Senate Democrats, who are divided on abortion policy, are instead turning to health care as a rallying cry for opposition to President Donald Trump鈥檚 Supreme Court nominee.
Specifically, they are sounding the alarm that confirming conservative U.S. Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh could jeopardize one of the Affordable Care Act鈥檚 most popular provisions 鈥� its protections for people with preexisting health conditions.
鈥淒emocrats believe the No. 1 issue in America is health care, and the ability of people to get good health care at prices they can afford,鈥� said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
The Kavanaugh nomination, he added, 鈥渨ould put a dagger鈥� through the heart of that belief.
Democratic senators spent Tuesday trying to connect the dots between potential threats to health care and Trump鈥檚 high court pick.
鈥淧resident Trump as a candidate made it very clear that his priority was to put justices on the court who would correct for the fatal flaw of John Roberts,鈥� said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on the Senate floor Tuesday. Chief Justice Roberts was the decisive fifth vote to uphold the ACA in a in 2012. 鈥淸Republicans鈥橾 new strategy is to use the court system to invalidate the protections in the law for people with preexisting conditions,鈥� Murphy said.
Murphy 鈥� and many of his Democratic colleagues 鈥� are referring to a in February by 20 Republican state attorneys general. The AGs charge that because the tax bill passed by Congress last year eliminated the tax penalty for not having health insurance, it rendered the entire health law void.
Their reasoning was that Roberts based his opinion upholding the ACA on Congress鈥� taxing power. Without the tax, the AGs argue, the law should be held unconstitutional.
The Trump administration, which would typically defend the ACA because defending federal law is part of what the Justice Department is tasked to do, opted to follow a different course of action.
In a said eliminating the penalty should not invalidate the entire law. But it should nullify provisions that prevent insurers from refusing to sell insurance to people with preexisting conditions or charging them higher premiums.
If this argument were to be upheld by a newly reconstituted Supreme Court, the health law would be dealt a serious blow.
The lawsuit, however, is only in its earliest stages. And many legal scholars on both sides doubt it will get very far.
In an filed with the court in June, five liberal and conservative legal experts who disagreed on previous ACA cases argued that both the Republican attorneys general and the Justice Department are wrong 鈥� that eliminating the mandate penalty should have no impact on the rest of the law.
Their position is rooted in something called 鈥渃ongressional intent.鈥� When a court wants to invalidate a portion of a law, it usually also has to determine whether Congress would have considered other aspects of the law unworkable without it.
But that is not a problem in this case, the legal experts argued in their brief. 鈥淗ere, Congress itself has essentially eliminated the provision in question and left the rest of a statute standing,鈥� they wrote. 鈥淚n such cases, congressional intent is clear.鈥�
The merits of the lawsuit notwithstanding, the issue works well for Democrats.
For one thing, the health law鈥檚 preexisting condition protections are parts, according to public opinion polls.
And unlike abortion, defending the health law is something on which all Senate Democrats agree. That includes some vulnerable senators in states that voted for Trump in 2016, including Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.). None are strong supporters of abortion rights. But all have stood firm against GOP efforts to take apart the Affordable Care Act.
Manchin, for example, said in a , 鈥淭he Supreme Court will ultimately decide if nearly 800,000 West Virginians with preexisting conditions will lose their health care.鈥�
Manchin鈥檚 opponent in November is Republican Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. He is one of the officials who filed the suit against the health law.