National
Lawsuit against Affordable Care Act targets PrEP
AIDS groups warn court ruling could lead to ‘explosion’ in new HIV cases
More than two dozen HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations and LGBTQ supportive health centers have filed two separate friend-of-the-court or amicus legal briefs supporting the appeal of a Texas court decision earlier this year that the advocacy groups say would greatly reduce health insurance coverage of the HIV prevention medication known as PrEP.
The two amicus briefs filed by the advocacy organizations in June express strong support for the Biden administration’s appeal of a March 30, 2023, ruling by Judge Reed O’Connor for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. O’Connor’s ruling struck down a provision of the U.S. Affordable Care Act that requires insurers to provide full coverage of preventive care services without co-pay or cost-sharing fees, including coverage for PrEP.
“As an organization representing thousands of physicians and other health care professionals working on the frontlines of the HIV epidemic in communities across the country, we are deeply concerned about the harmful and far-reaching impacts this decision will have if allowed to stand,” said Dr. Michelle Cespedes, chair of the HIV Medicine Association, one of the groups that filed the second of the two amicus briefs opposing the court ruling.
“Reinstating cost-sharing for PrEP would directly cause tens of thousands of preventable cases of HIV transmission and set back decades of progress toward curbing the epidemic,” she said in a statement.
In response to the appeal of the District court decision filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued an administrative stay placing the lower court ruling on hold while the appeal process moves forward.
The case is called Braidwood Management Inc. et. al v. Becerra. Court records show that Braidwood, a management services company described as Christian owned, Kelley Orthodontics, also described as Christian owned, and six individuals in Texas jointly filed the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act in September 2022.
U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, whose name appears on the case, is among the federal officials in charge of administering the Affordable Care Act. The law is sometimes referred to as “Obama Care” after former President Barack Obama who initiated the expansive healthcare legislation that was passed by Congress.
The Braidwood company and the other plaintiffs that filed the lawsuit seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act provision related to preventive care argue in court filings that forcing them to provide financial coverage to PrEP, among other things, is unconstitutional and violates their religious rights under the U.S. Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
“Notably, the plaintiffs state the requirement to cover PrEP ‘imposes a substantial burden on the religious freedom of those who oppose homosexual behavior on religious grounds,’ claiming further that PrEP drugs ‘facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity, and intravenous drug use,’” according to KFF, on online independent news publication that covers health policy issues.
The publication, which analyzed the court filings in the case, says the plaintiffs also contend that the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services provision violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which they argue requires government officials making important health care decisions under the Affordable Care Act be nominated to office by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
In their lawsuit challenging the preventive services provision, the plaintiffs note that under the Affordable Care Act, decisions on how to define preventive services that must be covered under the act are now made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose members are not confirmed by the Senate.
The U.S. government appeal of the Texas District court ruling, and the amicus briefs filed by the AIDS advocacy organizations and other groups, including D.C. ‘s Whitman-Walker Health and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, strongly dispute the plaintiff’s assertions.
“We must not allow a couple of individuals who want to discriminate against people who use PrEP and don’t support insurance coverage of preventive services, such as HIV and hepatitis B and C testing, to destroy the public health of our country,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV-Hepatitis Policy Institute, one of 25 advocacy group that filed a joint amicus brief on June 23.
“We filed this amicus brief to emphasize the important role testing for HIV and hepatitis plays in linking people to life-saving medications and, in the case of hepatitis C, curative treatment, along with the importance of helping people know if they have an infectious disease,” Schmid said in a statement.
“We sought to emphasize that purchasing insurance that includes coverage of PrEP for HIV in no way burdens the ability of plaintiffs to exercise their religion,” said Richard Hughes IV, the lead attorney for the joint amicus filing by the 25 advocacy groups. “In fact, we suggest to the court that granting exemptions for PrEP coverage would have far-reaching and absurd consequences for our society,” Hughes said.
The other amicus brief filed June 28 by the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) and the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), which represent thousands of physicians and other health care providers throughout the U.S., points out that if the Texas lower court ruling is allowed to stand, tens of thousands of people who rely on preventive care coverage from their health insurance policies will likely lose that coverage.
“Copays and deductibles deter people from accessing healthcare,” said Ben Klein, Senior Director of Litigation and HIV Law at the GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, known as GLAD, which is representing the two groups that filed the second amicus brief. “PrEP is nearly 100 percent effective at preventing transmission of HIV, but it is already underutilized, particularly among Black and Latino communities,” Klein said in a statement.
“As the brief filed today by HIVMA and NASTAD demonstrates, allowing the lower court’s ruling in Braidwood v. Bacerra to stand will exacerbate racial health disparities, increase new HIV diagnoses by the tens of thousands, and have devastating consequences on our efforts to end the epidemic,” Klein said.
Klein told the Washington Blade that the District court ruling, if not overturned on appeal, will adversely impact people at risk for other diseases, not just HIV. He points out that the higher copays and insurance deductible costs will impact cancer prevention screenings, including colonoscopies, by greatly raising the insurance related costs for people who may not be able to afford to pay those costs.
“So, we’re talking about a staggering impact that when you look at the range of harms and costs, it’s unfathomable,” he said. “And so that’s why a lot of the amicus briefs focused on that.”
Klein said a decision on the appeal by the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal, which covers the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, was not expected to take place until sometime next year, with oral arguments by the attorneys likely to take place later this year.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
The White House
Trump travels to Middle East countries with death penalty for homosexuality
President traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates
Homosexuality remains punishable by death in two of the three Middle East countries that President Donald Trump visited last week.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the handful of countries in which anyone found guilty of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations could face the death penalty.
Trump was in Saudi Arabia from May 13-14. He traveled to Qatar on May 14.
“The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women,” notes the State Department’s 2023 human rights report, referring specifically to Qatar’s criminalization law. “The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.”
Trump on May 15 arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report notes the “penalty for individuals who engaged in ‘consensual sodomy with a man'” in the country “was a minimum prison sentence of six months if the individual’s partner or guardian filed a complaint.”
“There were no known reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. LGBTQI+ identity, real or perceived, could be deemed an act against ‘decency or public morality,’ but there were no reports during the year of persons prosecuted under these provisions,” reads the report.
The report notes Emirati law also criminalizes “men who dressed as women or entered a place designated for women while ‘disguised’ as a woman.” Anyone found guilty could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dirhams ($2,722.60.)
Trump returned to the U.S. on May 16.
The White House notes Trump during the trip secured more than $2 trillion “in investment agreements with Middle Eastern nations ($200 billion with the United Arab Emirates, $600 billion with Saudi Arabia, and $1.2 trillion with Qatar) for a more safe and prosperous future.”
Former President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2022.
Saudi Arabia is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup took place in Qatar.
Let love and compassion guide our response to Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
Cuban lawmakers to consider simplifying process for trans people to change IDs
Frank Kameny’s legacy lives on
