I won’t quote his wholly-specious federal suit, but of course, at the bottom of it… is a desire to gut the ACA of 2010 provisions (long upheld as a valid use of Congress’s taxing powers) mandating specified items of minimum preventative care at a zero co-pay, for anyone offered health insurance. To state his premise, in full… is to refute it, in spades.

Look — we all know he is really aiming to block coverage of birth control and other family planning items, claiming these violate HIS religious beliefs.

[Sheesh — if he doesn’t want to buy insurance at all, he need not buy it — he can just pay in, to the uninsured risk pool, or fund it all — out of his own pocket. Or create his own insurance cooperative, among other Luddites.]

But he alone cannot prevent all other Americans from accessing these vital items of preventative care.

His religious beliefs can never be tortured sufficiently to end… my freedom to ignore his… befuddled, even if genuinely held, beliefs. [What about your — and my — beliefs, in effective health care?]

However, as NPR notes, he may have a slightly-better shot (but just a little less than zero probability) post the Dobbs decision. In any event, I might ask:

When in recorded history, as against a commerce clause defense, has an individual been able to order all car-makers to sell him a car without turn-signals and seat-belts, at a reduced from retail price… because he hates seat belts and turn signals?

Even more directly… when have we ever seen a court of last resort order the removal of seat belts, and turn lights… for ALL US auto purchasers… on the “say so” of a single Texas… moron? Again… never. Never gonna’ happen.

नमस्ते