The decision, announced in a filing in a federal court in Texas, is a rare departure from the Justice Department's practice of defending federal laws in court.
Late Thursday, the department said the health law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance will become unconstitutional next year and so will consumer protections forbidding insurers to deny coverage to sick customers or charge them more.
"I'm running for Congress because previous year, during the lead up to my son's birth, our doctor told my wife and I that our son may not survive or have a serious health condition for the rest of his life", Kim said Friday.
The Trump administration has elected not to defend key parts of the Affordable Care Act against a sweeping legal challenge filed by a group of conservative states, marking an unusual departure from the Justice Department's traditional responsibility to safeguard federal law. Without the tax, Texas' says, the rest of the law falls.
However, the Trump administration believes the provision of the ACA guaranteeing affordable rates to those with pre-existing conditions must be thrown out with the individual mandate.
"For three such respected DOJ attorneys to do so simultaneously - just hours before a major filing, and without replacement by any other career lawyers other than a rookie - is simply flabbergasting".
The U.S. Supreme Court had upheld the law's individual mandate in 2012 under Congress' taxing power.
While the ACA has been the target of a sharply divided and partisan debate for almost a decade, pre-existing protections are one of the most popular actions Congress has taken in modern times. Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey, Education and the Workforce Ranking Member Bobby Scott, Virginia, and Ways and Means Ranking Member Richard Neal, Massachusetts, said the move by the DOJ breaks with the department's tradition of defending federal laws, regardless of whether it supports the underlying policies. But under the GOP tax bill signed into law last December, tax penalties for people without insurance were eliminated.
"In refusing to follow bipartisan tradition and defend the ACA in the USA federal court system, the Trump administration is nakedly admitting that it wants to eliminate protections for people with pre-existing conditions, breaking a promise that the president has made time and again", said Topher Spiro, vice president of health policy at the Center for American Progress.
The Justice Department legal position nevertheless signals a remarkable willingness by the Trump administration to abandon landmark consumer protections in the health care law that for the first time prohibit health insurers from turning away sick consumers.
Ex-Senate intelligence aide charged with lying about reporter contacts
It was the first known instance during the Trump administration of the Justice Department going after a reporter's data. Through the indictments , it shows Times reporter Ali Watkins had a romantic relationship with Wolfe for three years.
Five reasons why the SCO summit is important
The President said that China Pakistan Economic Corridor was an important part of Belt and Road Project. President Donald Trump's scheduled meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on June 12.
Verstappen keeps it clean in Canada to be fastest in practice
"But as I said at the start, I am exhausted of these questions and if I get any more I am going to head-butt someone". Mercedes were first out in Q3 and smashed the records, Bottas topping Hamilton in 1:10.857 before Vettel beat that.
A coalition of 20 states led by attorneys from Texas and Wisconsin sued the government in February for the repeal of the Obamacare provisions.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., released a letter with other top Democratic senators demanding the administration reverse the move, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee wasted no time blasting out news releases questioning whether Republican candidates agreed with the administration. Congress recently repealed a provision that people without health insurance must pay a fine. But the Justice Department now says it won't defend a key part of the law in court.
Nevertheless, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, criticized the Trump administration in a statement. It will lead to "renewed uncertainty in the individual market" and a "patchwork of requirements in the states" and make it more challenging to offer coverage next year.
The Justice Department concurred, saying the court should consider ordering that as of January 1, two popular parts of the law will be invalid: that people with preexisting conditions must receive coverage, and that they can not be charged more than healthier consumers.
In short: The federal government is declining to defend federal law.
"Democrats will not allow Republicans to get away with quietly trying to strip away pre-existing conditions protections for millions of Americans through a legal back door", said Rep.
Both of these types of policies are expected to have lower premiums, but would cover fewer benefits - making them more attractive to healthier Americans who don't need comprehensive coverage.
"Texans have known all along that Obamacare is unlawful and a divided Supreme Court's approval rested exclusively on the flimsy support of Congress's authority to tax", said Paxton when the suit was filed.
"It's highly unlikely NY would take away consumer protections it has put in place", said a spokeswoman for the state Health Plan Association.