braidwood Management from that requirement. Crucially, he also sided with them on an additional, more technical claim that members of the US Preventive Services Task Force are improperly appointed.

It’s that second argument that the Biden administration appealed, and the Supreme Court is now reviewing. Turner, the health policy attorney, says the case comes down to a line in the law that created the task force, declaring it “independent and, to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure.” Braidwood Management argues that that line makes the task force too unaccountable. (Vaccines and birth control aren’t threatened by this case, since those recommendations are made by other entities—though powerful conservative activists are currently targeting the leading medical group that makes contraception coverage recommendations, as Susan Rinkunas recently reported at Jezebel.)

To the surprise of patient advocacy groups, the Trump administration decided earlier this year to fight back against Braidwood’s challenge. Trump, in the past, has tried to repeal the health care law. But now, his administration argues that the task force is indeed accountable to Trump’s Senate-confirmed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. During oral arguments on Monday, the administration’s lawyer claimed the secretary has the power to both appoint and remove members at will, and could use those powers to influence task force recommendations.

Turner says it’s a “real concern” that the Trump administration will eventually attempt to exert greater political control over the task force and its recommendations. “We’ve seen the administration do this in other parts of the federal government and other parts of HHS—purge the current leadership, purge the current members, and fill it with cronies who are going to be rubber stamping,” he says. But he says it’s a risk worth taking: “In my view, our first and most immediate goal is to save this Affordable Care Act provision, which is so important for so many people.”

After oral arguments on Monday, court observers predicted that the justices would ultimately reject Hotze and Mitchell’s challenge to Obamacare. The ruling is expected by this summer.

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/61978975

The Club for Growth was founded in 1999 by Stephen Moore, Thomas L. Rhodes, and Richard Gilder. Stephen Moore worked at the Heritage Foundation from 1983 to 1987 and again since 2014.

The Club for Growth was founded in 1999 by Stephen Moore, Thomas L. Rhodes, and Richard Gilder. Stephen Moore worked at the Heritage Foundation from 1983 to 1987 and again since 2014.