Health
Good News: As You Renew Your Health Care Coverage, Don’t Expect New Restrictions
Californians can rest easy. With a little over two months to go until the state’s open enrollment period for 2021 ends on Jan. 31, 2021, expect no new restrictions to your health care coverage options.
It is not likely that the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, will be successful. It occurred on November 10, when the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments against the national health care law passed under the Obama administration in the case California v. Texas, No. 19-840.
Although some Obamacare supporters, including California Attorney General Xavier Beccera – who led the Democratic defense of the ACA — expressed some caution about the nation’s highest court’s 6-3 conservative majority, they largely remained confident.
After the hearing, a majority of justices indicated that the ACA is still safe.
California v. Texas mainly focused on the ACA’s mandate requiring insurance. It was filed by 18 Republican attorneys general backed by the Trump administration. They argued that the mandate became unconstitutional after Congress eliminated the penalty for not having health insurance in Congress’s 2017 tax reform bill.
They also argued that since the mandate was a crucial feature of the law, and as they deemed it unconstitutional, the entire law should have been thrown out.
Although an official decision in the case will not come until the middle of next year, at least five Supreme Court justices have indicated that they would reject the attempt to kill the ACA.
Two members of the court’s current Republican majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, noted that striking down the individual mandate portion of the ACA did not require overturning the rest of the law.
“It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place — the provisions regarding pre-existing conditions and the rest,” Kavanaugh said.
The court’s inferred support of the ACA comes at a time when unemployment across the United States is still at record highs due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Covered California healthcare marketplace began open enrollment November 1, and many newly unemployed or self-employed Californians will need to apply for either subsidized insurance, Medi-Cal or an individual medical plan.
In a virtual conference November 9, the day before his Supreme Court oral arguments, Becerra spoke about the importance of the ACA during the COVID-19 pandemic, which he called a national health crisis.
“We need the ACA more than ever now. COVID-19 has infected more than 10 million Americans, it has cost 12 million American workers their healthcare, and it’s disproportionately hurting communities of color,” he said. “Because of the ACA, in states with expanded Medicaid, workers who have lost their jobs and with that their employer-based health insurance, are still able to get healthcare and support that they need.”
California has supported the ACA since its inception in 2013, expanding the Medi-Cal program for low-income residents, and creating the state-based Covered California marketplace, which offers both federal subsidies and state-based aid. According to Census records, the rate of uninsured Californians dropped from 17.2 % in 2013 to 7.7 % in 2019.
According to Covered California, 271,820 people signed up for health care coverage through the marketplace during its special open enrollment period between March 20 and August 20 this year, more than twice the number of people who signed up during the same period last year.
Dr. Jamila Perritt, president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health, spoke about the importance of the ACA for the community she treats as an OB-GYN.
“I take care of people, real people who deserve to have access to the healthcare they will want and need access to — provided by the Affordable Care Act. The health of my patients has improved. The health of our communities has improved. I know that the Affordable Care Act has been a safety net for many communities and undermining or eliminating it will disproportionately impact those who need care,” said Perritt.
After presenting the arguments for keeping the Affordable Care Act, Becerra was optimistic.
“The ACA has withstood numerous legal and political challenges. It’s been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional twice before. And we are optimistic that it will withstand this challenge as well,” said Becerra.
Activism
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners
Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”
That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.
That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.
Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.
The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.
These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.
I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.
About the Author
Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.
Activism
OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners
In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.
In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.
A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.
This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.
This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.
Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.
“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.
Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.
“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.
As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.
Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.
It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.
When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.
About the Author
Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.
Activism
California Observes Third Annual Black Health Advocacy Week
On May 4, 2023, the California Assembly unanimously passed ACR 53, enacting BHEAW every first week of May. “The life expectancy at birth for Black Californians is 76.2 years of age, which is five years shorter than the state average and the lowest life expectancy of all racial and ethnic groups in California,” said Weber in a statement.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media
California’s third annual Black Health Equity Advocacy Week (BHEAW), observed from May 5-9, reaffirmed the commitment of the state and advocates to address systemic health disparities affecting Black communities.
Assemblymember Akilah Weber (D-San Diego), who is a medical doctor and chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC), authored the resolution that created BHEAW — the first statewide initiative of its kind focused on advancing Black health equity.
On May 4, 2023, the California Assembly unanimously passed ACR 53, enacting BHEAW every first week of May.
“The life expectancy at birth for Black Californians is 76.2 years of age, which is five years shorter than the state average and the lowest life expectancy of all racial and ethnic groups in California,” said Weber in a statement.
“This disparity is a stark reminder of the systemic and institutional factors that contribute to health inequities in communities of color,” she added.
The California Black Health Network (CBHN) led this year’s events, combining advocacy, training, and public engagement to amplify the urgency of closing health gaps for Black Californians.
The theme of this year’s observance was “We’ve Got the Power.”
“CBHN is calling on our community to step up, speak out, and get involved. Increasing the participation of Black Californians in policymaking — across the health industry and public sector — is one of the most powerful ways we can drive change and save lives,” reads a message from the organization promoting this year’s BHEAW.
“Policy change is within your power and this week we’re in Sacramento with our Health Equity Advocacy Training (HEAT) Program Cohort 3 to uplift issues impacting our community and advocate to help shape the policies and programs that will improve the health of current and future generations of Black Californians,” the message continued.
Focused on public awareness and information, this year’s BHEAW included a social media campaign, a rally and training program with vital information on medical conditions that have a disproportionate impact on Black Californians, including maternal mortality, mental health, diabetes, cancer and more.
For more information on the resolution or to join the movement, visit CBHN’s official site, www.cablackhealthnetwork.org.
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
MLK Bust Quietly Removed from Oval Office Under Trump
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 7 – 13, 2025
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of April 30 – May 6, 2025
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
Trump Abruptly Fires First Carla Hayden: The First Black Woman to Serve as Librarian of Congress
-
Activism1 week ago
New Oakland Moving Forward
-
Activism1 week ago
After Two Decades, Oakland Unified Will Finally Regain Local Control
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
Black America Celebrates African Descent Heritage of Pope Leo XIV
-
Alameda County1 week ago
Oakland Begins Month-Long Closure on Largest Homeless Encampment