The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday unveiled a series of regulatory actions designed to effectively ban gender-affirming care for minors, building on broader Trump administration restrictions on transgender Americans.
The sweeping proposals — the most significant moves this administration has taken so far to restrict the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgical interventions for transgender children — include cutting off federal Medicaid and Medicare funding from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to children and prohibiting federal Medicaid funding from being used on such procedures.
I will be glad to be wrong about this, but this seems overly optimistic of AP. The administration could simply leverage it's ability to cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding tomorrow to force the...
The proposals, set to be announced by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his deputies, are not final or legally binding. The federal government must go through a lengthy rulemaking process, including periods of public comment and document rewrites, before the restrictions become permanent. They are also likely to face legal challenges.
I will be glad to be wrong about this, but this seems overly optimistic of AP. The administration could simply leverage it's ability to cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding tomorrow to force the issue, and there's nothing anyone can (or at least will) do about it.
The courts might help force the issue. Legally the process they describe is correct it's just not clear how it'll pan out. And the Supreme Court could kill that path of resistance This at least...
The courts might help force the issue. Legally the process they describe is correct it's just not clear how it'll pan out.
And the Supreme Court could kill that path of resistance
Right, totally understand. I think I'm reacting to the usage of "must" here: I just... No longer feel that it's responsible for news organizations to make assertions like this about this...
Right, totally understand. I think I'm reacting to the usage of "must" here:
The federal government must go through a lengthy rulemaking proces
I just... No longer feel that it's responsible for news organizations to make assertions like this about this administration, at least without some qualifiers about the fact that they have a tendency to bypass required legal processes.
Everyone knows how to handle the constant liar - simply take him off the pedestal and be bluntly truthful with the wording. "The federal govt theoretically must XYZ, but the Trump presidency keeps...
Everyone knows how to handle the constant liar - simply take him off the pedestal and be bluntly truthful with the wording. "The federal govt theoretically must XYZ, but the Trump presidency keeps ignoring the law and getting away with it so we don't know if they actually will XYZ."
The problem is that nobody wants to do so, because they fear the political blowback - either directly from the presidency and Rs, or indirectly via accusations of bias.
The banning of puberty blockers is actually being challenged in court here in New Zealand. There is an interim injunction (preventing the banning of puberty blockers from my understanding), until...
The banning of puberty blockers is actually being challenged in court here in New Zealand. There is an interim injunction (preventing the banning of puberty blockers from my understanding), until a proper judicial review can be heard. Small win for now, but it feels like shit.
If anyone needs a free internet hug, my arms are open.
I just… ::sigh::
I’m so sick of this shit.
:(
idk what else to say
I saw a nice bumper sticker recently and had to compliment the driver of the car. It said:
Merry. Fucking. Christmas.
Time to go work on my suicide prevention shit for next semester while I scream into the night.
I will be glad to be wrong about this, but this seems overly optimistic of AP. The administration could simply leverage it's ability to cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding tomorrow to force the issue, and there's nothing anyone can (or at least will) do about it.
The courts might help force the issue. Legally the process they describe is correct it's just not clear how it'll pan out.
And the Supreme Court could kill that path of resistance
This at least takes some time
Right, totally understand. I think I'm reacting to the usage of "must" here:
I just... No longer feel that it's responsible for news organizations to make assertions like this about this administration, at least without some qualifiers about the fact that they have a tendency to bypass required legal processes.
No that is a fair critique. No one knows how to handle the constant liar..still
Everyone knows how to handle the constant liar - simply take him off the pedestal and be bluntly truthful with the wording. "The federal govt theoretically must XYZ, but the Trump presidency keeps ignoring the law and getting away with it so we don't know if they actually will XYZ."
The problem is that nobody wants to do so, because they fear the political blowback - either directly from the presidency and Rs, or indirectly via accusations of bias.
Yes,and since they don't want to do that thing, no one knows how to handle him.
The banning of puberty blockers is actually being challenged in court here in New Zealand. There is an interim injunction (preventing the banning of puberty blockers from my understanding), until a proper judicial review can be heard. Small win for now, but it feels like shit.