https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5808929-healthcare-concerns-top-issue/

Health care polling as top issue for first time since 2020: Gallup
By Sophie Brams - March 31, 2026

Americans are more concerned about the availability and cost of health care than any other domestic issue, with it reclaiming the top spot for the first time since 2020, according to a new Gallup poll.

The poll, released Tuesday, found that 61 percent of the 1,000 adults surveyed said they worry a “great deal” about accessing and affording health care, while 23 percent expressed a “fair amount” of concern.

That is compared to 51 percent of respondents who said they were concerned a “great deal” about the economy and 50 percent who said the same about inflation — two issues that dominated public anxiety over the past several years, according to the survey.

Easing worries about the economy, inflation and Social Security meant health care reemerged as Americans’ leading concern, where it ranked consistently between 2015 and 2020 before being overtaken by economic issues during former President Biden’s term.

The percentage of people highly anxious about economic issues grew in the early months of President Trump’s second term but has since returned to 2024 levels, Gallup noted.

Those core issues were separated by just 1 percentage point in 2025, but the cost of health care now leads by 10 points, according to the survey.

The poll also found that what people were the most anxious about varied by political affiliation, with 80 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of independents expressing a “great deal” of concern about health care and 55 percent of Republicans saying they are greatly concerned with illegal immigration.

The poll was conducted March 2-17. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The fresh polling comes as tens of millions of Americans are grappling with the rising cost of health care and insurance following the expiration of ObamaCare subsidies.

The enhanced premium tax credits, first enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic and later expanded under the Biden administration, expired at the end of 2025 over the objection of Democrats, resulting in higher out-of-pocket costs and fewer Americans enrolling in coverage.

The House passed legislation in January to extend the subsidies for three years, but negotiations have stalled in the Senate.

Separate West Health/Gallup polling conducted earlier this month found that many Americans have changed their habits to afford health care, with roughly one-third of 19,535 respondents cutting back on expenses elsewhere.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2026/03/19/group-sues-over-buffer-zone-law-for-detroit-health-care-facilities/89225149007/

Group sues over buffer zone law for Detroit health care facilities
By Charles E. Ramirez - March 19, 2026
The Detroit News

Abortion opponents are suing the city of Detroit, claiming a 2024 ordinance that created buffer zones around health care facilities violates their right to free speech.

A civil complaint was filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit by the Thomas More Society, a Chicago public interest law firm, on behalf of a Michigan man and a Texas nonprofit that opposes abortion.

The suit names the city of Detroit as a defendant.

The plaintiffs, Sidewalk Advocates for Life, a group that offers "life-affirming alternatives to all present at abortion and abortion-referral facilities, thereby eliminating demand and ending abortion," and one of its certified "Sidewalk Advocates," Michigan resident and retired attorney Kevin Hammer, are seeking to block the city from enforcing the ordinance, $1 in damages, plus legal costs.

Sidewalk Advocates for Life operates its programs at some 230 facilities nationwide at more than 30% of abortion sites and reports at least 24,000 women chose life-affirming alternatives after engaging with its representatives, according to the complaint.

Hammer, according to court documents, has represented the group as a sidewalk advocate since about September 2025. The filing said he stands on the public walk outside of The Scotsdale Women’s Center on Seven Mile Road in Detroit for about 90 minutes on Fridays, offering information about free ultrasounds, pregnancy tests, and alternatives to abortion. The complaint said he also holds a 2-foot by 4-foot sign that says "Ask Me About Free Ultrasounds and Pregnancy Tests."

Hammer claims in the suit that the clinic staff has called the police on him more than once because of his activities. It said that at least twice, police officers have shown up. On one of those occasions, they arrived in five patrol cars.

Attorneys for Sidewalk Advocates for Life and Hammer argue in the complaint that Detroit's ordinance, "which is enforceable through criminal penalties, violates the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Freedom of Assembly Clauses of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as the Michigan Constitution."

City officials said on Thursday they had not yet seen the complaint.

Detroit City Councilwoman Gabriela Santiago-Romero proposed the ordinance that sparked the complaint in 2024 to provide unimpeded access to medical services and protect the First Amendment rights of demonstrators.

The council approved the ordinance in October 2024.

The law creates two types of zones, designated areas intended to create a physical or spatial separation between two or more entities or activities.

One zone is the area within a 100-foot radius of a health care facility's entrance, in which people are not allowed to get within 8 feet of another person to hand out a flier, hold a sign, or protest in other ways.

The second is the area within a 15-foot radius of a health care facility's entrance, in which people — except emergency, public safety, and security personnel — are prohibited from congregating, patrolling, picketing, or demonstrating.

Violations of the law are misdemeanors.

President Trump established the Religious Liberty Commission in Executive Order 14291 of May 1, 2025.  President Trump appointed Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick Chairman and Dr. Ben Carson as Vice Chair to lead the work. The Executive Order established the Commission within the Department of Justice (DoJ).

The Commission’s directive is to advise the White House Faith Office and the Domestic Policy Council on religious liberty policies of the United States, including by recommending steps to secure domestic religious liberty and identifying opportunities to further the cause of religious liberty around the world:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/03/17/religious-liberty-commission-hears-testimony-faith-conflicts-health-care-social-services/

https://www.justice.gov/religious-liberty-commission

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/establishment-of-the-religious-liberty-commission/

Religious Liberty Commission Hears Testimony on Faith Conflicts in Health Care, Social Services
By Reagan Campbell | March 17, 2026

The Religious Liberty Commission held a hearing at the Museum of the Bible on March 16 to examine religious liberty issues in health care and social services. Across multiple panels, witnesses described professional and legal consequences they said followed decisions to practice their faith.

Testimony came from parents, physicians, counselors, and faith leaders who addressed topics including gender ideology, abortion, vaccines, and assisted suicide. Several witnesses said government mandates and institutional policies have made it increasingly difficult to practice their religion without fear of losing a job, professional standing, or access to education.

Gender Ideology in Institutions

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado, testified about state laws governing counseling conversations involving gender identity. She said the law required her to affirm gender transitions for minors, even when that conflicted with a client’s goals.

“Young people wrestling with identity deserve counselors who are free to speak, ask questions, listen with compassion, and walk alongside them in their search for hope and restoration,” Chiles said.

Physician Assistant Valerie Kloosterman told the commission she lost her job after refusing to complete mandatory, company-wide training at the University of Michigan that required affirming statements about gender identity. Kloosterman said she requested religious accommodation but was denied and ultimately terminated for declining to comply.

The witnesses said their experiences reflect growing pressure on professionals when institutional policies conflict with religious conscience.

Abortion

Abby Sinnett, a nurse practitioner and founder and CEO of Bella Health + Wellness in Colorado, testified about state restrictions on abortion pill reversal. Sinnett said Colorado became the first state to prohibit prescribing progesterone to women who took the first abortion pill and later decided to continue their pregnancies.

“Unfortunately, lawmakers in my home state of Colorado disagreed … they became the first state … to make it illegal to give progesterone for abortion pill reversal,” Sinnett said. Progesterone remains legal in Colorado for other medical uses, including infertility treatment and miscarriage prevention.

Susan Bane, an obstetrician-gynecologist, testified about practicing medicine as a Catholic physician and resisting pressure to participate in abortion procedures during her training and career.

“As an OBGYN, I take care of two patients—a maternal and a fetal patient. A mom and her baby,” Bane said. “So, the direct and intentional killing of one of those patients is never health care. It never was, and it never will be.”

Assisted Suicide

Dr. Leslee Cochrane, a hospice physician in California, testified against physician-assisted suicide laws that require doctors who object on moral grounds to document requests and refer patients to willing providers.

“Assisted suicide is never medically necessary to manage pain,” Cochrane said. “The American Medical Association has stated that it’s fundamentally incompatible with a physician’s role as a healer and would pose grave societal risk.”

Cochrane described caring for a deeply religious patient whose family pressured her to consider assisted suicide despite not being in pain, saying the case demonstrated how vulnerable patients can be influenced and why physicians must retain the freedom to protect patients and follow their conscience.

Dr. Kenneth Prager, a pulmonologist and director of clinical ethics at Columbia University Medical Center, distinguished between withdrawing life support and intentionally causing death.

He warned that legalizing medical aid in dying may “lead to a slippery slope,” citing expanded eligibility for assisted suicide in Canada and parts of Europe, and emphasized protecting religious freedom in end-of-life care.

Vaccine Mandates and Education

Several parents testified that religious objections to childhood vaccinations resulted in their children being excluded from school. One mother said New York’s 2019 repeal of the religious exemption barred her children from public education despite her good health, while students with medical exemptions were still allowed to attend.

The commission’s findings will inform ongoing debates over how state and federal policies should balance religious freedom with evolving medical and social standards.

• Chief of Staff at United Memorial Medical Center
• Chairman of the Board at United General Hospital
• President of the Independent Medical Alliance
• Professor of Acute and Continuing Care at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston
• Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston

Dr. Varon takes exception to the muzzling of physicians which began during the COVID pandemic as public health officers ruthlessly stifled all medical challenges to politically approved treatments:

https://brownstone.org/articles/what-covid-policy-did-to-doctors-who-refused-to-stay-silent/

What Covid Policy Did to Doctors Who Refused to Stay Silent
By Joseph Varon - March 14, 2026

The sound I remember most from the early days of Covid-19 is not the alarms. It was the silence between them. Intensive care units became Covid wards. Monitors glowed in dark rooms while ventilators pushed air into failing lungs. Nurses, shrouded in protective gear, moved quietly. Families were absent—barred from being with loved ones in their final hours.

One night at 3 am, I stood by a patient whose oxygen levels were steadily falling. Outside the room, another patient crashed. Down the hall, a third awaited intubation. For months, this was every night. For 715 consecutive days, I worked in that environment without taking a single day off. In moments like that, medicine becomes very simple. There are no politics in an ICU at 3 am. There is only a physician and a patient, and the responsibility to do everything possible to keep that patient alive.

That philosophy has guided physicians for generations. It is the foundation of clinical medicine: when a patient is dying, you explore every reasonable option that might help.

Yet during Covid, something extraordinary happened. What made the shift so jarring was not simply the presence of disagreement. Physicians have always disagreed. In fact, disagreement is the normal language of medicine. Grand rounds exist for that reason. Journal clubs exist for that reason. The entire structure of scientific publication—from peer review to replication—exists because medicine advances through argument, not obedience. During the pandemic, however, the culture of medicine changed almost overnight. Instead of asking whether a treatment might work, institutions began asking whether discussing that treatment might create the wrong public message. The priority quietly shifted from discovery to control.

Scientific debate faded. Physicians who questioned policies or explored treatments were treated as threats rather than colleagues. Instead of debate, there was enforcement.

Hospitals warned physicians to stay quiet. Medical boards hinted at disciplinary action. Social media platforms censored discussion of therapies that doctors around the world were actively studying. Media outlets portrayed dissenting physicians as reckless or dangerous. What had once been normal scientific discourse was suddenly labeled misinformation.

To physicians trained in earlier decades, this shift was deeply unsettling. Medicine has always lived with uncertainty. Treatments begin as hypotheses and evolve through observation and debate. During the AIDS crisis, clinicians tried multiple strategies before effective therapies emerged. The same was true for sepsis, trauma care, and organ transplantation. No one expected immediate unanimity. Yet during Covid, uncertainty itself became suspect. If a physician acknowledged that evidence was incomplete—or that clinical experience suggested alternative approaches—those statements were sometimes interpreted as challenges to authority rather than contributions to knowledge.

For those of us working inside the ICU, the shift was startling. Medicine had always thrived on disagreement. Physicians argued over treatment strategies, debated emerging evidence, and learned from one another’s experiences. The process was messy, sometimes loud, and occasionally uncomfortable—but it was also the engine of medical progress. During Covid, that process was replaced by something else entirely: the expectation of unanimity. I experienced this transformation firsthand.

During the pandemic, I spoke publicly about what I was seeing inside the ICU—what treatments appeared to help, what policies seemed ineffective, and why physicians needed the freedom to treat patients according to their clinical judgment.

Those comments triggered a reaction that made clear how medical freedom—a core value of our profession—had come under threat. Professional attacks followed, and colleagues were pressured to distance themselves. Invitations disappeared. Media narratives were constructed that bore little resemblance to the reality many of us were witnessing inside hospitals. But perhaps the most revealing response was silence.

Privately, many physicians admitted that the environment had become toxic for honest scientific discussion. In quiet conversations they would agree that open debate had been replaced by institutional pressure. Publicly, however, very few were willing to risk speaking. I chose not to remain silent.

That silence did not necessarily mean physicians agreed with what was happening. More often it meant they understood the risks of speaking. Hospitals depend on reputations. Universities depend on funding. Physicians depend on licenses. When the boundaries of acceptable opinion begin to narrow, most professionals instinctively step back. It is not cowardice; it is survival. But the cumulative effect of that silence is profound. When enough physicians remain quiet, the illusion of consensus begins to replace the reality of debate.

Over the course of the pandemic, I gave more than 4,000 television and media interviews, attempting to explain what physicians were seeing on the front lines and defending the principle that doctors must be allowed to think, question, and treat patients according to their best clinical judgment. The experience was both exhausting and illuminating. Again and again, I found myself explaining basic principles of medicine to audiences who had been told that questioning official policy was somehow dangerous.

Medicine has never advanced through silence. Every major breakthrough in medical history, from antibiotics to organ transplantation, began with physicians willing to challenge prevailing assumptions. Scientific progress depends on disagreement. It requires physicians to ask uncomfortable questions and explore possibilities that established authorities may initially reject. When debate is replaced by enforced consensus, science ceases to function.

That decision to speak carried consequences. Professionally and financially, the cost was substantial. The controversy surrounding Covid treatment debates resulted in lost opportunities, canceled collaborations, and significant professional retaliation. The economic impact was severe, resulting in roughly a 60 percent reduction in my income, a consequence that continues to this day.

Financial pressure has always been one of the most effective tools for enforcing conformity in any profession. Medicine is no exception. Physicians spend decades training, accumulate significant professional responsibilities, and depend on institutional relationships to practice. When controversy threatens those relationships, the safest option is often to say nothing. Many doctors understood this reality during Covid. Some quietly expressed agreement in private conversations but made clear they could not say so publicly. In that environment, silence became the profession’s default posture. For many physicians, that kind of pressure is enough to ensure silence. But the financial cost was never the hardest part.

What made the experience even more disturbing was watching what happened to colleagues who chose to speak openly. Some physicians lost hospital privileges almost overnight. Others faced medical board investigations triggered not by patient complaints, but by their public statements or willingness to question prevailing policies. Careers built over decades were suddenly placed under threat. A number of doctors saw research collaborations vanish, academic appointments quietly withdrawn, and professional reputations publicly attacked. The message became unmistakable: disagreement would carry consequences.

The personal toll was often even greater. Financial pressure, professional isolation, and relentless public scrutiny spilled into physicians’ private lives. I watched colleagues struggle as marriages fractured under the strain of media attacks, legal battles, and the sudden collapse of careers they had spent their lives building. Some left clinical practice entirely. Others retreated from public discussion simply to protect their families. The pandemic revealed something few physicians had previously experienced—the realization that speaking honestly about patient care could place not only one’s career at risk, but one’s personal life as well.

The hardest part was watching medicine surrender one of its most essential principles: the freedom to think and speak for patients. The pandemic response exposed how vulnerable modern medicine has become to political pressure, institutional fear, and media narratives. Decisions that should have remained within the realm of clinical judgment were increasingly dictated by bureaucratic authority.

In theory, medicine is guided by science. In practice, during Covid, it often appeared to be guided by messaging. That realization has prompted an important effort to document what happened during the pandemic and to ensure that physicians’ experiences are not erased from the historical record. One such effort is the COVID Justice initiative, which seeks to collect and document the stories of doctors, nurses, scientists, and patients affected by pandemic policies. The COVID Justice Resolution is an attempt to ensure that the suppression of scientific debate, the censorship of physicians, and the professional retaliation many experienced are openly acknowledged rather than quietly forgotten. The goal is not vengeance. It is accountability and transparency.

If the medical profession refuses to confront what happened during the pandemic—if it pretends that physicians were not pressured, censored, or punished—then the same mistakes will almost certainly be repeated during the next public health crisis.

History shows that institutions rarely correct themselves without accountability. On the front lines, many of us witnessed something deeply troubling: modern medicine’s increasing dependence on bureaucratic authority. When that authority collides with bedside care, physicians can find themselves forced to choose between professional safety and patient advocacy. Every doctor eventually faces that choice. During Covid, many of us faced it together. Some chose silence. Others chose to speak.

Speaking came with consequences. It costs reputations, careers, and, in many cases, substantial income. But the alternative—remaining silent while scientific debate was suppressed and physicians were discouraged from thinking independently—would have been a far greater betrayal of the profession.

Medicine cannot survive if doctors fear speaking freely and challenging consensus on behalf of their patients.

The next public health crisis will come. That is inevitable. When it does, the profession must remember what happened during Covid: how easily fear can replace reason, how quickly debate can be labeled dangerous, and how fragile scientific freedom becomes when institutions decide that certain questions are no longer allowed.

The real lesson of the pandemic is not about a virus. It is about the courage required to defend the integrity of medicine itself. Physicians must remain free to question, to debate, and to innovate in the service of their patients. Without that freedom, medicine becomes little more than bureaucratic compliance dressed in a white coat. And patients deserve far better than that. Because when physicians lose the freedom to question, patients lose something far more precious: the possibility that someone, somewhere, will be willing to challenge the rules in order to save their life.

That is the real price of speaking. The only question now is whether the medical profession still has the courage to pay it.

https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/news/u-s-supreme-court-delivers-historic-groundbreaking-victory-for-parental-rights-dismantles-californias-secret-gender-transition-regime

March 2, 2026

U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Historic, Groundbreaking Victory for Parental Rights, Dismantles California’s Secret Gender Transition Regime

Supreme Court rules that California cannot hide children’s gender transitions from parents; landmark decision protects parental rights nationwide

Washington, D.C. – In a historic and groundbreaking ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court today granted the Thomas More Society’s emergency application in Mirabelli v. Bonta, holding that secret gender transition policies in schools violate the religious liberty and due process rights of parents. The ruling restores the class action injunction that Thomas More Society had secured against the State of California for parents across the state who object to the state’s directives requiring schools to conceal children’s gender transitions from their own parents, facilitate those transitions without parental knowledge or consent, and compel teachers to actively deceive families.

The landmark 6-3 decision is the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation. The Court found that California’s secret transition regime likely violates parents’ rights under both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, holding that the state “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri and Jonna LLP. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back. The Court’s landmark reaffirmation of substantive due process, its vindication of religious liberty, and its approval of class-wide relief together set a historic precedent that will dismantle secret gender transition policies across the country.”

Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society, added, “No more can bureaucrats secretly facilitate a child’s gender transition while shutting out parents. California built a wall of secrecy between parents and their own children, and the Supreme Court just tore it down. This groundbreaking ruling will protect parents’ rights to raise their children as they see fit for years to come.”

On the First Amendment, the Court declared that California’s “unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition” is an even greater intrusion on parents’ rights than the government actions struck down in last year’s Mahmoud v. Taylor. The Court’s forceful reaffirmation of substantive due process sets a landmark precedent for parental rights nationwide, holding that parents, not the state, hold primary authority over “the upbringing and education of children,” including the right not to be “shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”

The Court also rejected the Ninth Circuit’s attempt to dismantle the class certification, finding that the parents protected by the injunction “very likely have standing” and that “class certification was likely proper.” This precedent-setting holding ensures that the injunction protects not just the named plaintiffs but entire classes of California parents—effectively shielding teachers as well, since the class-wide parental victory prohibits the very policies that teachers were being compelled to enforce.

The ruling reinstates U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s December 2025 decision on behalf of statewide class of parents, finding California’s secret gender transition regime unconstitutional.

Alongside Jonna and Breen, on the petition are Jeff Trissell, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society and Attorney at LiMandri & Jonna LLP; Michael McHale, Senior Counsel at Thomas More Society; and Christopher Galiardo, Staff Counsel at Thomas More Society.

Thomas More Society, a conservative Roman Catholic public-interest law firm based in Chicago, describes members as Guardians of Justice.

Since 1998, Thomas More Society has steadfastly preserved the rich heritage of American liberty. Our distinguished track record showcases an unwavering commitment to defending your fundamental rights to life, family, and freedom.

Watch the interview at the link; clipped here for length.

https://answersingenesis.org/family/greater-than-seeks-overturn-gay-marriage-for-children/

New Coalition, Greater Than, Seeks to Overturn Gay “Marriage” for the Sake of Children

Children have the right to their mother and father. That’s the basic premise behind Greater Than, a new coalition headed up by child’s rights advocacy group Them Before Us, that is seeking to overturn the disastrous 2015 Obergefell decision that legalized gay “marriage” in America.

Also recommended: Church, State, and Family: Reconciling Traditional Teachings and Modern Liberties, by John Witte, Jr.

While I don't agree with all his views, I found fascinating how many centuries of history he documents showing the belief in children's right to parents. 

https://www.mackinac.org/31930

A Loss that Brought Great Gain: Court of Appeals Affirms Major Questions Doctrine

Derk Wilcox    |    April 22, 2024

The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation recently lost a case but still won a long-term victory. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled against us in a case that became moot when the Legislature acted. In its ruling, however, the court announced that it was following the major questions doctrine, which is associated with Clarence Thomas and the originalist members of the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of the most pressing problems of government today is that many of our laws can be made by unelected bureaucrats. At all levels of government, administrative agencies make most of the laws that we must obey. In 2023, federal agencies enacted 46 rules for every law enacted by Congress and the president, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Defenders of these administrative laws say they deal with matters too complicated for the democratic process. But national and state constitutions require legislatures, not agencies, to write the laws that govern us, no matter how complicated the topic.

Our system of government relies on the separation of powers. The legislative branch writes the laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the judicial branch settles disputes about the meaning of the laws. This system keeps power from being consolidated in the hands of one branch. Administrative law, however, shares power between the branches and allows an agency to police itself without answering to the courts or the electorate. Under the major questions doctrine, legislators and courts, not agencies, have final say on rules and regulations with large economic impacts.

The problem of unaccountability is a national one. But thanks to the Mackinac Center and this Court of Appeals ruling, the judicial branch has kept the administrative state in check. The Legal Foundation persuaded our courts to follow the major questions doctrine. The United States Supreme Court has adopted this doctrine in a series of opinions, striking down major changes to laws by administrative bureaucracies. Examples include agencies forgiving student loans, treating nicotine as an FDA-controlled drug, and restructuring the electric grid to fight climate change.

Supporters of the administrative state have reacted to this doctrine with alarm. The New York Times legal columnist dubs it “the doctrine that threatens Biden’s agenda.”

The Court of Appeals announcement is another of many victories by the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation in our fight against the governmental overreach that is inevitable when administrative bureaucracies make laws. The Legal Foundation persuaded the courts that the governor’s emergency orders during COVID were unconstitutional. Before that, we persuaded the Michigan Supreme Court to adopt the policy that courts need not defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Michigan is now the first state to recognize and follow the major questions doctrine. This shows the power of challenging government overreach in the courts. Even when the Legal Foundation lost a battle, we still won a major victory.

Derk Wilcox is the Senior Attorney at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and a member of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation legal team. He joined the Center in June 2012. 

As the Mackinac Center’s senior attorney, Wilcox has, among other things, litigated cases challenging the constitutionality of taxes on tourism; challenged local bans on short-term home rentals; made governments and universities comply with Freedom of Information Act requests; and protected teachers and other public employees from being forced to stay in or pay unions.

On behalf of the Center, Wilcox has testified before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.  He has also testified before the Michigan Civil Service Commission, and the Michigan House Oversight Committee.

Prior to joining the Mackinac Center, he represented clients in a range of civil matters including litigation involving business disputes, construction and lien law, franchise contracts, real estate ownership/management disputes, and Uniform Commercial Code issues. He has also represented patients in the state's mental-health care system and disabled clients in the probate courts. 

Wilcox also spent ten years with Economics America, Inc., an economic consulting firm where he assisted in econometric forecasting.

Wilcox received his law degree from Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Mich., where he was a recipient of the Thomas More Full-Tuition Scholarship. He also holds a masters of arts in economics from University of Detroit, Mercy and a bachelor of arts in political science and economics from the University of Michigan.

Wilcox lives in Dexter, Mich.

Score one for constitutional government and healthcare freedom from academic ideological oppression of the professions.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/02/on-dei-a-victory.php

On DEI, a Victory

At the beginning of his administration, President Trump issued two executive orders directing federal agencies to end DEI programs in federal grant and contract processes. Those orders were challenged by plaintiffs that included the City of Baltimore, the American Association of University Professors and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. Those plaintiffs sought, and obtained, a preliminary injunction in the district court, preventing implementation of the President’s orders.

Today the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision by two Obama appointees and a Trump appointee, reversed the district court and allowed the Trump administration to implement the executive orders. As usual, the decision was concerned largely with standing and ripeness issues. When Chief Judge Albert Diaz got to the merits, the court’s reasoning was straightforward:

The President may determine his policy priorities and instruct his agents to make funding decisions based on them. See generally 2 C.F.R. § 200.340(a)(4) (2025). President Trump has decided that equity isn’t a priority in his administration and so has directed his subordinates to terminate funding that supports equity-related projects to the maximum extent allowed by law. Whether that’s sound policy or not isn’t our call. We ask only whether the policy is unconstitutionally vague for funding recipients.

The court then rejected the plaintiffs’ First Amendment argument:

The First Amendment precludes the government from “abridging the freedom of speech.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. I). So generally, “the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995).

But this case arises in the funding context. There, as we’ve explained, the government “has wide latitude to set spending priorities” and “to ch to fund one activity to the exclusion of the other.” Finley, 524 U.S. at 588 (citation modified). But again, the latitude isn’t limitless. …

To start, to make out a First Amendment claim, “laintiffs must show that the certification requirement impermissibly restricts their ability to engage in protected speech.” Nat’l Urban League, 783 F. Supp. 3d at 102. But the Provision requires only that plaintiffs certify compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws, which the First Amendment doesn’t confer a right to violate. See S.F. AIDS Found., 786 F. Supp. 3d at 1222 (“hile the First Amendment may protect speech that advocates for violation of law, it does not protect activities that directly violate antidiscrimination law.”). Put another way, plaintiffs have no protectable speech interest in operating, and “no constitutional right to operate DEI programs that violate federal antidiscrimination law.” Nat’l Urban League, 783 F. Supp. 3d at 102.

This wasn’t a close case. Is there any serious question that the Executive Branch, in directing grants, can adhere to the priorities of the Executive Branch? And how can it be controversial to require grant recipients to certify that they are not violating federal antidiscrimination law?

And yet, these plaintiffs won in the trial court, and were supported on appeal by an array of amici that included 18 states and a number of private employers, along with other organizations–the establishment, in effect. Basically, these parties argued for the proposition that the federal government must adhere to liberal ideology, no matter what the electorate might vote for, and no matter what the Constitution and federal law may provide. That is, indeed, the Democratic Party’s position, and it was expressed starkly in this case.

That view has been defeated, at least for the moment, and the Executive Branch has been freed to do what Americans voted for. It should be noted, however, that liberals, through their frivolous lawsuit and with the connivance of a Democratic Party judge, delayed for a year implementation of the Trump administration’s requirement that federal grantees not engage in illegal discrimination.

https://centerformodernhealth.org/publications/how-not-to-sell-free-market-healthcare-ideas

How Not to Sell Free-Market Healthcare Ideas
The reason to favor free markets in healthcare is that freedom and markets are good, not that the government is wasteful or bad.
By Reinier Schuur and Jared Rhoads - February 2026

The prospect of expiring ACA tax subsidies created a unique moment in American health policy in December of 2025, opening the door to serious free-market reforms. Multiple market-oriented ideas were proposed, including rolling back coverage mandates, expanding consumer power through health savings accounts, and taking steps to improve price transparency and competition.

A month later, the momentum and seriousness behind these proposals has faltered. Trump's Great Healthcare Plan, for example, only pays lip service to Health Savings Accounts, offering little clarity on how they would be implemented or how they would make healthcare more affordable. This loss of clarity and interest reflects a deeper failure to sell free markets to the American people.

A weak and uninspiring argument

Free-market healthcare is often presented as rebuttal: common-sense ways to address budget overruns, website glitches on the exchanges, fraud, and administrative waste. The implicit logic is, "because the government has failed on healthcare, we should give free markets a chance to succeed."

Real as these failures are, this is actually a weak and uninspiring argument for markets in healthcare. It quietly concedes the premise that if the government were only competent enough, it should be in charge of securing healthcare for everyone. This grants the moral high ground to those who want the government to take on a greater role in healthcare, making it harder to even imagine an alternative.

Take Obamacare, for example. The real case against Obamacare runs deeper than government mismanagement, inefficiency, or any amount of fraud, waste, or abuse. Yes, Obamacare performed poorly and failed to make healthcare affordable in any lasting way, but this was a predictable outcome. In its essence, Obamacare redistributed resources and instituted new controls on consumers, providers, and insurance companies. Consumers were no longer free to decide whether to insure themselves, what to insure against, or how much coverage to buy (except within federally defined parameters). Providers became subject to new federal influence over their behavior, through regulated payment models rather than explicit price-setting. Insurers shifted from being product designers in a competitive market to regulated administrators of a government-defined insurance product. The common denominator across those areas of change was that top-down rules and regulations were instituted where freedom ought to exist.

Health as a personal value that requires freedom

Not respecting freedom is a problem. Health is a personal value that requires freedom to create and achieve between producers and consumers. The government cannot and should not undertake the project of trying to "secure" a personal value such as health. "Healthcare security" sounds compassionate, but in practice it means the government taking away your freedom of choice in healthcare and making your healthcare choices for you. Think of all the ways in which the relationship between patients, doctors, and insurers are fraught with uncertainty, distrust, and anxiety. That is all the consequences of the government trying to secure your healthcare by interfering with producers and consumers, and deciding what must be covered, what may be charged, which insurance plans may exist, and ultimately who gets what, when. The ideal of government-given healthcare security is not just practically impossible; it is morally undesirable.

Health isn't something the government can or should secure, because health is a deeply personal value. It's something that you pursue with the help of medical professionals and institutions, in a world where knowledge changes and needs vary. And crucially, the freedom to make decisions about your own health requires the freedom to decide how to pay for your own health. If you are not free to decide how to pay for your own healthcare then you are not fully free to pursue it with those who can provide it to you. The moral case for markets in healthcare is that adults should be free to make choices about their own lives, and that professionals should be free to offer better ways to meet those needs.

Underselling the moral and practical potential of freedom in healthcare

Attacking the government for being slow, heavy-handed, or incompetent in healthcare may be a way to score political points against opponents, but it does a disservice by shifting the focus away from the positive transformative potential of free markets and free individuals. It undersells both the moral and practical potential of freedom in healthcare. Market-oriented ideas are the path toward greater options, greater competition, greater innovation, and greater personal control over one's own pursuit of health in partnership with the professionals and businesses that you choose to deal with. The test for a reform idea shouldn't be merely, "Does it shrink the budget?" but rather, "Does it expand the freedom of patients to choose, and does it expand the freedom of medical professionals and entrepreneurs to serve them better?"

A healthcare system built on that principle won't be a fallback or a second-best alternative. It will be a system that respects people as capable adults and treats them as such.

Reinier Schuur is a Visiting Fellow at the Center for Modern Health. Jared Rhoads is Executive Director of the Center for Modern Health.

https://nypost.com/2026/01/26/opinion/left-is-sick-for-threatening-to-deny-medical-care-over-politics/

The left is truly sick for threatening to deny medical care — and wishing physical harm — to people it disagrees with
By Kirsten Fleming - January 26, 2026

The left is truly sick if it thinks denying medical care or wishing physical harm to patients it doesn’t politically align with should be standard operating procedure.

“I will not perform anesthesia for any surgeries or procedures for MAGA. It is my right, it is my ethical oath, and I stand behind my education,” Florida nurse Erik Martindale recently wrote on Facebook. “I own all of my own businesses and I can refuse anyone!”

After the post went viral, Martindale conveniently claimed he was hacked on Facebook and Instagram. Sure you were.

Personally, I’d like to better understand Martindale’s screening process. Does he explicitly ask patients how they voted — or conduct an investigation into their social media posts and political donations? Maybe he eyes their cars, looking for telltale bumper stickers.

Perhaps he can hire Lexie Lawler to assist in his investigations.

The labor and delivery nurse at Baptist Health Boca Raton Regional Hospital in Florida was fired last week after she took to social media to wish bodily harm to pregnant White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

In a video referencing Leavitt’s upcoming delivery, Lawler boldly said, “I hope you f–king rip from bow to stern and never s–t normally again, you c–t.”

Would you trust this lady to help deliver your baby?

Apply that wicked, exclusionary policy to skin color, religion or ethnicity and you would be, well, a bigot.

But because the left claims a monopoly on compassion, leftists truly see this all as righteous.

In reality, not only are expressions like Lawler’s a gross violation of oath, they erode the foundation of our civilized society.

Even stranger, these people are unhinged enough to publicly proclaim their prejudice, perhaps because they think everyone decent agrees with their twisted worldview.

Of course, two rogue nurses do not represent an entire honorable occupation — one that has long been associated with superhuman compassion.

But there seems to be a troubling rise in mixing politics and medical care.

Just last week, three NYPD plainclothes detectives were reportedly hassled by staff at NYU Langone in Cobble Hill because the health care workers mistook them for ICE agents.

When three NYPD plainclothes detectives sought medical care at NYU Langone Cobble Hill recently, they were reportedly disrespected by staff, who mistook them for federal ICE agents.

They went into the ER after being spat on by a drug suspect, and what should have been a routine visit quickly went south.

Two of the detectives “heard members of the hospital staff say something to the effect of believing they were ICE and that they should care elsewhere,” according to the department.

(The hospital later expressed “regret for how the situation was handled and reaffirmed our commitment to continue providing the highest quality care to the New York Police Department and all law enforcement agencies.”)

Last year, two pathetic nurses in Sydney, Australia, were sacked after bragging on TikTok that they would kill Israeli patients. There have been other doctors fired for posting antisemitic rants that call into question their ability to render care without bias.

Meanwhile, Israeli doctors regularly care for Palestinian patients — not because they align politically, but because the practitioners recognize that the patients are human and deserve care. An oath means something to them.

Just last week, I had a conversation with another person who is also publicly right of center. They recently had surgery and, when asked by medical staff what they did for a living, they kept their answer vague lest anyone be triggered by a difference in opinion.

It sounds paranoid, but I understood it.

When I had a minor procedure last year, the chatty anesthesiologist asked what I did for a living. I first said I wrote. After a series of follow-up questions, I said I worked for “The Post.”

He asked which one: New York or Washington? When I said New York, he went on a rant about how cowardly the Washington Post was to not endorse Kamala Harris for the presidency.

Well, I am on record as saying that Harris was the worst candidate ever — and this man was about to inject me with sleepy-time juice.

I assume he was simply making small talk, and I kind of laughed to myself and forgot about it.

But it certainly didn’t make me clamor for more of his partisan bedside manner.

We’re living in very charged times, but we should be able to agree on one thing: Doctors and nurses should never apply a political purity test to decide if someone deserves medical care.