ing care” for “nonbinary persons.” The proposed mandates — nearly


200 pages in length with more than 700 footnotes — were fi rst published last August. Ever since, federal bureaucrats have been reviewing what are believed to be thousands of com- ments submitted from organizations on both sides of the political aisle. One of them is the D.C.-based,


socially conservative Ethics and Pub- lic Policy Center. Its scholars charged the proposed


rule “. . . turns the clock back on girls’ and women’s rights, tramples paren- tal rights, harms children’s interests, dismantles sex-based patient protec- tions, and violates religious freedom and conscience rights of medical pro- fessionals, hospitals, and religious institutions.” So how did such profound regula-


tory changes reach the verge of tak- ing eff ect with so few Americans even aware of them? Part of the answer may lie in the “stealthy” nature of the mandate: It specifi cally declares it does not apply to employers with healthcare plans. The catch: The new abortion and


transgender requirements apply to virtually all forms of health insur- ance, including self-funded plans with third-party administrators. So, if an employer goes shopping


for plans off ering what it considers morally acceptable coverage, it won’t fi nd any.


Any insurance company reject-


ing the administration’s defi nition of reproductive health services would face strict enforcement — and would no doubt become a pariah on social media.


Newsmax asked L. Martin Nuss-


baum, a religious liberties and First Amendment attorney based in Colo- rado Springs, Colorado, how such a transformational change in U.S. poli- cy could fl y under the radar. “Average citizens, most of whom


would be opposed to this agenda, are totally unaware it’s happening,” Nuss- baum explained. “And it’s a great sadness to me that


the media is not doing its job . . . to publicize regulatory rule-making law that would be as radical and unpopu- lar as this.” Nussbaum represents several


socially conservative organizations that are planning to fi le lawsuits seek- ing court-ordered exclusions based on their moral convictions. He tells Newsmax he sees the uni-


versal abortion mandate for doctors as especially pernicious. “It’s simply horrendous,” he says,


“that those who are on the pro-choice side would say to those conscientious- ly opposed: ‘Perform it with your own hands, you must. If you’re a physi- cian, you must, with your own hands, engage in killing the unborn.’” If Nussbaum and his clients prevail, they would be free to obtain insurance


“It’s simply horrendous that those who are on the pro- choice side would say to those conscientiously opposed: ‘Perform it with


your own hands, you must. If you’re a physician, you must, with your own


hands, engage in killing the unborn.’” — L. Martin Nussbaum, a religious liberties and


First Amendment attorney based in Colorado Springs, Colorado


Proposed Mandatory


Coverage Puberty blockers for children Lifelong cross-sex hormone treatments Genital surgeries: hysterectomy, penectomy, mastectomy Facial feminization with bone remodeling Chin, cheek, and nose implants Laser hair removal treatments Breast/chest augmentation, reduction, or construction


SOURCE: Ethics and Public Policy Center


coverage that doesn’t violate their religious beliefs or values . . . either through self-funded plans or from insurance companies willing to pro- vide alternatives once they’re shielded from being punished for doing so. Nussbaum is confi dent that win-


ning those court-ordered exclusions is realistic. But he also knows he and his colleagues will be facing off against a battalion of federal attorneys every step of the way. There are other ways the reinter-


pretation of Section 1557 could be chal- lenged. In opinions issued just last year, particularly West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court indicated that unless Congress passes a law, the regu- latory bureaucracy can only stretch its creative interpretations so far. It also appears likely red-state attor-


neys general would unite nationwide to blast the rulemaking as an attempt to evade the Supreme Court’s Roe ruling. Even if conservatives prevail, in the run-up to the 2024 elections, Biden could use the legal donnybrook to show the progressive base he’s fi ght- ing for their agenda. Nussbaum comments, “Some in


the pro-choice community will take the position that the federal regula- tion preempts the state law under the [federal] supremacy clause. So, it is an attempt to vacate the state laws that would restrict the availability to abortion.” He added, “And that also will be litigated.”


APRIL 2023 | NEWSMAX 11


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100