,,iii #aafth ,,congress #ast ,session ,s4 ,,res4 #id ,,in ,,the ,,senate ,,of ,,the ,,united ,,states ,march #e1 #bjai ,ms4 ,hirono 7for herself1 ,mr4 ,manchin1 ,ms4 ,klobuchar1 ,ms4 ,duckworth1 ,mr4 ,whitehouse1 ,mr4 ,tester1 ,ms4 ,hassan1 ,ms4 ,baldwin1 ,mr4 ,merkley1 ,mr4 ,jones1 ,ms4 ,sinema1 ,mr4 ,durbin1 ,mr4 ,blumenthal1 ,mrs4 ,feinstein1 ,mr4 ,coons1 ,ms4 ,rosen1 ,mr4 ,king1 ,mr4 ,leahy1 ,ms4 ,smith1 ,mr4 ,brown1 ,ms4 ,cortez ,masto1 ,mrs4 ,shaheen1 ,ms4 ,harris1 ,mr4 ,booker1 ,mr4 ,reed1 ,mr4 ,schumer1 ,ms4 ,warren1 ,mr4 ,markey1 ,mr4 ,menendez1 ,mr4 ,bennet1 ,ms4 ,stabenow1 ,mr4 ,wyden1 ,mrs4 ,gillibrand1 ,mr4 ,van ,hollen1 ,mr4 ,casey1 ,mr4 ,heinrich1 ,mr4 ,kaine1 ,mrs4 ,murray1 ,mr4 ,murphy1 and ,mr4 ,udall7 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 protect individuals with pre-existing medical conditions by defending the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act 7,public ,law #aaa-adh2 #abd ,stat4 #aai7 in ,texas v4 ,united ,states1 ,no4 #d3ah-;cv-#jjafg-,o 7,n4,d4 ,tex471 in which the plaintiffs seek to invalidate protections for individuals with pre-existing medical conditions4 ,whereas1 in #bjaj1 ,congress passed and ,president ,barack ,obama signed the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act 7,public ,law #aaa-adh2 #abd ,stat4 #aai7 7in this preamble referred to as the ,,aca72 ,whereas1 prior to the enactment of the ,,aca1 individuals with pre-existing medical conditions were routinely denied health insurance coverage1 charged exorbitant rates for health insurance coverage1 exposed to unreasonable out-of-pocket costs for health care1 or subject to lifetime limits on health insurance coverage2 ,whereas the ,,aca instituted comprehensive protections for individuals with pre-existing medical conditions1 including-- 7#a7 the protection commonly known as guaranteed issue1 which requires health insurance companies to issue a health plan to any applicant regardless of health status or other factors1 under section #bgjb of the ,public ,health ,service ,act 7#db ,u4,s4,c4 #cjj;gg-#a72 7#b7 the protection commonly known as community rating1 which prohibits health insurance companies from varying premiums within a geographical area based on gender or health status and limits the ability of health insurance companies to vary premiums based on age1 under section #bgja of the ,public ,health ,service ,act 7#db ,u4,s4,c4 #cjj;gg72 and 7#c7 the prohibition on discrimination based on health status1 which prohibits excluding from a health plan benefits for pre-existing medical conditions or establishing eligibility rules based on pre-existing medical conditions1 under sections #bgjd and #bgje7;a7 of the ,public ,health ,service ,act 7#db ,u4,s4,c4 #cjj;gg-#c1 #cjj;gg-#d7;a772 ,whereas1 on ,june #g1 #bjah1 pursuant to section #ecj;,d of title #bh1 ,united ,states ,code1 then ,attorney ,general ,jefferson ,sessions1 under the direction of the ,president1 notified ,congress that the ,department of ,justice-- 7#a7 would not defend the constitutionality of the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage under section #ejjj;,a of the ,internal ,revenue ,code of #aihf1 as added by the ,,aca2 and 7#b7 would argue that certain provisions of the ,,aca1 including the provisions protecting an estimated #acc1jjj1jjj individuals in the ,united ,states with pre-existing medical conditions1 are inseverable from the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage2 ,whereas the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas-- 7#a7 issued an order declaring that-- 7,a7 the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage is unconstitutional2 and 7,b7 the remaining provisions of the ,,aca1 including protections for individuals with pre-existing medical conditions1 are inseverable from that requirement2 and 7#b7 invalidated the remaining provisions of the ,,aca2 ,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 ,whereas the refusal of the ,department of ,justice to defend the ,,aca1 as even then ,attorney ,general ,sessions acknowledged in his notice to ,congress1 contravened the ,executive ,branch's longstanding tradition of defending the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense2 ,whereas reasonable arguments can be made in defense of the ,,aca1 as evidenced by an amicus brief filed by legal experts1 including experts who supported other legal challenges to the ,,aca2 and ,whereas1 by arguing that the guaranteed issue1 community rating1 and other protections prohibiting discrimination are inseverable from the remaining provisions of the ,,aca and therefore the remaining provisions of the ,,aca are invalid1 the ,department of ,justice is risking vital protections for the estimated #acc1jjj1jjj individuals in the ,united ,states with pre-existing medical conditions3 ,now1 therefore1 be it ,that it is the sense of the ,senate that the ,department of ,justice should protect individuals with pre-existing medical conditions1 including by reversing its position and defending the critically important provisions of the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act 7,public ,law #aaa-adh2 #abd ,stat4 #aai7 in ,texas v4 ,united ,states1 ,no4 #d3ah-;cv-#jjafg-,o 7,n4,d4 ,tex474