On January 13th, 2012, the Vulnerability and the Human Condition Initiative joined with several other centers, projects and initiatives in filing an amicus or friend of the court brief in the case of D.H.H.S. v. Florida. An amicus brief is designed to draw attention to issues that might otherwise escape the notice of the Supreme Court, and such briefs are a powerful advocacy tool for groups that may be underrepresented in the corridors of power. D.H.H.S. v. Florida, which is scheduled for oral argument on March 27th, is one of several challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), often referred to as “Obamacare” by its detractors. The federal government, in D.H.H.S. v. Florida, is appealing a decision striking down the “minimum coverage provision” of the ACA, as unconstitutional. Persons who fail to obtain minimum insurance for themselves and their children must pay a penalty tax. The amicus brief is filed in support of the government’s argument that Congress acted properly under its power to regulate interstate commerce. The purpose of the brief is to highlight the impact on children and families if the minimum coverage provision is struck down.
The brief argues that the goal of the ACA was to make health care accessible and affordable to all, especially persons in a position of vulnerability. Children and youth are particularly vulnerable to harm when deprived of adequate health care. And children, unlike adults, do not have any choice about whether to purchase health insurance. Many will suffer life-long detriment from undiagnosed or untreated childhood illness. Children’s health care begins even before conception. Good health care for mothers in the preconception period, as well as prenatal and postnatal care, is essential for optimal brain development. Screenings for early detection of disabilities or diseases, access to immunizations, banning of disqualifications for pre-existing conditions, programs for youth aging out of foster care, home visiting and school-based programs are all aspects of the ACA that are of crucial importance to children and youth. In closing, the brief asks the Court to “consider the special importance of the ACA to families and children who are already receiving the benefits of enhanced access to health insurance coverage and quality health care, defer to the policy judgments of elected officials and uphold the constitutionality of the ACA.”
The first draft of the brief was researched and written by Emory law students Rachel Belcher, Audrey Biggerstaff, Robert Chan, Lauren McAuley and Siefman, who took part in the Child Rights Project of Emory University Law School under the guidance of Professor Barbara Bennett Woodhouse. The distinguished Atlanta law firm of Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore volunteered to work pro bono with the students to further hone the brief and to bring it to completion, and law partner Jeffrey O. Bramlett served as counsel of record in filing the brief with the Supreme Court. Other organizations that joined the brief include Barton Child Law and Policy Center, the Juvenile Law Center, the Health Justice Project at Loyola Chicago, the Loyola Chicago Civitas ChildLaw Center and the Center on Children and Families at University of Florida.
The brief argues that the goal of the ACA was to make health care accessible and affordable to all, especially persons in a position of vulnerability. Children and youth are particularly vulnerable to harm when deprived of adequate health care. And children, unlike adults, do not have any choice about whether to purchase health insurance. Many will suffer life-long detriment from undiagnosed or untreated childhood illness. Children’s health care begins even before conception. Good health care for mothers in the preconception period, as well as prenatal and postnatal care, is essential for optimal brain development. Screenings for early detection of disabilities or diseases, access to immunizations, banning of disqualifications for pre-existing conditions, programs for youth aging out of foster care, home visiting and school-based programs are all aspects of the ACA that are of crucial importance to children and youth. In closing, the brief asks the Court to “consider the special importance of the ACA to families and children who are already receiving the benefits of enhanced access to health insurance coverage and quality health care, defer to the policy judgments of elected officials and uphold the constitutionality of the ACA.”
The first draft of the brief was researched and written by Emory law students Rachel Belcher, Audrey Biggerstaff, Robert Chan, Lauren McAuley and Siefman, who took part in the Child Rights Project of Emory University Law School under the guidance of Professor Barbara Bennett Woodhouse. The distinguished Atlanta law firm of Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore volunteered to work pro bono with the students to further hone the brief and to bring it to completion, and law partner Jeffrey O. Bramlett served as counsel of record in filing the brief with the Supreme Court. Other organizations that joined the brief include Barton Child Law and Policy Center, the Juvenile Law Center, the Health Justice Project at Loyola Chicago, the Loyola Chicago Civitas ChildLaw Center and the Center on Children and Families at University of Florida.