For Immediate Release

Organization Profile: 

Reality Check: Amy Coney Barrett’s Statement Isn’t True, Protections for People With Preexisting Conditions Are At Risk Right Now

WASHINGTON - Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Amy Coney Barrett fell in line with the Republican strategy of downplaying and denying the truth about what’s on the line when the Supreme Court hears the Republican health care repeal lawsuit less than one month from today.

What Barrett said: “The case next week doesn’t present that issue. It’s not a challenge to pre-existing conditions coverage or to the lifetime maximum relief to a cap.”

The truth:

  • The entire Affordable Care Act is at issue. If Trump and his allies succeed in securing five votes at the Supreme Court, protections for 133 million people with pre-existing conditions and other vital consumer protections, including a ban on lifetime limits, will be abolished, 23 million people will lose their health care, and the entire health care system will descend into a chaotic nationwide meltdown.
  • Amy Coney Barrett has sharply criticized both major rulings that upheld the ACA: NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) and King v. Burwell (2015).

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Never Miss a Beat.

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

Earlier in the hearing, Barrett also misrepresented the history of conservative legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act. She said that the doctrine of severability was not an issue in the 2012 case, NFIB v. Sebelius. The conservative dissent joined by her mentor Justice Scalia argued that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and that it and other provisions were inseverable from the rest of the law, meaning that the entire Affordable Care Act must be struck down. “For those reasons, the unconstitutionality of both the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid Expansion requires the invalidation of the Affordable Care Act’s other provisions,” the conservative Justices wrote.

This is extremely similar to the issue the Supreme Court will consider next month in California v. Texas: whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional and, if so, whether most or all of the rest of the ACA must be abolished. Trump and his conservative allies are seeking to invalidate the law in its entirety.

###

This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Don't Exist.

Please select a donation method:



Demand Justice is a left-of-center advocacy group created in early 2018 that aims to influence the political leanings of America’s courts by supporting the appointment of liberal judicial nominees and opposing right-of-center nominees. The organization acts primarily through media campaigns against nominated and unconfirmed judicial nominees.

Share This Article