Judge blocks HHS from requiring religious providers to perform gender-transition, abortion procedures – MedCity News

In a win for some religious providers, a federal judge has issued a permanent injunction that prevents the government from requiring them to perform gender-transition procedures or abortions.

Issued last week by Reed O’Connor, a U.S. district judge in Texas, the injunction prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from interpreting or enforcing Section 1557 of the ACA to require the plaintiffs — a Catholic health system and a Christian medical association — to perform or provide insurance coverage for gender-transition or abortion procedures. This includes banning HHS from forcing the plaintiffs to provide those services by denying federal financial aid or charging penalties. The injunction only applies to the plaintiffs.

Section 1557 of the ACA bans health programs and facilities that receive federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability. When implementing this section in 2016, the Obama administration finalized a rule interpreting “on the basis of sex” to include gender identity and pregnancy status, according to an article in Health Affairs. The current plaintiffs filed a legal challenge in the same year and were granted a preliminary injunction. Later, O’Connor also eliminated parts of the rule.

In 2020, the Trump administration vacated the 2016 definition of “on the basis of sex.”

But, in May of this year, the government said it would interpret the rule in accordance with a Supreme Court decision, which held that the federal law banning discrimination based on sex includes gender identity. HHS also said it would accept previous court decisions related to the rule, including O’Connor’s that vacated parts of it.

O’Connor argued that these are contradictory statements, and thus, “the promise is hollow.”

“The Court agrees and concludes that enforcement of the 2021 Interpretation forces Christian Plaintiffs to face civil penalties or to perform gender-transition procedures and abortions contrary to their religious beliefs — a quintessential irreparable injury,” O’Connor wrote in his order.

Becket, an organization focused on supporting religious liberty that represented the plaintiffs, praised the injunction ruling.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for compassion, conscience, and common sense,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, in a news release. “No doctor should be forced to perform controversial, medically unsupported procedures that are contrary to their conscience and could be deeply harmful to their patients.”

LGBTQ and reproductive rights activists, however, expressed their dismay.

“Gender-affirming care is life-saving care and doctors agree that it is medically necessary for many transgender people,” said Lindsey Kaley, staff attorney with the ACLU Center for Liberty, in an email. “This is a disappointing decision, but it does not change the fact that transgender people who have been turned away from healthcare can continue to pursue litigation.”

The push-and-pull regarding Section 1557 and its interpretation is also ongoing. Not only can the Biden administration file an appeal, but there are currently several other lawsuits winding their way through the courts, including ones against the 2020 interpretation, Health Affairs reports.

Photo: Chris Ryan, Getty Images

Morning Docket: 08.17.21

* The Warriors are coming out to protect and serve. This lawsuit, and others like it, hopes to change that. [ABA Journal]

* Arizona and Colorado will be having water cuts. Maybe global warming is just the push we need for environmental lawyers to consider switching over to something with more electrolytes? [Insider]

* The Swiss used a supercomputer to calculate Pi to 62.8tn figures. Unfortunately, lawyer that I am, numbers above 13 that aren’t salaries stop registering for me. Would that be a lot in damages? [The Guardian]

* Bezos, not happy with being eclipsed by Elon, takes NASA to court. [BBC]

* About half of US hospitals have experienced downtime due to ransomware. Tech & IP lawyers, do your thang. [Infosecurity Magazine]


Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s. Before that, he wrote columns for an online magazine named The Muse Collaborative under the pen name Knehmo. He endured the great state of Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com.

4 Reasons Why Clubhouse Could Be Your Perfect Platform

There is no doubt that Clubhouse is becoming a valuable social networking platform for those in the professional world. Everyone is joining the platform, including businesses, individual speakers, organizations, celebrities, educators, and many others.

For those unfamiliar, Clubhouse is an exclusive live audio app that allows people to listen to and actively participate in live discussions. Such discussions are always live on the app and never recorded. Therefore, once the room ends, that conversation is gone forever. The app also carries an air of exclusivity with it; to participate on the platform, you must receive an invitation from an existing member, hence the name Clubhouse.

Clubhouse is a valuable resource for everyone, but it presents lawyers with some unique perks. Let’s take a further look at why lawyers should take advantage of Clubhouse.

Clubhouse is informative. Law is an extremely complex field, ripe with topics that cannot be covered in a short social media caption on Instagram or Twitter. Unlike those platforms, Clubhouse allows participants to go in-depth on a variety of topics. Depending on the setup, chatrooms can last anywhere from an hour to several days.

Additionally, if participants have questions, there are chances to ask for more information. In that way, Clubhouse’s intellectual environment is well suited for inquiring lawyer minds, keeping the learning environment fresh and varied.

Clubhouse is innovative. Although Clubhouse first gained popularity through its use by celebrities and influencers, it has since established itself as an innovative platform for experts in any field. Like every big social media platform before it, it is only a matter of time before prominent Clubhouse users gain access to perks and recognition, such as monetization and partnerships.

Clubhouse is convenient. Clubhouse is perfect for multitasking, something with which lawyers are very familiar. You can listen from anywhere at any time, and you never even have to show your face on camera. Depending on how the chatroom is set up, you’ll choose to be either a speaker or a listener. There are chats that last for a set time, while others last for days, so you can always find ways to participate in whatever way works best for your schedule.

Clubhouse has unmatched networking. Clubhouse is a networking goldmine. It is a great resource for lawyers in this aspect because they can show off their expertise as much or as little as they’d like in the pursuit of attracting potential clients or partners.

Additionally, the interactive nature of Clubhouse allows lawyers to connect with other lawyers on a more personal and in-depth level. During discussions on Clubhouse, it is very easy to find links to everyone’s social media accounts and business information on the platform. Even if you just participate as a listener, you never know who might be in the virtual room with you.

Ultimately, Clubhouse is a unique social networking platform for lawyers, as it is a low-risk way to grow your business, share and gain expertise, network, and get to know your audience. With all these benefits, lawyers should be lining up to join the club.


Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.

UnitedHealth subsidiaries settle mental health parity allegations for $15.6M – MedCity News

UnitedHealthcare and United Behavioral Health will pay $15.6 million to settle allegations that they illegally denied coverage for mental health and substance abuse disorder treatment.

The entities agreed to settle after the Department of Labor and Attorney General of the State of New York filed complaints alleging that they reduced reimbursement rates for out-of-network mental health services, thereby overcharging participants for those services.

Further, the Minnetonka, Minnesota-based companies employed arbitrary thresholds to trigger utilization reviews, which led to coverage denials, the complaints stated.

UnitedHealthcare and United Behavioral Health violated the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, the Department of Labor said in a news release issued Thursday. The law prohibits health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act from imposing treatment limitations on mental health and substance use disorder benefits that are more restrictive than the limitations they impose on medical and surgical benefits.

The companies also violated New York’s behavioral health parity law, which mirrors the federal law.

“In the shadow of the most devastating year for overdose deaths and in the face of growing mental health concerns due to the pandemic, access to this care is more critical than ever before,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in a news release. “United’s denial of these vital services was both unlawful and dangerous — putting millions in harm’s way during the darkest of times.”

The companies will pay $13.6 million to affected participants and beneficiaries as well as a little over $2 million in penalties.

“We are pleased to resolve these issues related to business practices no longer used by the company,” said UnitedHealth Group, the parent company, in an emailed statement. “As part of our broader commitment to quality care, we continue to support our members with increased access to providers and new ways to get the effective behavioral support they need.”

As part of the settlement, UnitedHealthcare and United Behavioral Health agreed to stop the violations, improve disclosures to plan participants and commit to future compliance.

The settlement comes less than a year after a federal judge ordered United Behavioral Health to reprocess about 67,000 illegally denied mental and behavioral health coverage claims. The judge also ordered the payer to change its handling of behavioral health claims and improve employee training.

Photo: Sarinyapinngam, Getty Images

Breaking: iManage Says It Will Not Send Staff to ILTACON

A week away from the first hybrid version of ILTACON, the annual convention of the International Legal Technology Association, and with mounting fears around the surge in the Delta variant of the virus, a major vendor, iManage, has informed its customers that it will not send staff to the conference in Las Vegas.

“We let ILTA attendees know last night that due to the current travel ban in place for all iManage employees, we will not be sending in-person staff to ILTACON 2021,” iManage spokesperson Anastasia Bullinger told me by email. “However, we remain committed to the event and are supporting it virtually.”

Bullinger said that iManage has “a robust lineup of programming” which includes five presentation sessions, sponsorship of the event app, livestreaming, and virtual meetings with attendees that can take place from our booth.

“We’re looking forward to a terrific ILTACON, supporting ILTA, our customers, and the broader, legal technology community,” she said.

How Quickly We Forget The Rule Of Law

For four years, liberals believed in the rule of law: “Trump can’t do that! It’s illegal!” Or “Trump can’t do that! The Supreme Court rejected that position in the past!” Or: “Trump can’t do that! He’s Trump!”

But now, the tide has (almost) turned. Although Democrats did poorly in many down-ballot races last year, Democrats control the presidency, and all of a sudden the rule of law doesn’t matter so much.

President Joe Biden urged the Centers for Disease Control to extend the eviction moratorium, even though the Supreme Court suggested an extension was probably unconstitutional. Although liberal voices differ on this subject (perhaps depending on whether the liberals are landlords or tenants, but that’s another story), at least one wing of the party screams: “The Constitution be damned! I believe that extending the eviction moratorium is good policy, so Biden should do whatever it takes, including acting unconstitutionally, to enact the policy that I prefer!”

Liberals might be happy with that result today, but I guarantee that liberals will be unhappy when a conservative president someday relies on the same reasoning to adopt a policy with which liberals disagree. There’s no decent response when that later conservative says, “I don’t care what the law is. I’m adopting the policy that I think is right.” Doesn’t that seem just a tad lawless?  Shouldn’t you preserve the argument that folks in power should be obligated to follow the law?

Maybe principles should be based on universal principles instead of individualized personal beliefs.

In 2018, Sen. Dick Durbin — then in a Democratic minority in the Senate — thought the filibuster was an essential part of government. It would be “the end of the Senate” to eliminate the filibuster. Today, with the Democrats in the majority in the Senate, it’s time to eliminate the filibuster. According to today’s Durbin, to leave the filibuster in place is to “hold the Senate hostage” to the whim of the minority.

And what will Durbin believe in 2026? Or 2033?

Who knows? In fact, who cares? The electorate would have forgotten, or Durbin retired, or whatever. The future will take care of itself.

Should we expand the Supreme Court?

Imagine what liberals would have said if conservatives had tried to pull off that stunt in 2019. The cries of outrage would have echoed off the mountaintops, until the next election results came in.

In November 2020, the outrage would have ended, and right-thinking people could only believe that the Supreme Court must be expanded. Expanding the Supreme Court is the easiest way to increase the odds that it will rule in favor of liberals on issues that matter to them.

What happens when conservatives choose to expand the Supreme Court still further the next time conservatives are in power?

We’ll worry about that then, if ever.

I howl at the moon through my little megaphone at Above the Law. (Howling doesn’t accomplish much, but it sure makes me feel better.) Sometimes the moon is to the right, and sometimes the moon is to the left, so I manage to offend all of my readers.

But can’t we, as lawyers, at least agree that the rule of law is a good idea?

As Sir Thomas More said in the 16th century — or, at least, as Richard Bolt had More say in the 1950s play:

And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!


Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

Even Biglaw Associates Struggle To Pay Their Massive Student Loans

It’s a seemingly absurd position: You can make enough money to be in a very high-income tax bracket, but home ownership is completely out of reach. I’m saying that as someone who feels very lucky.

Marcella Jayne, a third-year litigation associate at Foley & Lardner who now makes more than $215,000, commenting on sizeable student loan indebtedness following college and law school. Jayne, a single mother to two children, had been paying $2,200 per month on her $180,000 balance prior to the federal student loan payment moratorium. “We were headed toward the cliff,” she said of affording special needs childcare services coupled with her monthly loan payment, which was higher than her monthly Manhattan rent. While Jayne is thankful for the reprieve, she says she’s looking for something more. “I feel like it’s a band aid. I want policy changes.”


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Small Firms And Solos: How Does Your Billing System Measure Up?

With today’s technology, tracking every minute of your professional life requires virtually zero minutes of effort. 

You can now generate invoices with the click of a button, or seamlessly set up auto-billing arrangements. 

And it’s all far simpler than you’d expect. 

We invite you to repurpose a “.1” to save countless hours down the road, with a visit to the Non-Event

And to help us track how the industry is performing, please take our anonymous, 1-survey