Appeals Court Hears Oral Arguments Challenging New Health Law

NWLC briefs underscore critical stake for women

(Washington, D.C.) Yesterday a panel of three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments in two separate cases – Liberty University v. Geithner and Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius – challenging the constitutionality of the personal responsibility provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This is the first appellate court to review the ACA. The National Women's Law Center filed friend-of-the-court briefs in each of these cases underscoring why this law is a legitimate exercise of the federal Commerce Clause and therefore is constitutional in correcting fundamental gender inequities in the health insurance markets. The NWLC briefs also highlight what’s at stake for women in this broad challenge to the ACA.

The following is a statement by NWLC Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger:

"Yesterday the judges asked probing questions, which pointed out many of the problems with the arguments against the constitutionality of the personal responsibility provision,” said Marcia Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women's Law Center. "Our brief clarifies that the ACA – as legislation that addresses the discrimination women frequently face in the health insurance market – falls squarely within Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Constitution, like many other anti-discrimination laws. The personal responsibility provision is a key part of the law's effort to address failures in the health insurance market and therefore is also fully within Congress's constitutional authority to enact.

"A principal goal of the ACA is to improve women's health by eliminating many of the discriminatory practices that make it more difficult for women to obtain health care and health insurance. The law bans insurance denials based on "pre-existing conditions," such as previously having been a victim of domestic violence, and gender rating – the practice of charging women more for coverage based solely on their sex.

"The individual responsibility provision – at the heart of the legal debate now – makes it economically feasible to prohibit insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. And, as a result, this critical component addresses the financial impact of discrimination in a manner fully consistent with the Constitution. The ACA’s purpose and effect of removing barriers that women face in securing health insurance bolster the argument that the legislation is constitutional." 

###