We recognise you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore cannot grant you access at this time e-mail us at grundynews@gmail.com or call us at 815-941-1000 Complete your personal information for a more tailored experience for the best life sciences journalism in the industry By Angus Chen Angus Chen Angus Chen covers all issues broadly related to cancer including drugs He joined STAT in 2021 after covering health and science at NPR and NPR affiliate stations His work has been recognized by national Edward R Americans have been guaranteed that no matter their health insurer certain preventive care like cancer screenings are free of charge That’s because an Affordable Care Act provision has required insurers to fully cover services given an A or B recommendation by an expert task force That may soon change. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge to this statute in the case of Kennedy v. Braidwood Management the ruling could have profound ramifications for the future of preventive health care in the United States Striking down this ACA provision means insurers can deny coverage for many of the services the United States Preventive Services Task Force and colorectal cancer screening at the age of 45 to 49 The possibility of that outcome has health experts worried “The fear is that this will be a big step backwards in reducing the burden of cancer,” said Scott Ramsey and health economist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center If some insurers decide to tack on cost-sharing to cancer screenings that could lead to fewer people deciding to get screened “Even $20 copays can reduce adherence substantially” to cancer screenings which could ultimately lead to more cancers being diagnosed at advanced stages Loss of mandated PrEP coverage would also be a setback in the HIV/AIDS epidemic senior director of litigation and HIV law at GLAD Law “It would be unfathomable to the hundreds of thousands of people who died in the first three decades of the HIV epidemic that there would be a safe daily pill that would prevent HIV transmission close to 100%,” Klein said “The challenge is that too few people who need PrEP actually have access to it The lawsuit was originally filed in 2022 by Braidwood Management which represents a group of conservative Christian employers in Texas they argued that the requirement to cover PrEP was a violation of their freedom of religion and that the mandate for private insurers to cover USPSTF recommendations more broadly was unconstitutional They argued that because task force members aren’t appointed by the president and confirmed by Congress it’s unconstitutional for this body to have the authority to dictate what health insurers must cover they argued only “principal officers” who go through that process like the secretary of Health and Human Services In 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with the plaintiffs’ arguments the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling though it ruled that only the plaintiffs were allowed to exclude covering task force recommended services for their employees The Biden administration then took the case to the Supreme Court which is only looking at whether binding no-cost coverage to task force recommendations is constitutional The Trump administration and HHS Secretary Robert F it argues that the ACA provision is constitutional because it believes the task force is under the authority of the HHS secretary The government argued the HHS secretary can appoint and remove task force members at will and can also create regulations requiring secretarial approval before task force recommendations become binding on health insurers The current government’s decision to pursue the case has made somewhat strange bedfellows of the Trump administration and various advocacy groups and its decision to defend Obamacare has surprised many The case is “one of the latest in a series of litigation attacks brought against various provisions of the Affordable Care Act,” said Wendy Parmet a constitutional law scholar at Northeastern University “It’s surprising because Trump is not a fan of the Affordable Care Act and vowed to replace the Affordable Care Act in his first term.” But experts noted that should the Supreme Court side with the Trump administration it would provide a basis for empowering the administration to veto certain task force recommendations if the HHS secretary decides that insurers shouldn’t have to cover PrEP or diabetes screenings or colonoscopies then they don’t have to — regardless of what the task force recommends they can uphold the experts’ recommendations or attempt to veto them which then would likely trigger a court challenge,” said Andrew Pincus a lawyer representing the American Public Health Association in an amicus brief filed to the Court Regardless of the outcome, if insurers are no longer required to cover certain task force recommended services, it’s an open question of whether they actually would stop providing cost-free coverage of those services. Preventive medicine can be incredibly cost-effective as typically preventing a disease like advanced cancer tends to be a lot cheaper than treating it “Most cancer screening we do is cost-effective What you get for improving quality and quantity of life for what you spend it’s one of the best deals you can make,” said Fred Hutch’s Ramsey It’s unlikely that cancer screening saves insurance companies money.” health care system is a patchwork of different providers their insurance provider often changes as well People’s health insurers might change between their first cancer screenings and when they actually get cancer Most of the savings coming from cancer prevention is actually going to Medicare since it covers older adults who are most likely to get such illnesses it’s possible that some insurers may decide it’s not worth it to them to keep paying fully for everyone’s cancer screenings if they don’t have to “For for-profit Medicare Advantage programs they might do some hard math and decide it’s better to have a copay,” Ramsey said Economic cost doesn’t play a role in the task force’s recommendations the task force does have “a very high bar for an A or B rating,” he said “You have to have randomized controlled trials and lots of evidence showing clinical benefit that exceeds harm.” That gives some confidence to people that these recommended services are good for the health of the nation and lung cancer screening have indeed saved lives We would have a much worse picture of deaths due to those cancers without widespread screening,” he said Should those screenings become harder to access for a reason like added costs it is likely the future would see less of those benefits in lives saved and treatments averted By Mario Aguilar By Megan Molteni By Daniel Payne Reporting from the frontiers of health and medicine explainedWhat really mattersIn a world with too much noise and too little context We don’t flood you with panic-inducing headlines or race to be first We focus on being useful to you — breaking down the news in ways that inform We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today by Ian Millhiser On April 21, the Supreme Court will hear Kennedy v. Braidwood Management the latest attempt to convince a judiciary dominated by Republicans to sabotage President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser Unlike some of these earlier lawsuits, Braidwood is not an existential threat to the entire law. Currently, Obamacare gives the Department of Health and Human Services, acting through an institution known as the US Preventive Services Task Force (PSTF), broad authority to require health insurers to cover a wide range of preventative health treatments — from cancer screenings to medications that prevent the transmission of HIV to eye ointments that prevent blindness-causing infections in infants There are multiple reasons to reject Mitchell’s approach. One is that the Supreme Court has long applied a doctrine, known as “constitutional avoidance,” which says that when a statute is open to multiple interpretations the Court should avoid choosing one that would render it unconstitutional Additionally, in King v. Burwell (2015) the Court specifically warned against reading Obamacare in ways that undermine the law’s goals the plaintiffs identified a poorly drafted provision of the law which seemed to create a regime that would have collapsed the individual health insurance markets in most states But the Court rejected this interpretation concluding instead that “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets not to destroy them,” and so the Court must try to “interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former the Court’s membership has changed considerably since King Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg So it is far from clear whether the current Court will have the same compunctions about reading federal law to defeat Obamacare Braidwood turns on a provision of the Constitution concerning the federal government’s hiring practices for officials known as “officers of the United States.” The highest-ranking officials who are commonly referred to as “principal officers,” must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate known as “inferior officers,” may be appointed by the president or by “the heads of departments” — meaning that they do not necessarily require Senate confirmation Although the Constitution does not define the terms “principal officer” and “inferior officer,” the Supreme Court has fleshed out these two concepts considerably in its decisions. In United States v. Arthrex (2021) the Court suggested that “only an officer properly appointed to a principal office may issue a final decision binding the Executive Branch.” So binding decisions that cannot be reviewed by a higher ranking official they generally must be confirmed by the Senate Inferior officers, meanwhile, may still wield considerable influence and authority — so long as their work is overseen by a higher-ranking official. This is true, even if that officer’s superiors typically do not exercise their power to overrule an inferior officer. As the Court said in Edmond v. United States (1997) “‘inferior officers’ are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.” The PSTF is a panel of medical and public health experts appointed by the secretary of Health and Human Services so their appointments are valid if they count as inferior officers but not if they count as principal officers the PSTF has typically decided which preventive medical treatments health insurers must cover The dispute in Braidwood hinges upon whether the health secretary exercises enough supervision over this panel to comply with the constitutional requirement that inferior officers must have a superior who is a principal officer According to the Justice Department’s brief in Braidwood the case for upholding the PSTF’s authority is straightforward The Court has historically looked at two factors to determine whether an inferior officer is properly supervised — whether they can be removed by a principal officer and whether a principal officer can review their decisions The answer to the first question is pretty clear cut. Thus far, four judges have heard the Braidwood case, and they include some of the most anti-Obamacare voices within the judiciary All of them concluded that the secretary may remove PSTF members at will so this statute establishes that the entire Public Health Service is controlled by a principal officer And it is one of several statutes the government cites which give the secretary broad control over institutions within the PSTF Additionally, after the PSTF determines that a particular medical treatment should be covered by insurers, a different federal law instructs the secretary to determine when that new coverage requirement should take effect — with an additional requirement that implementation of the PSTF’s conclusion must be delayed by at least one year even if the health secretary didn’t have broad control over the entire Public Health Service he still has the authority to delay any decision made by the PSTF indefinitely — and then to use that period of delay to remove the members of the PSTF and replace them with new officials who reject their predecessors’ decision serve at the pleasure of a principal officer and cannot actually do anything over that officer’s objections they sure look like validly appointed inferior officers it’s certainly possible to construe this statute to grant PSTF members complete and total independence from any other public official But that’s hardly the only permissible reading of this law the fact that it only frees the PSTF from political pressure “to the extent practicable” is a problem for Mitchell If insulating the PSTF from secretarial control renders it unconstitutional offers an equally plausible alternative reading of this provision It says that it requires the PSTF members themselves to “make recommendations based on their impartial medical and public-health judgments,” but the fact that these recommendations are themselves rooted in independent judgment does not mean that the secretary must give legal effect to the PSTF’s decisions Under the principle of constitutional avoidance the justices should prefer the DOJ’s construction of the statute over Mitchell’s because courts should reject the unconstitutional option when faced with two plausible ways to read a law Mitchell argues elsewhere in his brief that a law permitting the secretary and assistant secretary to “administer” the PSTF is not broad enough to allow them to supervise its work but that argument boils down to nothing more than a rehash of his other argument “the responsibility to ‘administer’ does not empower the Assistant Secretary for Health or his commanding officers to direct and supervise a Task Force that the law requires to be ‘independent’ and free from ‘political pressure.’” There’s also one other reason to question whether Mitchell’s arguments have any real force when the Supreme Court determines that a federal body is unconstitutional because of a problem with how its members are appointed or supervised it tries to preserve that body by striking down the specific legal provision that creates a constitutional problem while also leaving the rest of the law intact Even if Mitchell is correct that PSTF members wield too much authority without enough supervision, in other words, the proper remedy would not be to strip the PSTF of its authority over insurance companies. It would be to strike down the “shall be independent” statute and place the PSTF under the secretary’s full control. Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day, compiled by news editor Sean Collins. The Court’s Christian right makeover of the Constitution enters its endgame. Trump filled the Supreme Court bench with anti-government saboteurs. But will they sabotage him? Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to reinstate his ban on trans military service, after a lower court blocked it. Many of the justices seemed eager to impose impossible burdens on schools. The two Republican justices appeared open to an attack on Obamacare, but ultimately seemed likely to reject it. In an unusual overnight order, most of the justices voted to halt several illegal deportations. Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent [This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman.] On Monday, April 21, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management. On April 25, the Supreme Court requested supplemental briefing in the case: The parties are directed to file supplemental letter briefs addressing the following question: Whether Congress has "by Law" vested the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services with the authority to appoint members of the United States Preventive Services Task Force The briefs should address this Court's decisions in United States v first the Biden and now the Trump Administration have asserted that the Secretary of HHS has the statutory authority to appoint members of a Task Force And both administrations have asserted these positions are inferior officers The government has cited several sources of authority to support its position that the Secretary of HHS has been vested with the power to appoint Task Force members One of these sources is Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966, 80 Stat. 1610. For example, Secretary Becerra's order appointing members of the Task Force provides: and by virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of Health and Human Services including but not limited to Section 6 of Reorganization Plan No and Sections 1 and 2 of Reorganization Plan No the Secretary of Health & Human Services The government cites the 1966 Reorganization Plan at pages 7-8 of its merits brief: Congress has vested the Secretary with significant supervisory authority over the Public Health Service "all functions of the Public Health Service" and of its "officers," "employees," and "agencies" were transferred to the Secretary 2705 (ratifying the Reorganization Plan as law) Congress has also empowered the Secretary to "make such provisions as he shall deem appropriate authorizing the performance of any of the functions transferred to him by the provisions of this reorganization plan by any officer or agency" of the Public Health Service or HHS The Reorganization Plan of 1966 was also raised at the outset of oral arguments: JUSTICE THOMAS: Before we get to the constitutional problems what's the statutory authority to appoint the Task Force MOOPPAN: So there are two sources of authority The first is that under the Reorganization Act the Secretary has the power to exercise all functions and duties of the director has the authority to convene the Task Force JUSTICE THOMAS: Isn't that an odd delegation it would be the superior or the principal officer who would have the authority who would delegate it to subordinates The Reorganization Act was in place when 299 was enacted when Congress passed 299 and said that the director could convene the Task Force that meant that the Secretary could convene the Task Force It seems the government's statutory argument turns on the Reorganization Plan Several other Justices asked about the Reorganization Plan of 1966 Mooppan refers to the Reorganization Plan of 1966 as an "Act." But it is not an Act of Congress So what is the Reorganization Plan of 1966 And does it vest the Secretary with the power to appoint Task Force members The Reorganization Plan of 1966 was not a statute passed through bicameralism and presentment. Statutes at Large includes this notation: Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives in Congress assembled pursuant to the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949 the President signed an executive memoranda Congress did not approve it or even vote on it And that plan was then published in Statutes at Large This is something like the  one-house veto at issue in INS v either House could have vetoed the plan; though this apparently never happened 378-80 (2023) (expounding on the  meaning of "by law" and collecting authority) the plan could not vest the Secretary with the authority to appoint the task force members "by law." The inquiry does not end here. The 1966 Plan cites the Reorganization Act of 1949 (Pub. L. 81-109, June 20, 1949, ch. 226, 63 Stat. 203) This statute was passed through bicameralism and presentment Section 3 of the 1949 Act authorizes the President to transmit a reorganization plan to Congress And Section 6 provides that the plan "shall take effect" and that the plan will permit certain authorized changes within the organization of the executive branch so long as both Houses of Congress do not pass a resolution of disfavor Clause 3 (using "take effect"-language in regard to congressional procedures beyond the ambit of Article I Section 5(a)(4) of the 1949 statute imposes an important limitation: and no reorganization under this Act shall have the effect of authorizing any agency to exercise any function which is not expressly authorized by law at the time the plan is transmitted to the Congress The 1949 Act seems to have its roots in a 1939 statute. Reorganization Act of 1939, ch. 36, Apr. 3, 1939, § 6(c), 53 stat. 561, 563. This 1939 statute contains a provision similar to Section 5(a)(4): No reorganization under this title shall have the effect—(c) of authorizing any agency to exercise any function which is not expressly authorized by law We have to give some more thought to whether the 1949 Act would violate the principles of Chadha the President can make changes that have the force of law This process seems to violate principles of bicameralism and presentment the President cannot increase the power of an agency Maybe the best way to reconcile these statutes under Chadha is that the 1966 Plan cannot vest the Secretary with any new legal authority that he did not already possess We do not think the 1966 Reorganization Plan could invoke the 1949 Act to vest the Secretary with the authority to appoint task members by law the Secretary would only have that appointment power if some other statute "expressly authorized by law" that appointment power but we found only one relevant decision that addresses the scope of Section 5(a)(4) the court avoided the limitation as it found the agency already had the asserted power Appellants refer to the views expressed by the Comptroller General in a letter to the Secretary The Comptroller General followed the recommendation of the Secretary in the instant listing but in the letter expressed the opinion that the debarment regulation offended section 5(a)(4) of the Reorganization Act He reasoned that since this section of the Act precludes a plan which authorizes "any agency to exercise any function which is not expressly authorized by law at the time the plan is transmitted to the Congress," the debarment condition which had not been adopted by the contracting agency But the debarment regulation does not enlarge functions theretofore residing in the agencies included the power to enter into contracts in accordance with relevant statutes This included the authority by regulation to prescribe appropriate standards for securing compliance with the labor provisions included authority to include the debarment provision The transfer to the Secretary was a transfer and coordination of authority already reposing within the several agencies Assuming this atextual analysis is correct we do not think the Secretary's purported power to appoint inferior officers was "already reposing within" HHS the Solicitor General cited the Reorganization Plan precisely because this power was not clearly vested elsewhere In 1969, William H. Rehnquist, as head of OLC The inquiry still does not stop here. Fast-forward to 1984. The 98th Congress passed a statute that ratified all reorganization plans (Pub. L. 98-532, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 stat. 2705) This statute was passed as part of a legislative response to Chadha The Congress hereby ratifies and affirms as law each reorganization plan that has prior to the date of enactment of this Act been implemented pursuant to the provisions of chapter 9 of title 5 or any predecessor Federal reorganization statute Any actions taken prior to the date of enactment of this Act pursuant to a reorganization plan that is ratified and affirmed by section 1 shall be considered to have been taken pursuant to a reorganization expressly approved by Act of Congress should be treated as a statute following the 1984 Act It appears Congress attempted to engineer full statutory ratification through bicameralism and presentment But was this attempt at ratification effective Chief Justice John Marshall addressed this issue in U.S Marshall took the position that where Congress creates a duty to be fulfilled by the Executive Branch or the President the default is that the President makes use of extant human resources in the Executive Branch And where Congress intends to authorize the President to make use of new human resources Congress will either "expressly" authorize "by law" the creation of statutory offices or Congress will authorize the President to "employ [via employees under contract] such persons as he might think proper." Id Where office-creation was defectively authorized in the first instance or regularized by subsequent "legislative recognition" in the form of a statute Congress did not enact or re-enact the text of the 1966 Plan and there was no express grant of any power to create new offices the 1984 act incorporated the 1966 plan by reference and directed the Executive Branch and courts to treat the 1966 plan "as law." So ratified or not and we are left without any express legislation recognition of an extant office initially created absent valid authorization for Congress to affirm that some extra-statutory document should be treated "as law" is not the same thing as Congress enacting the text of that document into a statute the text of the Appointments Clause demands that "offices" be "established by law," that is Congress (at most) authorized office-creation through a legal instrument with direction that that instrument be treated "as law" but not enacted as a statute Is that sufficient to comply with the "established by law" sub-provision of the Appointments Clause All that leaves a related unresolved issue: What about Section 5(a)(4) of the 1949 Act We think the 1949 Act continues to limit the 1966 Plan/Act The 1949 Congress did not enact that limitation to avoid a Chadha problem legislative vetoes were quite common at the time it seems that Congress only wanted the President to rely on pre-existing statutory authorities There are further reasons to see that the limitation remains in place If the 1949 Act in fact granted the executive such broad we think there would be an actual nondelegation doctrine problem: the President could reorganize the executive branch this power would include the power to appoint inferior officers the major questions doctrine would counsel reading the Section 5(a)(4) as still limiting the 1966 Plan we don't think the government's assertion of this authority is sufficient to show the appointment power is vested in the Secretary "by law." there may be a statutory path to resolve this constitutional question The Supreme Court also asked the parties to address "United States v 525 (1888)." The relationship between these two cases is not obvious these precedents  are hardly part of the received case law canon The Solicitor General only cited Hartwell in a single paragraph in the reply brief The Petitioner did not cite Hartwell at all We think we see what the Court was inquiring about The final paragraph of Smith distinguishes that case from Hartwell: was a clerk in the office of the assistant treasurer at Boston but his appointment by that officer under the act of congress could only be made with the approbation of the secretary of the treasury rendered his appointment one by the head of the department within the constitutional provision upon the subject of the appointing power The necessity of the secretary's approbation to the appointment distinguishes that case essentially from the one at the bar the statute required that the Secretary approve of the appointment the statute did not require that the Secretary approve of the appointment The key point in distinguishing these cases is not whether there is statutory authority to create an office either a principal officer or the President with the power to appoint a person to the office If there is no statute vesting appointing authority in the Secretary (or then there is no authority to fill the position And if there is no authority to fill the position then the mandatory requirements of the Appointments Clause and the Inferior Office Appointments Clause have not been complied with This litigation has focused closely on whether the task force members are "principal" of "inferior" officers of the United States But the Court's request for supplemental briefing seems to shift focus to whether any of the appointments of Task Force members in Kennedy v by the Secretary were supported by some statute the Court's focus on Hartwell and Smith may suggest the Court believes only express statutory authority is permissible to validate an exercise of the appointment power by an inferior officer so much turns on whether a person is or is not an officer of the United States Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value" Josh Blackman is a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston and the President of the Harlan Institute. Follow him @JoshMBlackman Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_2" ).setAttribute( "value" This purchase is available as a free download with your MyC-SPAN account C-SPAN.org offers links to books featured on the C-SPAN networks to make it simpler for viewers to purchase them C-SPAN has agreements with retailers that share a small percentage of your purchase price with our network C-SPAN earns money from your qualifying purchases C-SPAN only receives this revenue if your book purchase is made using the links on this page Any revenue realized from this program goes into a general account to help fund C-SPAN operations Please note that questions regarding fulfillment or issues relating to your book orders should be directed to the Webmaster or administrator of the specific bookseller's site and are their sole responsibility MyC-SPAN users can download four Congressional hearings and proceedings under four hours for free each month There are three ways to set in and out points for a clip: Check your selection with the "Preview Clip" option If you are editing the times of an existing clip you may only set a start and end time within the original clip boundaries The upcoming Supreme Court hearing on Braidwood Management v Becerra could affect how preventive services are covered by both public and private insurance discusses the implications of the Braidwood Management v Becerra case which is being decided by the Supreme Court This transcript has been lightly edited; captions were auto-generated What is the Braidwood v Becerra lawsuit and what does it affect So this is a case where the plaintiffs are challenging the requirement under the Affordable Care Act [ACA] to cover certain recommended preventive services Initially they brought a set of constitutional claims and they brought claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act What the case before the Supreme Court really involves is the constitutional claims and the remaining claims at this point are only related to the US Preventive Services Task Force What's in front of the court right now is the constitutionality of the role of the US Preventive Services Task Force in determining which services must be covered by health insurance plans in the United States and this is a requirement that impacts not only all Americans who have private health insurance but also applies directly to the individuals the adults who also have Medicaid expansion coverage as well What are the major implications of the lawsuit when it comes to the ACA It is really another one of those significant Affordable Care Act cases but it's really the first that challenges the preventive services coverage requirement So it's a really significant case when we think about access to preventive care in the United States there was no requirement that commercial health insurance plans or Medicaid cover these types of preventive services So it's definitely something that risks access for over 150 million Americans to recommended preventive care How might this lawsuit affect contraception and immunizations covered under the ACA So the question before the Supreme Court at this point in time does not involve the Advisory Committee on the Immunization Practices [ACIP] or the recommendations by the Health Resources and Services Administration which is where we see the contraceptive mandate I will say this was an issue that was raised at the lower court level The plaintiffs did not want to have to cover certain recommended immunizations or contraceptives The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the task force but not with respect to immunizations and contraceptives And so the lower court found that the way those bodies operate in determining coverage requirements under the ACA is constitutional and so that's something that we could see come back up at a later date Certainly the the plaintiffs did ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the constitutionality of the ACIP and HRSA roles It's really focused on the US Preventive Services Task Force and required coverage of its recommendations COA 2025: Insight, Innovation, and Independent Strength New Research Challenges Assumptions About Hospital-Physician Integration, Medicare Patient Mix Managed Care Reflections: A Q&A With John Michael O’Brien, PharmD, MPH Personalized Care Key as Tirzepatide Use Expands Rapidly Novo Nordisk Expands GLP-1 Access Through Telehealth Providers Aetna Members With ACA Plans Will Need New Coverage in 2026; CVS to Exit ACA Marketplace Medicare Rights Center joined with other members of the Chronic Illness and Disability Partnership and the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School to submit an amicus curia brief to the Supreme Court of the United States Originally filed as Braidwood Management v. Becerra, the plaintiffs in this case challenged the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirement that most private insurance plans cover preventative services without cost sharing. Judge Reed O’Connor ruled in March of 2023 that the ACA’s reliance on recommendations of the U.S Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S Constitution. He also found that the ACA’s requirement to cover Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) medications for HIV prevention infringes on plaintiff’s religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act The circuit court did end the nationwide injunction limiting the impact of the decision to the named plaintiffs the Fifth Circuit largely upheld the decision with regard to the role of the USPSTF in determining mandatory preventative coverage the circuit court did end the nationwide injunction The case history has been complex and “twisting”—with numerous cross appeals but the questions before the Supreme Court at this point are whether the ACA’s reliance on the USPSTF is constitutional whether the Secretary of HHS can “cure” any problems by affirmatively adopting the recommendations and whether or not Secretary Becerra effectively did so The court will also consider whether the district court should have just removed any unconstitutional portion of the law rather than barring enforcement broadly It will not consider the question of whether the requirements for preventative service coverage based on the recommendations of other entities are constitutional Medicare is the eventual insurer of the vast majority of Americans, so it has a strong interest in increasing the uptake of preventative care services among its future beneficiaries. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case on April 21, 2025. If the court agrees with the earlier decisions and finds that the delegation of authority to the USPSTF is unconstitutional, impacted plans may remove coverage for services recommended by that group after March 10, 2010. Because recommendations before that date are referenced in the statute and, therefore, adopted by Congress, they are not subject to this challenge. How quickly plans revoke coverage for these services would also depend on state law. Most insurance contracts are approved annually by state regulators, and there are limitations on mid-year changes. Some states may separately require coverage of preventative services under state law. Sign up to receive Medicare news, policy developments, and other useful updates from the Medicare Rights. @MedicareRights Sign up for our free email newsletters and alerts to receive the latest information about Medicare and Medicare Rights Our MissionClient StoriesCareersAnnual Report Contact UsPartnershipsNewslettersMedia Center Learn MedicareGet Medicare HelpPolicy DocumentsNews and Updates DonateEvent CalendarTake ActionVolunteer Copyright © 2025 Medicare Rights Center | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks The action you just performed triggered the security solution There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase You can email the site owner to let them know you were blocked Please include what you were doing when this page came up and the Cloudflare Ray ID found at the bottom of this page which requires payer coverage of items and services recommended with an A or B rating by the U.S I left the court that Monday feeling optimistic. By Friday, the justices issued an order requesting additional briefing The challengers argue that the task force’s role violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause because it is set up as an independent body but is effectively responsible for determining preventive health coverage for over 150 million Americans this argument would mean the task force members would need to be Senate-confirmed the issues at stake in Braidwood extend beyond the ACA requirement itself delving into fundamental constitutional law and the separation of powers questions I expected the court would focus on whether the Task Force has too much statutory independence, that a majority would find that it did, but then save the law by “severing” the problematic language as it had in previous similar cases But severability was cast aside as the justices zeroed in on the interpretation of two words: “independent” and “convene.” Their questions from the bench revealed not only the polar opposite views of the left- and right-leaning justices but also a hint of how the key justices might vote Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh appeared ready to uphold the law Coney Barrett’s focus on the scope of the word “independent” was particularly revealing questioning the challengers’ very “maximalist” view that the word equates to complete isolation from political oversight she seemed to agree with Justice Elena Kagan that independence might simply ensure task force members act without conflicts of interest or make recommendations as independent experts seemingly tipping the balance of the court in solid favor of upholding the task force’s role “I just don’t see the indicators that … this task force is more powerful than the secretary of HHS or the president in terms of how these recommendations are going to affect the health care industry.” these justices may find greater difficulty with the secretary’s statutory authority to “convene” the task force and whether that word actually vests in him the authority to appoint its members Justice Clarence Thomas sardonically compared this to Chief Justice John Roberts’ authority to convene the court but noted he does not appoint the justices Justice Neil Gorsuch spun further hypothetical absurdities about the authority of the director and “15 other people” to appoint the task force Then, Friday afternoon, the court ordered supplemental briefing on whether Congress vested the HHS secretary with the authority to appoint Task Force members it asked the parties to address the relevance of two prior cases: U.S The focus on these seemingly ancient but constitutionally precedential cases would indicate the court is seriously grappling with whether the secretary must have explicit appointment authority for the Task Force to survive the challenge Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett likely sit at the midpoint of the tension For all of their comfort with the task force’s independence they may be held back by their textualist principles from construing convening to encompass appointment This could be the unfortunate end game for preventive coverage The court is likely to issue its decision in late June as it wraps up the current term If the court decides appointment authority is lacking the ACA requirement could be in significantly greater jeopardy than initially perceived during oral arguments Upholding the task force role would require a two-vote combination of Roberts agreeing the secretary has appointment authority and that the independence issue is resolved by either a narrow interpretation or severability the court could possibly determine the task force members were not lawfully appointed until then-HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra stepped in to reappoint its members in 2023 This raises doubt as to whether its recommendations in the 2010-2023 period (including for colonoscopies and HIV prevention) remain subject to mandatory coverage The court may refrain from deciding that question itself and send it back to the 5th Circuit the law would remain in effect and it would be incumbent on the Trump (or a future) administration to move quickly at some future date to revalidate the task force’s 2010-2023 recommendations The court may conclude that there is no secretarial appointment authority and that the task force has no authority without Senate confirmation This would effectively overturn the coverage mandate and place the onus on Congress to either provide Senate confirmation or garner bipartisan support to repair the statute’s flaws and reinstate mandatory coverage of all recommendations made since the ACA’s passage So what does this mean for the future of mandatory preventive coverage If the law is struck down or any ambiguity left surrounding its validity This would inevitably result in a more varied and potentially less comprehensive “patchwork” of preventive benefits within and across markets This is less likely to manifest in the form of overnight coverage rescissions for major services like mammograms or colonoscopies degradation of coverage is more likely to occur gradually through increased utilization management such as prior authorization stricter adherence to or narrowing of recommended age ranges or cohorts formulary management of products like PrEP for HIV The consequences — greater confusion among providers and patients as to which services are covered and when along with a risk to future investment in novel diagnostic and preventive technologies — will undermine 15 years of progress toward a healthier population and lower health care costs Richard Hughes IV is a partner with Epstein Becker Green and teaches vaccines and preventive services law at the George Washington University Law School Have an opinion on this essay? Submit a letter to the editor The smartest thinkers in life sciences on what's happening — and what's to come By Helen Branswell The two Republican justices appeared open to an attack on Obamacare challenges the authority of a group within the US Department of Health and Human Services tasked with requiring insurers to cover some forms of preventative care represented by former Donald Trump lawyer Jonathan Mitchell want the justices to strip the PSTF of this authority — thus permitting health plans to deny coverage for treatments they are currently required to pay for it does not appear likely that Mitchell has the votes for that outcome Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito came out swinging against the PSTF and Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared likely to join them in attempting to sabotage Obamacare But they were the only three justices who clearly telegraphed sympathy to Mitchell’s arguments Republican Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett both seemed inclined to vote against Mitchell although their questions did leave some uncertainty about how they would ultimately rule in this case All three of the Court’s Democrats appeared all but certain to uphold the PSTF so that means there may be at least five votes to preserve health insurers’ obligations under Obamacare lesser-ranking officials known as “inferior officers” may be appointed by an agency leader such as a Cabinet secretary Members of the PSTF were appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, so they do not qualify as principal officers. So the question in this case is whether they are validly classified as inferior officers. To qualify as such an official, their work must be supervised by a principal officer confirmed by the Senate. As the Supreme Court said in Edmond v. United States (1997) Mitchell, meanwhile, primarily relies on a provision of federal law which states that PSTF members “shall be independent and, to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure.” Task force members cannot simultaneously be “independent” and also subject to secretarial supervision But most of the justices appeared skeptical of Mitchell’s reading of the word “independent.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that she sometimes asks her law clerks for their “independent judgment” regarding a legal question she needs to decide but that does not mean that she has to take the law clerk’s recommendation Barrett — who repeatedly described Mitchell’s interpretation of the word “independent” as “maximalist” — seemed persuaded by Sotomayor’s argument As Barrett said at one point during the argument she sometimes asks her law clerks to provide recommendations that are “independent” of outside influence but not “independent” of Barrett’s own approach to how cases should be decided Even more significantly, Barrett pointed to the doctrine of “constitutional avoidance,” which says that if there are multiple ways of construing a statute courts should avoid reading it in ways that raise constitutional problems if the word “independent” can be read in more than one way the Court should pick an interpretation that doesn’t render the PSTF unconstitutional asked some questions that suggest he might be sympathetic to Mitchell’s approach; early in the argument he told Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan that he thought the government’s interpretation of the word “independent” was “odd.” But he seemed to shift gears once Mitchell took the podium Among other things, Kavanaugh noted that his Court is normally reluctant to read the law to create federal bodies that are independent of the government’s normal organizational chart, where agency leaders answer to the president and nearly everyone else answers to an agency leader. Indeed, the Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could eliminate Congress’s ability to create such independent agencies So Kavanaugh appeared to believe that this statute should not be construed to make the PSTF independent from the secretary if it is possible to read it in another way Kavanaugh and Barrett did hedge enough in their questions that it is not entirely clear how they will vote in this case a Republican who also sometimes breaks with the Court’s right flank So it is not at all clear where Roberts will come down in Kennedy v Gorsuch, at one point, floated an alternative way of resolving this case. While every judge who has heard the case so far agreed that the secretary has the power to appoint and remove task force members, there’s no statute which directly states that he can do so. Instead, that power is likely implicit in other provisions of law, such as the provision giving the secretary control over the Public Health Service Gorsuch suggested that the Court may send the case back down to the lower court to decide whether the secretary actually has the power to appoint and remove task force members also signaled that she is open to sending the case back down in a procedure known as a “remand.” Still, even if the case is sent back down to the Fifth Circuit, and even if the Fifth Circuit does read federal law to undercut the PSTF, the Supreme Court can still review that decision once it is handed down. So a remand does not necessarily mean that health insurers will gain the power to deny coverage for cancer screenings or anti-HIV medication. Again, given the course of Barrett and Kavanaugh’s questioning, it’s difficult to say with certainty how this case will end up. For the moment, however, one of two outcomes seem most likely: Either the Supreme Court holds off on deciding the PSTF’s fate for now, or it votes to permanently rescue this body from Mitchell’s attack. How can you punish Trump officials for violating the law, when federal law enforcement is controlled by Trump? spoke about the upcoming oral arguments to be presented to the Supreme Court regarding the Braidwood case which would determine how preventive services are guaranteed insurance coverage Oral arguments in the Kennedy vs Braidwood case with all eyes on the Supreme Court as it determines whether the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has the constitutional authority to mandate that preventive services be covered by insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) The American Journal of Managed Care® (AJMC®) spoke with Richard Hughes IV health care attorney at Epstein Becker Green about what we should expect from Monday's proceedings and the implications of the case This transcript was lightly edited for clarity AJMC: Oral arguments in the Braidwood case will be presented on Monday What can we expect to occur during this stage of the appeal Hughes: The 2 sides will present their oral arguments at the court and they will be arguing as to whether the role of the USPSTF under the ACA violates the appointments clause They'll be arguing as to whether they are principal officers under the Constitution if there is an appointments clause violation whether the court can apply severability to the statute that basically insulates political interference The case will determine the fate of the preventive services coverage requirements under the ACA I'll be really watching the justices slightly to the right of Chief Justice [John] Roberts really to see how they're asking questions AJMC: Now that oral arguments are starting what can we expect the timeline of this case to be Hughes: The court's term ends at the end of June And so I would expect that we'll see a decision probably at the very end of the term Sometimes there are some opinions that continue to trickle out and so that's certainly a possibility as well MPH | Image credit: George Washington University Law AJMC: How can health care payers remain compliant with the decision should the Task Force be deemed unconstitutional Hughes: The coverage requirements would be rolled back to what they were when the ACA was passed the recommendations that were in effect before March of 2010 that's what payers would have to cover like PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] for HIV would be something that payers would not be required to cover I think that what you probably won't see is sort of an overnight scenario where they stop covering screenings I do think that PrEP for HIV is very much at risk I think that what you're going to see almost more important than whether the payers cover it—because I do think a lot of coverage will continue—what you're really going to see that's concerning is the imposition of cost sharing What we know is that when a payer imposes cost sharing patients are more likely to walk away from that service AJMC: What is the impact on health care providers and manufacturers who offer preventive services or market tests or products Hughes: I think it's tremendously impactful for patients especially people at risk of acquiring HIV I think if the requirement to cover PrEP goes away You might lose access to long-acting injectable PrEP It's incredibly disruptive to providers when they don't really know what a patient's health insurance plan is going to cover That can really create some issues in clinic when a provider is recommending a service to a patient and the payer might potentially not cover it You could certainly have some surprise bills that patients receive because the payer comes back and says I think it discourages innovation [as well] You look at the great innovation around long-acting injectable PrEP and so it's a very competitive market How Employers Can Fight the Price Crisis Community Oncology Reacts to Trump's Drug Pricing Executive Order 2 Commerce DriveSuite 100Cranbury, NJ 08512 © 2025 MJH Life Sciences® and AJMC®. All rights reserved. Braidwood Management threatens to make your health insurance worse the latest in a long line of lawsuits seeking to undermine the Affordable Care Act the landmark health reform law that President Barack Obama signed in 2010 Unlike some previous anti-Obamacare lawsuits Braidwood Management is not an existential threat to the entire law Should the Supreme Court buy the plaintiffs’ arguments in this case that would give health insurers more leeway to refuse to cover certain treatments Such a decision would also give employers more ability to offer health plans that deny coverage for those treatments And the Braidwood Management plaintiffs have struggled to persuade even sympathetic judges with some of their arguments While Braidwood Management began as a sweeping challenge to three bodies within the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which can require health insurers to cover various treatments the scope of this lawsuit has shrunk as it has advanced through the courts despite the fact that this case has largely been heard by very sympathetic judges those judges have only accepted some of the Braidwood Management plaintiffs’ arguments Originally, the case targeted three different bodies The US Preventive Services Task Force (PSTF) — the fate of which is now before the Supreme Court — has fairly broad authority to require insurers to cover preventative health treatments such as cancer screenings only the fate of the PSTF is before the Supreme Court All of that said, the stakes in this case remain quite high. As the Justice Department said in its petition asking the justices to hear this case, the PSTF currently requires insurers to cover “more than 50 preventive services,” including “screenings to detect lung and colorectal cancer; screenings to detect diabetes; statin medications to reduce the risk of heart disease and strokes; medications to prevent HIV; physical therapy for older adults to prevent falls; and eye ointment for newborns to prevent blindness-causing infections.” insurers will be able to deny coverage for these treatments And employers will potentially be able to offer health plans that don’t cover them O’Connor and the Fifth Circuit ruled that the PSTF violates an obscure provision of the Constitution dealing with how top government officials are hired There are also two types of these officers “Principal” officers include top-level officials such as Cabinet secretaries who typically answer directly to the president These officers must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate before they can take up their duties “inferior” officers may be appointed by the president alone The Constitution also does not define who is a principal, as opposed to an inferior, officer. But the Supreme Court said in Edmond v. United States (1997) that “the term ‘inferior officer’ connotes a relationship with some higher ranking officer or officers below the President,” as “whether one is an ‘inferior’ officer depends on whether he has a superior.” principal officers (the ones who must be confirmed by the Senate) are generally understood to be department leaders and other very high-ranking officials who answer directly to the president are officers of the United States who are responsible to a principal officer because they can be fired by the HHS secretary (a principal officer) if the HHS secretary disapproves of their performance or disagrees with their decisions the Fifth Circuit concluded that members of the PSTF are not ultimately responsible to the secretary (and thus they must be Senate-confirmed) in large part because the Fifth Circuit believed that no statute actually gives the secretary the direct authority to override one of the PSTF’s decisions if the secretary disagreed with a decision by the PSTF the secretary would have to either threaten to fire PSTF members unless they reverse course or actually fire them and replace them with people who will implement the secretary’s preferred policy This isn’t an especially persuasive argument — most people would rightfully think of someone as their boss if that individual had the power to hire and fire them And it’s not even clear that the secretary doesn’t have the lawful authority to override the PSTF without firing any of its members The Justice Department, in other words, has strong legal arguments against the two lower courts’ positions in this case. Whether that will be enough to persuade a GOP-controlled Court, however, remains to be seen. The Braidwood Management v Becerra decision could require payers to step up to continue covering preventive services The decision surrounding Braidwood Management v Becerra could require payers to affirm their dedication to covering preventive services should the Supreme Court rule against the US Preventive Service Task Force's authority in the area What can be done to mitigate the effects of the lawsuit should the lower court decision be upheld I think it will be important that payers continue to provide coverage of recommended preventive services and to do it really consistent with a lot of the guidance that we've seen from CMS over the years We've seen clarification on things like if a patient is recommended to receive a colonoscopy that the subsequent pathology for any biopsies during that procedure is going to be covered and the patient won't have out-of-pocket costs And so for procedures like that or screening tests like that where there are what we call ancillary services there could be a lot of confusion if payers do not consistently provide that kind of coverage not to mention the fact that the the tests and the screenings themselves need to have coverage Services like PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] for HIV we may see unequal coverage across various forms of health insurance worked very hard to get to this place with the provision of the Affordable Care Act and then all of the work that CMS has done to really clarify what must be covered by health insurance plans the evenness of coverage across the United States that's going to be confusing for providers It's going to be confusing for patients I've certainly seen the evidence that when recommendations are not clear it really dramatically impacts the ability of a provider to make a clear recommendation to a patient as to the preventive care they should receive And so it really does threaten access to preventive care and it means that we could ultimately see worse outcomes in this country that were entirely preventable difficult to determine what the likelihood or the prospects are of the outcome either way if the Supreme Court follows its prior precedent on the severability doctrine because there is a piece of the statute that authorizes the US Preventive Services Task Force—it says they're to be independent and not subject to political pressure—and that is language that in the view of the courts certainly in the view of the lower courts in this case has meant that they view the task force as not being politically accountable will the court be willing to sever that language so that the task force can be viewed as and be independent and not subject to political influence And so if they're willing to follow prior precedent this law will survive and we'll continue to see the requirement remain in effect For PrEP, just a $10 increase in the cost of medication doubled PrEP abandonment rates in a 2024 modeling study. Loss of PrEP access would be devastating with so much recent progress in reining in new HIV infections in the US. This would also be a particularly disappointing time to lose comprehensive coverage for PrEP with a once every six month injectable version set to be approved this summer.” Since the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services provision took effect in 2010, Americans have benefited from a dramatic increase in the use of services that detect disease early, promote healthy living, and reduce long-term health costs. These benefits are rooted in the work of leading scientists and public health experts, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose recommendations are based on rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence.  Any shift away from cost-free access to preventive care could have wide-ranging implications, potentially limiting access for those who are already navigating economic hardship and health disparities.   If Braidwood prevails, the consequences will be felt nationwide. We risk losing access to lifesaving screenings and preventive treatments that have become standard care over the past decade. This case should serve as a wake-up call: science, not politics, must guide our health care system. The health of our nation depends on it.” Shane Diamond (he/him), GLAAD’s Director of Communications and Transgender Advocacy, joined 11Alive, the NBC affiliate… As a dynamic media force, GLAAD tackles tough issues to shape the narrative and provoke dialogue that leads to cultural change. 2025CMSBrowserComponents.load({ el: '#vue-1746492863878-202' props: {"url":"http://www.auntminnie.com/clinical-news/womens-imaging/article/15743254/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-in-braidwood-case","printUrl":"http://www.auntminnie.com/print/content/15743254","providers":["print","facebook","linkedin","twitter","pinterest"],"lang":"en"} Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments beginning on April 21 on a case that may impact no-cost preventive services such as breast and lung cancer screening Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in 2024 mistakenly ruled that the structure of the U.S Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) violates the Constitution's appointments clause The Fifth Circuit also declined to end the statutory provision that shields the USPSTF from the U.S Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision “About 150 million Americans rely on these preventive services to get the care that they need,” said Valerie Nelson manager of federal policy & advocacy at Susan G especially if the Supreme Court were to uphold the decision of the lower courts.”  The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private health insurance plans to cover recommended preventive services Along with breast and lung cancer screening this also covers services such as behavioral counseling which consists of an independent panel of health experts in primary care and prevention makes evidence-based recommendations about preventive services private plans and Medicaid expansion programs must cover preventive health services based on those receiving an A or B level recommendation by the task force.  And when the USPSTF issues new recommendations or updates current recommendations plans must begin covering impacted services in the next plan year that begins on or after one year from the issue date.  Komen explains who may be or impacted should no-cost preventive services be taken away Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 2024 ruled in the case of Braidwood Management Inc that recommendations made by the USPSTF are unconstitutional since they violate the appointments clause the Fifth Circuit did not agree with a lower court’s decision to apply this outcome nationwide stating that the ruling should only apply to the parties in the case.  Still, imaging societies and health advocates criticized the Fifth Circuit's ruling saying that it would open the door for future legal challenges Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of Braidwood Management costs that insurance companies take on from ACA-covered services would be shifted to patients.  Nelson said that ruling against the validation of the USPSTF’s recommendations could open more hardships for women who rely on no-cost services for breast cancer screening. People may be discouraged from attending their scheduled screenings and test appointments due to the cost burdens that patients would have to take on this could mean more breast cancers being discovered at advanced stages we have a real-life example during COVID when there was a sudden stop in screening and we saw how difficult it was to get women to come back in,” said Linda Moy president of the Society of Breast Imaging “These outcomes especially affected women of lower socioeconomic class and those who were of minority background These women already face barriers to screening.”  discusses the society's stance on the availability of no-cost preventive health services While previous challenges to ACA have largely been unsuccessful the Braidwood case is unique in that the focus is on whether the USPSTF has the authority to make these recommendations.  But it is nevertheless very significant,” said Tom Greeson a partner in the Reed Smith Life Sciences Health Industry Group. Greeson focuses his practice on health care regulatory law representing radiology groups and diagnostic imaging suppliers.  Greeson said that services like screening mammography will be mostly unaffected by the ruling since that mandate preceded enactment of the ACA since current federal law recognizes the 2002 USPSTF guidelines calling for screening every one to two years beginning at age 40.  “One hopes the fact that the Trump administration wants to sustain these no-cost preventive services will particularly persuade some of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court to join with the more liberal contingent of Justices in allowing these no-cost preventive services to be made widely available,” Greeson said.  Nelson meanwhile said Komen will continue monitoring the progress of this case The organization in 2023 issued an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court in favor of overturning the lower courts’ decision.  we’re going to continue to advocate for high-quality affordable care access for patients across the spectrum,” Nelson said.  2025 at 1:40 pm CT.css-79elbk{position:relative;}Brandon Quirk He spent 11 days in jail in December on another charge (Mugshot via Will County Jail)BRAIDWOOD — Will County judge Colette Safford has denied pretrial release under the Illinois SAFE-T-Act for 46-year-old Crest Hill resident Brandon Quirk following his latest arrest Prosecutors have charged Quick with aggravated battery interfering with the reporting of domestic violence and obstructing an officer According to the petition to keep Quirk in the Will County Jail for an indefinite period of time Braidwood police responded to the 200 block of North Mitchell Street for a domestic disturbance where "Brandon Quirk .. was getting in (a woman's) face and then pushed her." A 71-year-old Braidwood woman told the officers that Quirk pointed in her face She then locked herself in her bedroom and used her cell phone the responding Braidwood police officers already knew Quirk from previous police encounters but he kept walking toward the officers yelling "Get the f*** back and "come on bitch!" the prosecutors told the judge Braidwood police said officers ordered Quirk to get on his knees "you wanna get shot mother f***** or a gun in the face?" as Quirk retreated inside a garage Officers drew their sidearms and raised their guns toward the location where Quirk just ran and the officers met again with the female victim and she assured the officers that her gun was secure Braidwood police were alerted to go to East Coal City Road and North Front Street to intercept Quirk's vehicle Wilmington police already had Quirk pulled over and he was subsequently arrested and taken into custody by Braidwood Court documents from the prosecutors informed the Will County judge that Quirk already has a pending 2024 domestic battery case involving a different victim He was also charged in 2021 with a domestic battery but his 2021 resisting arrest charge led to a not guilty verdict Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts. A network of correspondents providing impartial news reports and analysis in 33 languages from locations around the world Up-to-the-minute news and analysis from around the world and in Chicago Hosted by WBEZ's Mary Dixon and NPR's Steve Inskeep Newshour is the award-winning flagship program of the BBC World Service the world’s largest news gathering operation 1A convenes a conversation about the most important issues of our time smart reflection on world news as it’s happening innovators and artists from around the globe with news from Chicago from WBEZ’s Lisa Labuz Reset digs into how the news has moved since you left the house discussing and unpacking the biggest stories and issues in Chicago and beyond right in the heart of the day Fresh Air is a weekday “talk show” that hardly fits the mold Fresh Air Weekend collects the week’s best cultural segments and crafts them together for great weekend listening The show is produced by WHYY and hosted by Terry Gross and features from Chicago and around the world Hosted by WBEZ’s Melba Lara and NPR’s Ailsa Chang A daily take on business and economics news for the rest of us hosted by Michael Barbaro and powered by The New York Times’ journalism 7pm Hour -- A focus on what’s changed here in the U.S since President Trump was inaugurated -- looking at everything from the culture to the shape of the federal government From tariffs to the downsizing of the Department of Education how has Trump made good on his campaign promises From shifting alliances to trade agreements to changes at the U.S we’ll ask how President Trump has altered international relations since January 20 Covering everything about science and technology — from the outer reaches of space to the tiniest microbes in our bodies — Science Friday is your source for entertaining and educational stories and activities From their humble beginnings on Chicago’s radio airwaves to their evolution through television and today’s streaming platforms "Stories Without End" unpacks how soap operas have shaped popular culture and told intergenerational stories that continue to resonate a new theme and a variety of stories on that theme Sound Opinions is hosted by Jim DeRogatis and Greg Kot In-depth interviews with brilliant creators A mix of live performances and interviews from WXPN Philadelphia’s daily program featuring important established and emerging artists Weekly film podcast and radio show from Chicago featuring in-depth reviews The first 50 years of modern advertising was based on hard-sell The next 50 years was persuasion through creativity and media tonnage But as advertising squeezed into the 21 century it was forced to shed its elbowing ways and become a delicate dialogue The goal is no longer to triumph by weight CBC's Under the Influence is hosted by Terry O'Reilly A wrap up of the week's news and a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics Have a laugh and test your news knowledge while figuring out what's real and what we've made up It's Been a Minute features people in the culture who deserve your attention Plus weekly wraps of the news with journalists in the know Exploring the biggest questions of our time with the help of the world's greatest thinkers A radio journal of news and culture produced from a Latino perspective and offbeat features from Chicago and around the world with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior shape our choices and direct our relationships Your guide to examining how the media sausage is made Important ideas and practical advice: Code Switch features fearless and much-needed conversations about race—and Life Kit offers practical advice on things in life no one prepared you for Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX Reveal is public radio’s first one-hour radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting A weekly program presented by the New Yorker magazine’s editor killer beats and the edgiest new talent in storytelling come together for a weekly show that straps audiences into an audio rollercoaster Radiolab is known for its deep-dive journalism and innovative sound design Created in 2002 by former host Jad Abumrad the program began as an exploration of scientific inquiry Over the years it has evolved to become a platform for long-form journalism and storytelling Radiolab is hosted by Lulu Miller and Latif Nasser fishing Jackson Park harbors over the weekend Braidwood Lake reopening to fishing on Saturday early coho reports in Indiana and the weather turning to what feels balmy compared to last week and its impact on ice fishing lead this sprawling raw-file Midwest Fishing Report Wayne Hankins messaged the photo at the top of those ice fishing Jackson Park Harbor over the weekend My guess is that might be the last ice-fishing weekend of the year there Pier passes may be bought at Park Bait, Bridgeport Bait and Tackle and Fishtech in Morton Grove The $10 pier passes allow legal access to select piers at Jackson Park Chicago Park District parking passes ($20 for two months) are for the anglers’ parking lots at DuSable and Burnham harbors North side of Navy Pier is open for anglers. Discounted parking for anglers is $9 daily, beginning at 5 a.m.; must be out by 10 a.m. for the discount. Click here to prepay for the discounted tickets My column from Nov. 30, 2022, on parking the length of the Chicago lakefront is posted at https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/11/30/23485385/chicago-lakefront-parking-fishing Ice fishing regulations for area public sites are at https://chicago.suntimes.com/outdoors/2024/12/04/updating-ice-fishing-regs-around-chicago-area-public-sites Larry Green holds a small crappie caught ice fishing the forest preserves may have captured the moment when he noted: A few crappies and small gills and I caught one nice bass public waters(ice) in the forest preserves I believe that the end of ice fishing is coming quickly for those of us who live south Dave Kranz of Dave’s Bait, Tackle and Taxidermy in Crystal Lake and with his You-Tube channel, Dave Kranz Living the wild outdoors If you’re thinking you need one more ice day get out now or head North Time to go through your tackle and make sure it’s ready to go Maybe the end is coming for those living north Ken “Husker” O’Malley holds one of the largemouth bass that took work Ken “Husker” O’Malley of Husker Outdoors emailed the photos above and below I decided to play the afternoon bite with the cold front taking hold The analytics had the major bite window in the mid to late afternoon hours as well I had to work for every one this afternoon There was a small window of good activity right defore dark but found too many to be lookers and not biters I decided to play that first light bite window for crappie this morning The focus was on the main basin that cuts towards the shoreline drop off and a weed flat Those targeted crappie were ready to bite for about the first hour and a half before the bluegill decided to wake up but with rain tonight and midweek plus the 50 degree temps the clock is ticking Ken “Husker” O’Malley holds a crappie caught ice fishing in this time of change Driving back and forth to the dentist this morning noticed lake surfaces around the south suburbs starting to turn punky Rob Abouchar messaged the photos above and below With the new moon and winter loosing it’s grip the bite improved over the weekend The snowmobiles were out and riding as if they knew Sunday was the last day of fun for them Knowing that made it easier to accept they were going feet from my tip ups and where I wad jigging...so close they caused a flag to pop Where the etiquette between snowmobiles and ice fishermen begins and ends I was catching fish so I kept my head down and mouth shut as they continued to zip by me yards away I had some good action again with the tip down rod with a fathead minnow on a tiny trebble hook and small split shot to get the minnow down about a foot from the bottom Some nice perch and good largemouth came through the hole In the same area of 3 to 5 feet the bluegill bite improved as the day went on I have an outing planned for Friday after school with the fishing club but fear the ice could be getting soft and possibly unsafe by then My boat is ready to be picked up and I should be heading to Braidwood Monday for the traditional Pulaski day outing As the first Sandhills flew by Sundaythey signaled the coming of spring traditional On the music front the conscious rockers had a fantastic performance at Mackie’s Hideout Saturday night The crowd was on their feet dancing and the band killed it Gozortenplat is locked in for Las Vegas June 7th and looking to solidify some warm up shows Rob Abouchar holds a yellow perch from Island Lake Reopens Saturday, March 1. Click here for my column preview With Braidwood Lake reopening to fishing Saturday many of us are looking forward to seeing the slag heap Arden Katz said on Monday that he was catching bluegill perch and crappie on the south end of Channel Lake fishing “without a jacket and it is beautiful kept 30.” He was using waxies and Widow Maker Widow Bread tungsten jigs in 3-5 feet; there’s at least 10 inches of ice Kyle Tepper at Triangle Sports and Marine in Antioch said fishing is going good crappie and walleye— and bluegill in the south bay in 6-15; on Mineola Bay good white bass in 8-12 feet; good walleye Some night walleye on Channel and Catherine CHAIN ACCESS: For some access and parking spots, go to https://chicago.suntimes.com/outdoors/2024/12/11/accessing-ice-fishing-on-the-fox-chain-olakes POWERTON: Bank and boat fishing is 8 a.m.-4 p.m EMIQUON PRESERVE: Open sunrise to sunset. Remember to renew access permits and liability waivers, they’re available Tuesday to Saturday at Dickson Mounts Museum, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Details at https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/2024EmiquonLakeAccessRules.pdf Guide Mike Norris (www.comecatchsmallmouth.com) emailed: Big Green Lake: White bass are active around the cribs in the southeast corner of the lake You can find them between 60 to 120 feet deep A Northland Rattle Spoon or a white tube jig tipped with a piece of cisco meat works well for trout The winning trout caught during last weekend’s trout derby weighed 16 lbs Fox Lake: Walleyes on tip-ups in “The Government Area” The bite is better at sunset and into the early evening Lake Winnebago: During the two-week spearing season and 63 sturgeon weighed in at 100 lbs or better The 943 sturgeon caught were more than double what was harvested last year Staff at Howie’s Tackle in Sturgeon Bay said they catching good whitefish Ice is holding well as of Tuesday with 8-24 inches Best fishing is when you get away from the noise of other anglers Click here for the Ohio DNR Report BoRabb Williams messaged about Wayne Hankins’ post about a weekend outing at Jackson Park: Wayne Hankins described it this way and I noticed some nice crappie among their catch (Hankins has a bunch of good photos on social media platforms): Ice-fishing Chicago styleHad a good time..we didn’t get a big rainbow but...we did catch some fish much loveChef Tony & Rube put a hit on the grill!!#2timess #NightNight #Nightmaresfishingllc #icefishing #Lakemichigan who is the focus of my column on Wednesday has been doing well for brown trout and steelhead surf casting Dan Edwards at Bridgeport Bait and Tackle texted the photo above and this: Capt. Rich Sleziak at Slez’s Bait in Lake Station Perch still being caught in the slip 87th over weekend they had lots of groups on the ice it’s back to bank fishing now Stacey Greene at Park Bait at Montrose Harbor texted it will some time in early or middle March when the shop reopens Arden Katz said they were catching good bluegill Tuesday on Monona Bay Katz using waxies and tungsten jigs in 3-5 feet Click here for the update from D&S Bait Kurt Justice at Kurt’s Island Sport Shop in Minocqua emailed: Time to crawl back out from hibernation for a bit temps down to -19° last week has gave way to nice balmy temperatures as high as upper 30s maybe the 40s this Monday Combine that with a new moon period and Fishing has picked up dramatically Walleye: Very GoodBite windows remained about an hour and a half long on average Walleyes moving up to the weeds of about 8 to 16 feet of water,( depending on the lake type) Northern Pike: Very GoodWarm-up has helped Pike action has improved and the bite is window starting earlier in the morning and lasting throughout the dusk versus last week Take advantage of big active baits with rigs sporting blades for the added attraction Crappies: Good-Very GoodAction picking back up over basins of 18 to 28 feet of water Small spoons with some noise such as Rattling Kast Masters or jointed Pinheads or those with flash such as Tikka Flash or Northland Slim Spoons to pull in roaming schools of crappies Weed fish moving up from holding tight to the bottom Slow drop and light fluttering jigs tipped with light colored plastics best Yellow Perch:Good-Very GoodMud flats of 14 to 18 feet of water using fast dropping spoons to deliver red spikes or wigglers A few larger perch on small shiners under tip ups meant for walleyes and weeds Find pockets and heavy cabbage and lower medium fatheads hooked lightly through the back on a number 14 travel to target larger perch in these weeds Nicer weed perch also hitting #2 jigging Raps as well Largemouth Bass: GoodWhile missing for a week or so – back on the charts due to the warm-up Jigging while targeting gills using waxes or butter or setting tip ups with small to medium shiners are best Jigging with spoons or wraps if your bass is your main target is also a good method Bluegill :Fair-GoodAction and reports improving as anglers targeting gills following the cold and wind and number 3 mm tungsten jigs and 8 to 12 feet of weeds Some nice gills are also being caught roaming the open water of 14 to 20 feet by perch Gamefish season officially ends March 2 at midnight Looks as if weather won’t be too bad with temperatures in the 20s for the most part the mid week temps in the 30s plus will make things very comfortable Ice conditions are very good with averages 22 to 30 inches in most spots The one report of 17 inches on a private lake raised a few eyebrows With this much ice and the mild forecast ahead it looks like a good month of panfishing through the ice is in store for the rest of our month of March Capt. Rich Sleziak at Slez’s Bait in Lake Station texted: Brown trout and a few coho being caught by boat and shore using golden roaches Perch last few days for boat fisherman leaving portage and going to 50 to 58ft of water straight north of Gary light Xl- fatheads and perch flys are what to use Some still on ice here in nwi but will be getting soft with all this warm weather Arden Katz said he hooked up with a big brown and a steelhead using white tube jigs and a blade bait; others having success with spawn; ice is up to 18 inches Staff at Tackle Haven in Benton Harbor said St Joseph River is open and catching some steelhead; the St Joe pier is iced and the bay remains locked up Sturgeon spearing season ran the full 16 days to Saturday F2 female) and Mason Winkler (right; 64.6-pound F1 female) speared both fish from the same hole within an hour of each other Here is the final day report from the Wisconsin DNR: The 2025 Winnebago System sturgeon spearing season is now closed 16 adult females and 24 males were harvested today Scott Sheppard speared the last largest fish 1 adult females and 8 males were harvested today Although no harvest caps were reached for the Winnebago System this year 322 adult females and 479 males were harvested and the 90-99% harvest trigger was met for the Upriver Lakes today on the final day 273 adult females and 249 males harvested from Lake Winnebago 49 adult females and 230 males harvested on the Upriver Lakes This makes a total of 943 fish for the system more than twice what was harvested last year another 2 fish were harvested over 100 pounds View the full harvest report Gerald Jeka of Evergreen Park holds a smallmouth bass caught and released while ice fishing for panfish on the Wolf River near Winneconne Gary Bloom messaged the photo above and this: In Winneconne channel fish for perch n gills Panfish action has been fair on the bayous and bays Terms of Use • Privacy Notice • Cookie Policy • Terms of Sale Pledge to join us in fighting for gender justice By submitting your cell phone number you are agreeing to receive periodic text messages from this organization Issues:   , is a lawsuit challenging the requirements in the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover expert-recommended preventive services at no cost Supreme Court is hearing Braidwood this term This case poses a grave threat to over 150 million people across the country.1 Loss of no-cost preventive care will mean loss of health care and reversal of the progress our country has made to improve health outcomes and health equity is the latest in a string of attacks against the Affordable Care Act (ACA) After failing in their attempts to repeal the ACA in Congress extremists are using this case to target a crucial element of the ACA – the requirement that insurers cover expert-recommended preventive services without cost sharing Judge O’Connor ruled that the entire ACA was unconstitutional The ACA challengers in this case brought numerous claims intended to undermine the preventive services provision.6 The one that has gained traction is under the Appointments Clause of Article II of the U.S Constitution,7 arguing that the expert members of the agencies that develop the preventive services coverage recommendations – the United States Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force) the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) – are not validly appointed.8  This argument ignores the fact that the Secretary of Health and Human Services supervises these experts and ratifies their recommendations before they become legal requirements In September 2022, Judge O’Connor ruled that the Task Force’s structure violates the Appointments Clause and is unconstitutional.15 He rejected the Appointments Clause challenges to ACIP and HRSA—leaving the women’s preventive services requirement intact.16 Judge O’Connor then took the extreme step of blocking the federal government from requiring insurance plans to provide no-cost preventive services coverage in line with any recommendations made by the Task Force after 2010 and he determined that the scope of his order would be nationwide17—effectively denying over 150 million Americans access to vital preventive care including such services as immunizations and screenings for cancer a Fifth Circuit panel—which included two Trump-nominated judges—issued its decision.21 It affirmed the district court’s incorrect holding that  the Task Force’s structure is unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause.22 But the court said “it was error” for Judge O’Connor to block the Task Force’s prior recommendations because the plaintiffs in the case had failed to bring a claim under the Administrative Procedures Act.23 Instead the court barred enforcement of the post-2010 preventive-services coverage recommendations only as to the plaintiffs in the but laid out a roadmap for future challengers to follow to properly seek the order that Judge O’Connor had initially granted.24 In response to the ACA challengers’ request to block the recommendations from ACHIP and HRSA including the women’s preventive services recommendations the Fifth Circuit did not take the opportunity to stop this challenge once and for all the court sent the issue back to the district court for further consideration In September 2024, the government requested that the U.S. Supreme Court take up the case, and on January 10, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear arguments in Braidwood.26 Proceedings at the district court are on hold while the Supreme Court hears the case. The Supreme Court agreed to consider only one question in hearing the case: whether the Fifth Circuit erred in finding that the structure of the U.S Preventive Services Task Force violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S this means that the Supreme Court will determine whether insurers will continue to be required by the ACA to cover many essential preventive services without cost-sharing NWLC joined an amicus brief to the Court alongside 47 other state and national organizations dedicated to health care access on February 25 2025.27 Our brief explained that an outcome in line with the District Court’s and Court of Appeals’ decisions in this case would not only increase costs for health care consumers and providers but would also put our nation’s health at risk The Supreme Court’s decision could directly affect the over 150 million people across the country who benefit from cost-free coverage of more than 100 different life-saving services under the preventive services provision And the Supreme Court’s decision could set the stage for a much broader future decision that would gut other crucial preventive services protections – including the women’s preventive services provision – established in the ACA If the Supreme Court agrees that the preventive services provision of the ACA is invalid Preventive care is key to achieving health equity women of color and low-income women face higher rates of preventable disease and worse health outcomes.28 The preventive services requirement of the ACA provides for coverage of a broad range of preventive services without cost-sharing.29 It has been a crucial tool in the fight to achieve health equity use of these preventive services among women has increased Women report receiving more cancer screenings and improvements in mental health symptoms from higher depression screening rates.30 For populations facing multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination data shows that there have been larger increases in preventive services uptake among women of color compared to white women since the ACA’s passage.31 For example there has been a significant increase in the rate of Black women getting mammograms32—a crucial intervention given that despite getting breast cancer at the same rate as white women Black women are more likely to die from the disease.33 If the Court agrees that the Task Force is unconstitutionally structured it could pave the way for continued litigation that will undermine the women’s preventive services provision Any decision limiting or invalidating expert recommendations made under the women’s preventive services provision would further devastate women’s health and economic security since the women’s preventive services provision went into effect the affordability of contraception has improved significantly36—women are able to use the type of birth control they prefer and contraceptive use – and its many benefits to individuals’ and families’ health and wellbeing – has increased as a result.37 And since HRSA recommended that plans cover comprehensive breastfeeding support services the percentage of women who have ever breastfed has increased,38 helping to close the significant socioeconomic disparities in breastfeeding rates.39 Find the official factsheet here 1 Access to Preventive Services Without Cost-Sharing: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act of the Assistant Sec’y for Planning & Evaluation 1 (Jan https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/786fa55a84e7e3833961933124d70dd2/preventive-services-ib-2022.pdf ‘who helped craft the Texas abortion law that was designed to evade judicial review by leaving enforcement to private citizens instead of government officials.’”) (explaining that multiple of the plaintiffs in Braidwood have been involved in prior lawsuits aiming to overturn parts of the ACA) (“Judge O’Connor has previously ruled to strike down the entire ACA to overturn contraceptive coverage requirements plaintiffs challenged the structure of the federal agencies that recommend preventive services under the Appointments Clause as well as the Administrative Procedure Act; claimed the preventive services requirement violated the Supreme Court’s equal protection jurisprudence; and asserted violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as to agency’s recommendations for coverage of preexposure prophylaxis drugs (PrEP) and various reproductive health screenings plaintiffs dropped all claims under RFRA except the challenge to PrEP that “principal” officers of the United States be appointed directly by the president is permitted to vest the role of appointing officers to the head of a department if that officer is “inferior.” Inferior officers are those “officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by” the President 8 Plaintiffs argue that the members of the Task Force and HRSA are “principal” officers and must be nominated by the president 10 See Benjamin D. Sommers & Lee Wilson, Fifty-four million additional Americans are receiving preventive services coverage without cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., Off. of the Assistant Sec’y for Planning & Evaluation 1 (Feb. 15, 2012), https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/76396/ib.pdf The Effects of Premiums & Cost Sharing on Low-Income Populations: Updated Review of Research Findings 1 https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-effects-of-premiums-and-cost-sharing-on-low-income-populations-updated-review-of-research-findings/ (“even relatively small levels of cost sharing in the range of $1 to $5 are associated with reduced use of care 14 Preventive Services Access on the Docket in Braidwood v https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11040 17 Second Memorandum Opinion & Order on Remedies 27 Brief of United States of Care and 47 Other Organizations as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2025.02.25-Braidwood-Amicus-Brief_Final.pdf Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28418632/ (“For racial and ethnic minorities in the United States including higher rates of chronic disease and premature death compared to the rates among whites”); Nambi Ndugga & Samantha Artiga Disparities in Health and Health Care: 5 Key Questions and Answers https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/disparities-in-health-and-health-care-5-key-question-and-answers (“people living in areas with high concentrations of poverty are at increased risk of poorer health outcomes over the course of their live”); Latoya Hill et al. Key Data on Health and Health Care by Race and Ethnicity https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/report/key-data-on-health-and-health-care-by-race-and-ethnicity/ (“Black people fared worse than White people across the across the majority of 30 examined measures of health and AIAN people fared worse on half of the health measures for which they had data available”) USPSTF A & B Recommendations as of January 2025 https://chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/USPSTF-A-B-Recommendations-V3.pdf and Health After the ACA: A Review of the Literature https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01361?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed Racial Trends in Clinical Preventive Services Use and Lack of Insurance Before and After the Affordable Care Act https://www.ajmc.com/view/racial-trends-in-clinical-preventive-services-use-chronic-disease-prevalence-and-lack-of-insurance-before-and-after-the-affordable-care-act Utilization Impact of Cost-Sharing Elimination for Preventive Care Services: A Rapid Review 9 https://vbidcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Utilization-Impact-of-Cost-Sharing-Elimination-for-Preventive-Care-Services.pdf Health Care Litigation Tracker (Last Updated: June 21 https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/litigation/braidwood-management-inc-et-al-v-xavier-becerra-et-al-2/ 35 NWLC filed an amicus brief to the Fifth Circuit when it was considering Braidwood focused on the substantial harm that would result particularly to those who face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination if the court were to find the HRSA recommendations unconstitutional and strike down the women’s preventive services requirement Brief for The National Women’s Law Center as Amicus Curiae In Support Of Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Braidwood-Management-Incorporated-v.-Xavier-Becerra.pdf at 391 (“the elimination of contraceptive cost sharing is associated with increased use of and adherence to contraception including in-creased use of the most effective methods among women”) 37 The Affordable Care Act’s Contraceptive Coverage Requirement: Importance and Impact, Nat’l Women’s Law Ctr. (Nov. 2024), https://nwlc.org/resource/the-affordable-care-acts-contraceptive-coverage-requirement-importance-and-impact/ Effect of the Affordable Care Act on Breastfeeding Outcomes https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5846575/#:~:text=The%20ACA%20policy%20change%20was,age%20at%20first%20formula%20feeding https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555840/ © 2025 National Women's Law Center 2025 at 2:42 pm CT.css-79elbk{position:relative;}A couple were charged with public indecency at the Sun Motel in Braidwood (John Ferak/Joliet Patch Editor )BRAIDWOOD — A 74-year-old man from Elwood and a 33-year-old woman from Braidwood are the first two people charged in Will County this year with the crime of public indecency The Braidwood Police Department made the arrest of Megan Mounts and the older man who was accompanying her Each of them is now charged with public indecency involving a sexual act or sexual conduct The pair were arrested in the parking lot of the Sun Motel the world-famous hotel known as the Braidwood Inn when it was featured in the 1987 classic comedy movie starring Steve Martin and John Candy The charges of public indecency were filed in recent days at Will County's Courthouse by the Will County State's Attorney's Office that Mounts and Kirby knowingly committed an act of sexual conduct in a public place The time of the arrests by the Braidwood Police Department happened while it was still light outside While the criminal complaint does not directly mention the Sun Motel the same place where Candy and Martin filmed their famous movie Mounts was kept overnight in the Will County Jail since last Friday until her release on Monday, jail logs show. Last year, WCSJ, the Morris radio station had a crime story on her indicating the Braidwood woman has been arrested four times in Grundy County for possession of drugs during the past two years Will County has no jail records for James Kirby the Elwood man who also arrested with Mounts at the Sun Motel parking lot Mounts also has a pending possession of a controlled substance charge filed this month by Braidwood Police stemming from allegations they found her with cocaine in the community on Dec she pleaded guilty in Will County to manufacture and delivery of cocaine another crime that the Braidwood Police Department investigated Bryan “Catfish” Konczak and first-grader Ronan Lynch double up holding Konczak’s big flathead catfish caught from Braidwood Lake Mike Lynch nominated his cousin Bryan “Catfish” Konczak for catching a big flathead catfish last week at Braidwood Lake the cooling lake in southwestern Will County that reopened March 1 It was big enough that Lynch’s first-grader Ronan (off school because of parent-teacher conferences) "[Konczak] thought he was snagged until the fish started towing the boat,” Lynch emailed “The flatheads are starting to take hold at Braidwood.” In the fall 2023 electrofishing survey by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources indicating that natural reproduction is occurring,” ifishillinois.org noted “Flathead catfish were originally stocked many years ago and have managed to hang on.” Konczak caught his flathead on a Berkley Frittside a bait that Berkley describes as “a key bait for tough conditions when fish are sluggish or heavily pressured.” the celebration of big fish and their stories (the stories matter) around Chicago fishing Boat anglers fish in the fog rising off Braidwood Lake against the sunrise on opening day in 2023 The cooling lake in southwestern Will County reopens to fishing March 1 Last year was an off year for the every-other-year fish surveys at Braidwood but district fisheries biologist Seth Love emailed: ‘‘We did conduct another fall low-pulse blue catfish survey and collected 366 blue catfish with two hours of electrofishing effort and we were sampling east and north of the large island fish were stacked all throughout that area It was very similar to electrofishing silver carp on the Illinois River: Fish everywhere ‘‘The average length was 16 inches and the largest fish was 38 inches Size distribution is similar to last year’s survey I plan on conducting another fall blue catfish survey this October.’’ Blues first were stocked in Braidwood in 2003 Braidwood blues have evolved into a significant fishery though we seem to always lose some number of fish during hot-water events,’’ Love emailed Last year featured only a few hot-water events Love expects largemouth bass to continue to be strong as indicated in the 2023 overall fish survey noting: ‘‘We collected quite a few fish over 15 inches Body condition was excellent for all size groups indicating that fish should have ample opportunity to grow.’’ The 2023 survey didn’t show good numbers of hybrid striped bass but that might be the quirkiness of electrofishing them which Love indicated ‘‘can be hit-or-miss.’’ ‘‘There is one honey-hole where we historically have collected fish that was not productive,’’ he emailed Love didn’t tell me where the honey-hole was but it’s a place ‘‘where hybrids are stacked like cordwood and are easily electrofished.’’ I suspect some anglers know the honey-hole Site superintendent Jeff Wepprecht said regulations remain ‘‘the same old thing.’’ Expect lines to start long before the 6 a.m As Wepprecht put it: ‘‘It’s sure to be busy and [the opening] is on a Saturday this year.’’ Winds may cause it to be closed to boaters Wepprecht said the winter weather put work (launch and facility upgrades) on hold around Eagle and Ponderosa lakes at Mazonia South I am curious to see the final numbers for the Great Backyard Bird Count and whether avian flu and people being cautious with feeders during the outbreak has an impact equity and inclusion (DEI) is the practical and moral inverse of rebranding Asian carp as copi Photo: AP PHOTOKatherine Heigl has accepted she won't be "the ingenue forever" All articles from our websiteThe digital version of Today's PaperBreaking news alerts direct to your inboxAll articles from the other regional websites in your areaContinueThe 46-year-old actress achieved many of her career ambitions during her 20s when she starred in movies such as Knocked Up The Ugly Truth and 27 Dresses - but Heigl accepts that she's now entered a new chapter in her life "I wasn't thinking about [ageing] in my 20s and I was getting to do all the roles I had always wanted to be able to do," The Hollywood star told Us Weekly Katherine Heigl concedes she's at a different phase in her career (AP PHOTO)"I started as a child actor but by the time I got into my mid to late teens "So I was so excited and on cloud nine getting to do what I had been sort of hustling to do for so many years And you don't think about the expiration date on it." Heigl concedes she's now entered a different phase in her career there's a young generation that's coming up and I had my time and it was glorious "And not to say that I can't be the romantic lead in something at 46 - that women in their 40s don't have a romantic love life or that they aren't funny or that And I feel like so many women in their 40s and 50s and 60s have compelling interesting lives that we'd all be interested in seeing and the ingenue is really a valuable role in Hollywood but I am still a value and it might look different and it might feel different the story's worth telling.' It's a different fight." We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy Photo: AP PHOTOFormer US vice President Mike Pence has repeatedly invoked the constitution after receiving the John F Kennedy Profile in Courage Award All articles from our websiteThe digital version of Today's PaperBreaking news alerts direct to your inboxAll articles from the other regional websites in your areaContinuePence received the award for his refusal to endorse President Donald Trump's efforts to remain in office after losing the 2020 election The award recognises Pence "for putting his life and career on the line to ensure the constitutional transfer of presidential power on January 6 Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol chanted that they wanted to "hang Mike Pence" we have to find common ground," Pence said "I hope in some small way my presence here tonight is a reminder that whatever differences we may have as Americans the constitution is the common ground on which we stand "It's what binds us across time and generations His comments came hours after an interview with Trump aired in which he was asked whether US citizens and non-citizens both deserve due process as laid out in the fifth amendment of the constitution I don't know," Trump said when pressed in an interview with NBC's Kristen Welker Pence never mentioned Trump during his 10-minute speech but made several references to the Trump administration Referencing what he called "these divided times in these anxious days," he acknowledged that he probably had differences with the Democrats in the room but also with his own Republican Party "on spending tariffs and my belief that America is the leader of the free world and must stand with Ukraine until the Russian invasion is repelled and a just and lasting peace is secured" Trump pressured Pence to reject election results from swing states where the Republican president falsely claimed the vote was marred by fraud When a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol some chanted that they wanted to "hang Mike Pence" Pence was whisked away by Secret Service agents narrowly avoiding a confrontation with the rioters "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify," Trump wrote at the time on Twitter as rioters moved through the Capitol and Pence was in hiding with his family aides and security detail inside the building Pence rejected Secret Service advice that he leave the Capitol staying to continue the ceremonial election certification of Democrat Joe Biden's presidential victory once rioters were cleared I’ll be at the sold-out Wild Things conference in Rosemont Saturday, so I will miss everything else weekend, including the reopening of Braidwood Lake to fishing on Saturday. Click here for my promising preview for fishing the cooling lake in southwestern Will County the Bronzeback Blowout and the Fish & Hook Sports Show People crowding the Fish & Hook Sport Show in 2022 Photo: AP PHOTOAt least three people are dead and nine others are missing after a small boat capsized in choppy seas off the California coast in an apparent migrant smuggling attempt north of San Diego All articles from our websiteThe digital version of Today's PaperBreaking news alerts direct to your inboxAll articles from the other regional websites in your areaContinueFour other people rescued after the "panga"-style open fishing vessel washed ashore near Torrey Pines State Beach were transported to hospital an emergency response boat and a helicopter are involved in an ongoing search for the nine people who remained unaccounted for US Coast Guard boats are continuing to look for survivors (AP PHOTO)He said two children were believed to be among the missing At least some of the boat's occupants were apparently from India as a number of Indian passports "were found on the beach near where the panga washed up," Read said a special agent in charge of the US Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agency said the incident was a "stark reminder of the dangers posed by maritime smuggling." "The ruthless smuggling of undocumented individuals is not only illegal which occurred about 30 miles north of the US-Mexico border Read said ocean conditions off the San Diego County coast were rough at the time the local fire department and law enforcement also responded to the scene Of the four survivors from the panga capsizing one was listed in critical condition when rescued according to a statement from the city of Encinitas One survivor reported that 18 people had been aboard the vessel But Read said the Coast Guard's best information was that the boat was carrying just 16 individuals when it capsized the Coast Guard has tracked 277 vessels clandestinely entering US waters from Mexico in the San Diego area some of the boats being interdicted and others getting away Those incidents resulted in 983 people being apprehended 2024 at 9:43 am CT.css-79elbk{position:relative;}George Sabin comes from the 100 block of North Lincoln Street over in Braidwood (Mugshot via Will County Jail)BRAIDWOOD —After spending three days in the Will County Jail 50-year-old Braidwood resident George Sabin has been released from detention in connection with his criminal charges from the Will County State's Attorney's Office Sabin is accused of aggravated battery and domestic battery Sabin pushed Braidwood Police Officer Jeff Peterson about the body knowing Peterson was a police officer performing his official duties accuses the Braidwood man of kicking a woman about the body The Braidwood Police Department filed the complaint against Sabin who comes from the 100 block of North Lincoln Street Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts. 2025 at 2:06 pm CT.css-79elbk{position:relative;}Jose Lopez-Valladares comes from Fossil Lake Court in the Wilmington area (Mugshot via Will County Jail)JOLIET — Despite the efforts of the Will County State's Attorney's Office to keep 33-year-old Jose Lopez-Valladares detained in the Will County Jail following his strangling arrest by Braidwood police Will County Judge Derek Ewanic has ruled against detention allowing the Braidwood man to regain his freedom Following last week's arrest by Braidwood police prosecutors charged Lopez with aggravated domestic battery and four counts of domestic battery According to the prosecution's detention petition trying to keep Lopez in the jail Braidwood police were sent to the 100 block of Fossil Lake Court for a car alarm call on March 26 Lopez was inside the black Toyota car and when the officers used their flashlight to illuminate the car Court documents show that when the police made Lopez step outside Officers saw a woman standing near the residence and she told Braidwood police that Lopez "was drinking (and she) took the car keys away so defendant would not drive both inside and outside the residence," court records indicate The bleeding woman showed the police a wrapped bandage of her left shin with scrape marks on her elbows when asked if he threw the woman to the ground telling them "you hear her because (she) is a woman Lopez "advised he was blasting his horn because he wanted someone to come help," the petition noted "Defendant denied chasing (her) when asked by officers .. defendant stated (she) always has marks on her and that maybe she received the marks from her lovers." The victim told Braidwood police that Lopez was drinking and put her in a chair and he began to hold her and she "didn't want (Lopez) in her space so she pushed him away (He) held her by her hair and had her in a headlock (She) advised that her breathing was impacted Defendant then threw her to the ground," court documents advised ordering his release from the Will County Jail under the SAFE-T-Act The Braidwood defendant was ordered to be on electronic monitoring while his criminal case is pending and your election landslide continues to wipe out those nasty All articles from our websiteThe digital version of Today's PaperBreaking news alerts direct to your inboxAll articles from the other regional websites in your areaContinueAre we still friends Albo You said you were our friend last time Albo You delivered on that to some extent when you prevented the banana-benders from stealing our AIS and chucked in $250 million worth of cabbage to build an air dome or some such now's as good a time as any to deliver on the second thing that needs your friendship Has a nice bit of synchronicity to it doesn't it It's the perfect time for Primer Minister Anthony Albanese and Chief Minister Andrew Barr to start working together on a new Canberra Stadium.I know you won't mind me bringing this up so soon after your big win You said yourself on Saturday night you'd get straight to work on Sunday - once the champagne corks had settled And as Australia's electoral map continues to turn red from the blood of the vanquished Coalition politicians it's as good a time as any to point out there's a little bit of Labor blood getting spilled there as well Some of which has been spilled in Canberra the politician formerly known as the leader of the opposition might have ensured the ACT ain't a friend of the Liberal Party - thanks to his desire to sack 40,000 of us - but that doesn't mean our friendship is exclusive Albo There's this strapping young lad who used to play a bit of rugby - David Pocock or some such He's the one who just charged down the openside past Labor senator Katy Gallagher to become the capital's most-voted-for senator but did I notice he had a running mate on the ballot this time around Now given Gallagher's response when The Canberra Times asked her about a new stadium was this: "Everyone would like a stadium, but the national security precinct is needed and we have to fund that." It might be time for us to consider whether Pocock's single quota becomes two I have no idea what a national security precinct is But I'm pretty sure there's enough cabbage for a stadium as well Especially as the Bean counters continue Where independent Jessie Price currently holds a 157-vote lead having wiped out Smith's 13 per cent margin from the last election Canberra's clearly not a place you want to take for granted right now Albo It seems like this second term is a good a time as any for you to sit down with ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr and get something in writing Canberra Stadium's new location would be a good place to start You could even meet in this security precinct if you want Sounds like a cozy place for old friends to have a catch-up Covering the Raiders, Cavalry, cycling and racing, plus everything else that involves sport in the ACT, for The Canberra Times. Basically I love sport and watching it is a full-time job. Email: david.polkinghorne@canberratimes.com.au climate denialism and policy incompetence of the Coalition under Peter Dutton's leadership Now is the time for conviction and courage to double down and move at the speed the climate science dictates seizing the magnitude of opportunities ahead for Australia on energy transition All articles from our websiteThe digital version of Today's PaperBreaking news alerts direct to your inboxAll articles from the other regional websites in your areaContinueThere are plenty of challenges but the risks of too-slow action are clear This is an intergenerational game-changer moment The opportunity cost of any failure to act will fall heavily on future generations The Albanese government must step up into global leadership ahead of the COP31 international climate talks in 2026 we need to see a commitment from the ALP to no more greenfield fossil fuel project approvals if it is to honour its climate pledges and a definitive policy and investment pivot to the zero-emissions future This is where our national prosperity and energy security lie The government has already made significant strides - its Future Made in Australia program the Safeguard Mechanism to reduce industrial emissions and its substantial strategic public-interest investment into the transformation - and it now has the green light to build on this impressive foundation we need to accelerate to 82 per cent renewables by 2030 and 95 per cent by 2035 even as we progressively electrify everything We need to reassess and rein in the Australian Energy Market Operator's (AEMO) Rewiring the Nation program and pumped hydro plans in light of the capex blowouts and delays now evidenced in this large-scale infrastructure and instead leverage and optimise the existing grid and upscale our battery rollout This starts with reaffirming and implementing the $2.3 billion consumer battery policy announced in April, then picking up the pace on making distributed energy work for everyone including disadvantaged communities and First Nations peoples We need to aim for 100GW of rooftop solar by 2040 now possible given the massively improved economics of firmed solar as prices for both batteries and solar modules have fallen dramatically in the last two years While Australia has led the world in rooftop solar South Africa installed a staggering 6.2GW in 2024 predominantly residential and commercial rooftop solar The Gullen solar and wind farms in New South Wales Picture ShutterstockWe need to leverage our New Vehicles Emissions standards and complement this with a national rollout of charging infrastructure at scale this decade - in every station car park and every Bunnings Warehouse - to ensure we embrace the huge $60 billion annual saving of cutting our addiction to oil imports We should be using EVs' vehicle-to-grid capacities to export energy back to the grid further building grid resilience as we electrify everything the government must fast-track committed spending for example from the National Reconstruction Fund for large-scale renewable energy and innovation projects Let's acknowledge and embrace the system transformation in progress and allocate our scarce human capital to those projects that transform and prepare our country for the decades ahead Let's grasp this moment of policy certainty from a government committed to remaking Australia as a clean green industrial superpower to further build investor confidence crowding in domestic and foreign financial capital at scale to underpin our transition - including from our Asian neighbours and the global decarbonisation leader with whom we have a generational opportunity for partnership This involves refocusing away from exporting green hydrogen towards using hydrogen in industrial applications for decarbonisation of our world-leading mining sector It means extending our competitive advantage in renewables so we can process our abundant resources onshore using clean energy This will enable us to export value-added green iron lithium and polysilicon - a more than $100 billion per annum value-added uplift for our economy as we "embody decarbonisation" in our leading commodities and energy transition resources The opportunities are huge; it is time for the returned Albanese government to lift ambition and hit the accelerator on the race to the top in collaboration with our key trade partners solutions-focused government at this time of great global uncertainty this includes an emphatic endorsement of strong policies to build on the work of Labor and forge ahead in positioning our nation as a zero-emissions trade and investment leader in a global economy moving towards net zero