,,iii #aafth ,,congress #ast ,session ,s4 ,,res4 #acd ,,in ,,the ,,senate ,,of ,,the ,,united ,,states ,april #b1 #bjai ,mrs4 ,shaheen 7for herself1 ,mr4 ,schumer1 ,mr4 ,wyden1 ,mrs4 ,murray1 ,mrs4 ,feinstein1 ,mr4 ,jones1 ,mr4 ,brown1 ,mr4 ,carper1 ,ms4 ,rosen1 ,mr4 ,durbin1 ,mr4 ,murphy1 ,mr4 ,booker1 ,mr4 ,reed1 ,mr4 ,tester1 ,ms4 ,hirono1 ,ms4 ,baldwin1 ,ms4 ,klobuchar1 ,mr4 ,sanders1 ,mr4 ,leahy1 ,mr4 ,van ,hollen1 ,mr4 ,warner1 ,mr4 ,peters1 ,mr4 ,whitehouse1 ,ms4 ,hassan1 ,ms4 ,stabenow1 ,mr4 ,udall1 ,mr4 ,merkley1 ,mr4 ,manchin1 ,mr4 ,blumenthal1 ,mr4 ,menendez1 ,ms4 ,cortez ,masto1 ,mr4 ,cardin1 ,ms4 ,sinema1 ,ms4 ,duckworth1 ,mr4 ,markey1 ,mrs4 ,gillibrand1 ,mr4 ,coons1 ,ms4 ,warren1 ,mr4 ,heinrich1 ,mr4 ,casey1 ,ms4 ,cantwell1 ,mr4 ,kaine1 ,mr4 ,schatz1 ,ms4 ,smith1 ,mr4 ,bennet1 ,mr4 ,king1 and ,ms4 ,harris7 submitted the following resolution2 which was referred to the ,committee on the ,judiciary ,,resolution ,expressing the sense of the ,senate that the ,department of ,justice should reverse its position in ,texas v4 ,united ,states1 ,no4 #d3ah-;cv-#jjafg-,o 7,n4,d4 ,tex474 ,whereas1 on ,february #bf1 #bjah1 #ah ,state attorneys general and #b ,governors filed a lawsuit in the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas1 ,texas v4 ,united ,states1 ,no4 #d3ah-;cv-#jjafg-,o 7,n4,d4 ,tex47 7in this preamble referred to as ,texas v4 ,united ,states71 arguing that the requirement of the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act 7,public ,law #aaa-adh2 #abd ,stat4 #aai7 7in this preamble referred to as the ,,aca7 to maintain minimum essential coverage is unconstitutional and1 as a result1 the court should invalidate the entire law2 ,whereas1 in a ,june #g1 #bjah1 letter to ,congress1 then ,attorney ,general ,jefferson ,sessions announced that the ,department of ,justice-- 7#a7 would not defend the constitutionality of the minimum essential coverage provision2 and 7#b7 would argue that provisions protecting individuals with pre-existing medical conditions 7specifically the provisions commonly known as community rating and guaranteed issue7 are inseverable from the minimum essential coverage provision and should be invalidated2 ,whereas1 in the ,june #g1 #bjah1 letter to ,congress1 ,attorney ,general ,sessions also advised ,congress that the ,department will continue to argue that ,section #ejjj;,a7a7 is severable from the remaining provisions of the ,,aca1 indicating a difference from the plaintiffs' position in ,texas v4 ,united ,states2 ,whereas1 on ,december #ad1 #bjah1 the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas issued an order that declared the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage unconstitutional and struck down the ,,aca in its entirety1 including protections for individuals with pre-existing medical conditions2 ,whereas the decision of the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas was stayed and is pending appeal before the ,united ,states ,court of ,appeals for the ,fifth ,circuit2 ,whereas1 on ,march #be1 #bjai1 the ,department of ,justice1 in a letter to the ,united ,states ,court of ,appeals for the ,fifth ,circuit1 changed its position and announced that the entire ruling of the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas should be upheld and the entire ,,aca should be declared unconstitutional2 ,whereas1 prior to #bjad1 individuals with pre-existing medical conditions were routinely denied health insurance coverage1 subject to coverage exclusions1 charged unaffordable premium rates1 exposed to unaffordable out-of-pocket costs1 and subject to lifetime and annual limits on health insurance coverage2 ,whereas as many as #acc1jjj1jjj nonelderly people in the ,united ,states-- 7#a7 have a pre-existing condition and could have been denied coverage or only offered coverage at an exorbitant price had they needed individual market health insurance prior to #bjad2 and 7#b7 will lose protections for pre-existing conditions if the ruling of the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas is upheld in ,texas v4 ,united ,states2 ,whereas1 as of ,march #bjai1 employers cannot place lifetime or annual limits on health coverage for their employees1 and if the ruling of the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas is upheld1 more than #ajj1jjj1jjj people in the ,united ,states who receive health insurance through their employer could once again face lifetime or annual coverage limits2 ,whereas1 prior to #bjaj1 ,medicare enrollees faced massive out-of-pocket prescription drug costs once they reached a certain threshold known as the ,medicare donut hole1 and since the donut hole began closing in #bjaj1 millions of ,medicare beneficiaries have saved billions of dollars on prescription drugs2 ,whereas1 at a time when #c in #aj adults report not taking prescribed medicines because of the cost1 if the ruling of the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas is upheld1 seniors enrolled in ,medicare would face billions of dollars in new prescription drug costs2 ,whereas1 as of ,march #bjai1 #cg ,states and the ,district of ,columbia have expanded or voted to expand ,medicaid to individuals with incomes below #ach percent of the ,federal poverty level1 providing health coverage to more than #ab1jjj1jjj newly eligible people2 ,whereas1 if the ruling of the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas is upheld1 the millions of individuals and families who receive coverage from ,medicaid could lose eligibility and no longer have access to health care2 ,whereas1 as of ,march #bjai1 many people who buy individual health insurance are provided tax credits to reduce the cost of premiums and assistance to reduce out-of-pocket costs such as copays and deductibles1 which has made individual health insurance coverage affordable for millions of people in the ,united ,states for the first time2 ,whereas1 if the ruling of the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas is upheld1 the health insurance individual exchanges would be eliminated and millions of people in the ,united ,states who buy health insurance on the individual marketplaces could lose coverage and would see premium expenses for individual health insurance increase exorbitantly2 and ,whereas1 if the ruling of the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas is upheld1 people in the ,united ,states would lose numerous consumer protections1 including the requirements that-- 7#a7 plans offer preventive care without cost-sharing2 7#b7 young adults can remain on their parents' insurance plan until age #bf2 and 7#c7 many health insurance plans offer a comprehensive set of essential health benefits such as maternity care1 addiction treatment1 and prescription drug coverage3 ,now1 therefore1 be it ,that it is the sense of the ,senate that the ,department of ,justice should-- 7#a7 protect individuals with pre-existing conditions1 seniors struggling with high prescription drug costs1 and the millions of people in the ,united ,states who newly gained health insurance coverage since #bjad2 and 7#b7 reverse its position in ,texas v4 ,united ,states1 ,no4 #d3ah-;cv-#jjafg-,o 7,n4,d4 ,tex474