the empire strikes back

[little2add]

WASHINGTON ― The Obama administration has proposed a new rule that would prevent states from defunding Planned Parenthood or any other family planning provider for political reasons. 

The new rule, which the Department of Health and Human Services proposed last week, says that states cannot withhold Title X federal family planning money from certain recipients for any reason other than the provider’s “ability to deliver services to program beneficiaries in an effective manner.” That means states can no longer vote to defund Planned Parenthood because some of its clinics offer abortion services. 

“This will make a real difference in so many people’s lives,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood. “Thanks to the Obama administration, women will still be able to access the birth control they need to plan their families, and the cancer screenings they need to stay healthy.”

 

 

[CatherineM]

They don't do cancer screenings. 

[Peace]

New president. New agency head. Change the rule.

[Didacus]

Trump train has come to Washington...  maybe things will change?  Who knows....

 

Choo - choo...

Edited December 16, 2016 by Didacus

[Socrates]

And people wonder why pro-lifers and conservatives despise his presidency so much . . . ("Must be because he's black!")

 

On 12/15/2016 at 5:51 PM, Peace said:

New president. New agency head. Change the rule.

We can hope.  But the president and his underlings have absolutely no power whatever under the Constitution to make and impose such rules on the states.  The states should refuse to comply.

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

And people wonder why pro-lifers and conservatives despise his presidency so much . . . ("Must be because he's black!")

 

We can hope.  But the president and his underlings have absolutely no power whatever under the Constitution to make and impose such rules on the states.  The states should refuse to comply.

I am pretty sure those restrictions are constitutional. It is Federal money. You can't force states to take it, but you can condition acceptance on compliance with how the money is distributed.

If you are suggesting that the states turn down the money altogether I think that works.

[Papist]

13 hours ago, Peace said:

I am pretty sure those restrictions are constitutional. It is Federal taxpayer's money. You can't force states to take it, but you can condition acceptance on compliance with how the money is distributed.

If you are suggesting that the states turn down the money altogether I think that works.

Fixed.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Papist said:

Fixed.

If it is yours why don't you walk down to Uncle Sam and ask for it back? See how that goes.

It was taxpayer's money. It is now Federal money because the government took it from you.

[dominicansoul]

his legacy will take him to hell if he doesn't repent of his actions

[Papist]

45 minutes ago, Peace said:

If it is yours why don't you walk down to Uncle Sam and ask for it back? See how that goes.

It was taxpayer's money. It is now Federal money because the government took it from you.

Glad to see you recognizing it is stealing. 

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Papist said:

Glad to see you recognizing it is stealing. 

I recognize that you don't understand the Church's teaching on theft.

[Papist]

28 minutes ago, Peace said:

I recognize that you don't understand the Church's teaching on theft.

Please enlighten me on the Church's teaching on theft?

[Peace]

7 minutes ago, Papist said:

Please enlighten me on the Church's teaching on theft?

You may start here.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm

Edited December 21, 2016 by Peace

[Socrates]

23 hours ago, Peace said:

I am pretty sure those restrictions are constitutional. It is Federal money. You can't force states to take it, but you can condition acceptance on compliance with how the money is distributed.

If you are suggesting that the states turn down the money altogether I think that works.

It's certainly not among the enumerated powers granted the president by the constitution.  This would amount to an act of legislation, which belongs to the legislative branch (Congress), not the executive.  And the power of the purse belongs to Congress constitutionally, not the president.

And no, I can't "condition acceptance on compliance on how the money is distributed," and neither can your Dear Leader, lawfully.

But yes, I realize he has lots of precedent of presidential lawlessness to build his godless tyranny on.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

It's certainly not among the enumerated powers granted the president by the constitution.  This would amount to an act of legislation, which belongs to the legislative branch (Congress), not the executive.  And the power of the purse belongs to Congress constitutionally, not the president.

And no, I can't "condition acceptance on compliance on how the money is distributed," and neither can your Dear Leader, lawfully.

But yes, I realize he has lots of precedent of presidential lawlessness to build his godless tyranny on.

How is your Dear Leader Trump doing? Still "grabbing women by the p****" and doing the other things that led you to vote for him?

The rule is not in the form of an executive order, it is an agency rule. Congress allocates the money to the agency. The statute likely grants the agency a certain scope to make rules. I don't have time to pull up the title and analyze whether the rule in is within the scope authorized by the statute, but assuming that it is then the rule is constitutional. 

Have any of the people who do most of your thinking for you over at the conservative review asserted that the rule violates the constitution? I would be interested in hearing from someone who actually knows what he is talking about.