King v. Burwell and Obamacare

If you're at all concerned with the possibility that the Supreme Court may shortly deprive tens of thousands of people of their (recently-acquired) federally-subsidized health insurance, you should look at this post by Timothy Jost on Balkinization, detailing the contents of the amicus briefs that put the anti-Obamacare forces (I think) to shame. And then look at this Wall Street Journal story, and this one, and this amazing piece from Mother Jones, about the four "plaintiffs" in the case, who have little to no idea of the position "their" lawyers are taking on their behalf, and in at least one case don't seem to even know that they're plaintiffs. The plaintiff's legal theory is pathetic, the lawyer's supposed named plaintiffs are frauds--and yet it's actually possible that the Supreme Court might endorse the theory to protect those plaintiffs.

John Roberts can work as hard as he wants to protect the reputation of the Supreme Court as non-political, but if they decide against the US on this one, they will have no credibility left at all.  

Our Voting Public: Uninsured revolt against the Anti-Christ behind the climate hoax edition

An April survey from Kaiser Family Foundation found that four in ten Americans (42%) are unaware that "Obamacare" is actually the law of the land. 12% thought the health reform measure had been repealed by Congress, 7% thought it had been overturned by the Supreme Court (which actually upheld the law in June of 2012), and 23% didn't know enough to say whether the law was in force or not. Overall, 49% of Americans didn't know enough to say whether the law will impact their own families--but, depressingly, the percentage of people lacking that knowledge was highest in the two groups the law is likely to benefit most: the uninsured (of whom 58% said they didn't know how the law would affect them) and the poor (56%).

Another poll--from PublicMind at Farleigh Dickinson University--shows that 29% of all Americans (18% of Democrats, 27% of Independents, and a whopping 44% of Republicans) believe that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years, in order to protect our liberties. An armed revolution. In the next few years. Another 5% of Americans aren't sure about that. Well, that's good, I guess; one doesn't want to decide these things too precipitously.

And in other polling news from what appears to be this planet, Public Policy Polling (a well-respected polling firm known for asking the occasional oddball or controversial question) has found (among many other amusing and/or scary things) that 58% of Republicans think global warming is a hoax, while 77% of Democrats disagree; and that 20% of Americans think vaccines cause autism, while 34% aren't sure.

And 20% of Republicans believe that President Obama is the Anti-Christ. Well, I guess we know why they think armed revolution might be necessary. Hope your health insurance covers gunshot wounds.  

Canada and the Crime of HIV Exposure

The Supreme Court of Canada has just issued two rulings, one on an appeal from Quebec and the other on an appeal from Manitoba, which together clarify and restructure the circumstances under which criminal sanctions can be applied to an HIV+ person who has sex without disclosing that HIV status to his or her sexual partner.

Since 1998, Canadian law has held that those who fail to disclose their HIV status can be charged with sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault if their sexual relations pose "a significant risk of bodily harm" to their partners. Lower court holdings over the years have held that there was no significant risk of bodily harm where the accused used a condom, or where the accused had a low viral load due to medication. The new Supreme Court holdings agree that there is no significant risk, and no legal duty to disclose HIV status, where the accused's viral load is low due to medication, and a condom is used. But the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of defendants who did not use condoms, even if their viral loads were low.

The decisions have drawn immediate criticism from opposite sides. Advocates for persons with HIV/AIDS accuse the court of reinforcing irrational and unscientific fears of HIV transmission, of stigmatizing those who are infected, and of creating a world in which even responsible condom use offers no surefire protection from prosecution for those who do not disclose their HIV status. The threat of criminal prosecution for an act of consensual sex, they argue, doesn't protect people from HIV transmission. Conservative critics of the opinions lament the Court's having given legal permission for people not to disclose their HIV+ status to their sexual partners in some circumstances.

The Court also said that the "significant risk" necessary to underwrite criminal prosecution would vary with the sex-act in question, and could also change with medical progress.

Supreme Court to Rule on Health Reform

I'm a few days late with this, but here's the irreplaceable Timothy Jost's take on the US Supreme Court's grant of certiorari on a number of legal and constitutional issues related to Obama's health-insurance reform law.