Over the weekend Professor Leslie Gielow Jacobs – Director, Capital Center for Law & Policy – appeared on KCRA 3 News to discuss the latest legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Her comments from the story are below.

On what to expect from the Appeals Court hearing the decision holding the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional:

It is my prediction that the Appeals Court will reverse his ruling and we’ll be right back where we are.”

On judging legislative intent:

What the judge was supposed to do was look at the intent of Congress and say – Well, without the individual mandate did Congress intend for the rest of the statute to stay there? – and it seems quite clear that in 2017 Congress did intend the statute to stay there because it didn’t abolish the statute itself.”

On the next step, appealing the ruling:

It’s hard for me to imagine that we won’t get a stay that puts this on hold because this is a momentous decision, it affects a lot of people, and the reason to give a stay is so the Court of Appeals has enough time to consider the matter.”

You can find the complete story by KCRA’s Max Resnik here.

On today’s episode of The CAP⋅impact Podcast we talk with Maggy Krell, Chief Legal Counsel for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California about the impact of US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement from the highest court in the nation, the potential impact of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, the numerous attempted and proposed changes to healthcare policy at the federal level, and what all of that means for Californians.

We also talk with McGeorge Professor Ederlina Co about SB 320 by State Senator Connie Leyva (D – Chino), which recently passed the California Legislature and is awaiting Governor Brown’s signature, and the significance of that bill in light what has been going on in Congress and at the federal level in regards to healthcare.

As always, if you enjoyed today’s episode, please take the time to leave us a five-star rating on iTunes or Apple Podcasts and subscribe to our show wherever you listen to podcasts. All of that helps other people find the show.

You can stay in touch with us and let us know what you think about the show on Facebook and Twitter. Just like CAP impact on Facebook or follow @CAPimpactCA on Twitter.

And last but not least, you can learn more about the Capital Center for Law and Policy at McGeorge School of Law here.




California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has filed a total of 22 lawsuits in 17 different subject areas against the Trump administration.

The Sacramento Bee compiled a list of all the pending cases, along with quick summaries of each, and arranged them by subject matter. You can find links to the many complaints filed by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra below.

For more of my takes on these issues, you can refer back to my previous post on the Attorney General’s lawsuit over birth control exemptions.




On Friday, numerous federal agencies announced new rules that allow employers to opt out of providing no-cost contraceptives to employees by claiming religious or moral objections. California law blunts, but not entirely, the impact of this rule change.  California’s Contraceptive Coverage Equity Act of 2014 requires private and Medicaid managed care plans offered in the state to provide the same range of no-cost contraceptives as required by federal law prior to Friday’s rule change.  This state law does not apply to roughly 25% of California employees (4.6 million) who work for employers who fund their own insurance. Only three other states have laws similar to California’s, so the federal rule change impacts most employees across the nation.

Also on Friday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sued the Trump administration over the changes to federal rules, arguing that the changes violate the U.S. Constitution and federal law.

The new rules expand the types of employers who can avoid providing no-cost contraceptives through their health insurance plans, and the reasons they can offer to do so.  Previously, only houses of worship could claim a complete “exemption” from the free contraceptives requirement.  A more narrow group of employers with religious objections could request an “accommodation.”  With an accommodation, the employers could avoid paying for their employees’ contraceptives and shift the cost to the insurer, but the employees would still receive contraceptives with no co-pay.  The current rule change extends “exemptions” to all types of employers who claim religious objections and employers other than publicly held companies that claim “moral convictions” against providing contraceptive coverage to employees.  Institutions of higher education may also claim these exemptions and avoid funding contraceptives as part of student health insurance.

The new rules primarily affect the cost of contraceptives for employees, rather than coverage of them by employer plans, since federal civil rights law requires employers to include prescription contraceptives if they cover other prescription preventative care.  But, as a recent Kaiser Family Foundation report points out, even low co-pays limit access to contraceptives, and increase the risk of unintended pregnancy.  The report, written prior to Friday’s rule change, concludes:

If the Trump Administration modifies or eliminates the ACA contraceptive coverage rule, scope of coverage will depend on where a woman lives, where she works, and her insurance plan. Millions of women could lose no-cost coverage for the full range of contraceptive methods. Insurance companies and employers will be the ones to make choices about coverage and cost-sharing.  For some women, their choices will be limited, and some of the most effective and costly methods will be out of financial reach.

For more information on the federal rulemaking process, see the Federal Register’s Guide to the Rulemaking Process.