The nation's high court is again playing with fire and the American people's healthcare directives, as it prepares to hear arguments in one of the most anticipated cases of the year.

The Supreme Court confirmed on Friday that it will consider a comprehensive challenge to the Affordable Care Act's coverage of preventive services during its forthcoming term, as The New York Post reported.

The removal of a preventative services requirement would have an impact on tens of millions of people who obtain their health insurance from their employer or through the ACA marketplace if the court rules in favor of the conservative Texas employers who filed the case.

If this condition were to be removed, the insurance of tens of millions of individuals would no longer pay for any preventative care, including birth control and immunizations.

Case History

The United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in June, stating that an employer who is owned by Christians cannot be forced to provide coverage for preventive drugs as mandated by the Affordable Care Act.

However, the court also determined a Texas judge carried out an “abuse of discretion” in his prior ruling by blocking federal agencies from enforcing the rule universally.

The high court's decision in Braidwood Management v. Becerra upheld a lower court's decision that the HHS secretary could not compel Braidwood Management to comply with an Affordable treatment Act mandate for preventative treatment.

Still another decision was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower courts for further consideration. As the matter advanced toward a possible Supreme Court hearing, the mandate stayed in effect.

The Issue At Hand

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provision at question here mandates that private health insurers and businesses pay for preventative treatments and medications, such as PrEP, which are meds that help prevent the spread of HIV.

Screenings for cancer, vaccinations, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, and contraception are also mandated by the provision.

Braidwood argued that the requirement infringed upon the religious freedom and values of the corporation.

In September 2022, the clause was knocked down by Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Decision on Appeal

Last week, the appeals court ruled that it thought it was an "error" and "an abuse of discretion" to prevent the federal government from universally executing this obligation.

But the appeals court also said that several points still needed to be decided and should go back to the lower courts for more scrutiny.

The constitutionality of the U.S. Preventive Task Force, which determines which services are required to be provided under the ACA, is one matter that has not yet been resolved.