• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge blocks Trump rollback of Obamacare contraception mandate

What I really see as an issue is the need for prescriptions....many Nations allow for OTC sales of birth control; Portugal, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Greece, Turkey, South Korea, Russia, and several others....yet the US lags behind in this respect with the exception of one or two states ( Oregon and California I think).

I would think that the proven low risk history of birth control pills would make it a candidate for OTC sales, but I believe that in doing so, it would run up against the religious groups, and some medical providers.
 
Judge blocks Trump rollback of Obamacare contraception mandate




Trump and his [mis]administration seem to think the executive branch can arbitrarily change US law via the stroke of a pen.

HHS drastically narrowed the religious exemption rules after the law was passed. I believe only a handful of states had more narrow religious exemptions on the books. If HHS under Obama can create it, HHS under Trump can undo it, that's how regulation without legislative foundation works.
 
The contraceptive mandate isn't "US law." The contraception mandate was HHS regulation. The regulation was promulgated by HHS; it can be rescinded by HHS.

In other words, the executive branch can indeed undo what the executive branch put into place.

(Never mind that the Obama administration indeed arbitrarily changed immigration law via the stroke of a pen, by their own words. Some of us warned you all that "I have a pen, and a phone" set a lousy precedent that Trump was going to be able to take full advantage of, but some were way too busy cheering that you were getting what you wanted to take heed.)

That is what I don't understand about these judges. They have to be politics hacks sitting on a bench.
They pretty much ruled in favor of it while obama was in office. Saying that they had to power to do it.

If one has the power to do it then one has the power to undo it.

Similar to NN that lawsuit has started. Any judge should dismiss the case on the grounds that the FCC has the power to undo it just as they had the power to put it in.

These judges talk out both sides of their ass.
 
Judge blocks Trump rollback of Obamacare contraception mandate




Trump and his [mis]administration seem to think the executive branch can arbitrarily change US law via the stroke of a pen.

From what I understand what is being rescinded was not a part of the PPACA as passed through the legislative branch. Is that correct? It was something that the Obama administration put in? If that is the case then the judge has no authority on this count as Trump has the power to rescind it. If however it was a part of the PPACA as passed by the legislative branch then the judge did a good thing. No President should have the power to rescind or ignore laws passed through the legislative branch.

So, Rogue Valley, could you clarify for me what exactly is being rescinded and exactly who instituted it?

Note that I have no dog in this fight. I personally do not mind that insurance companies be mandated to carry birth control as part of their plans. I know that some women need it to help regulate their cycles as not doing so can be hazardous to their health. My interest is purely in whether the process to bring about such is correctly done.
 
ObamaCare (ACA) requires that most health/insurance companies cover birth control as preventive care for women at no additional cost.

The Trump administration rolled back the requirement earlier this year, arguing that it infringed on the religious and moral rights of some businesses.

Ergo, the Trump administration attempted to put their own spin/restrictions on US law that is not delineated in the ACA. The judge agreed with the plaintiff (AG of Pennsylvania).
 
That is what I don't understand about these judges. They have to be politics hacks sitting on a bench.
They pretty much ruled in favor of it while obama was in office. Saying that they had to power to do it.

If one has the power to do it then one has the power to undo it.

Similar to NN that lawsuit has started. Any judge should dismiss the case on the grounds that the FCC has the power to undo it just as they had the power to put it in.

These judges talk out both sides of their ass.





Among other things, agency rulemaking is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. There are other restrictions on agency action, and I'm definitely not going to list them all. But to say the FCC can undo it just because it did it is a statement oversimplified to the point of falsehood.
 
ObamaCare (ACA) requires that most health/insurance companies cover birth control as preventive care for women at no additional cost.

a).

There is no such provision in the ACA with that language. Rather, it said

The
preventive services that must be covered include, “with respect to women, such additional
preventive care and screenings . . . as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
 
1. Don't call women "sluts." (I certainly didn't. :doh )

2. Then buy an insurance rider for your particular need. Why should everyone else pay for that?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rider.asp

I have Chron’s Disease, so I should also buy a rider for that need? Used to have vicious cluster headaches, ditto? Why do you single out for elimination a medicine that protected my wife’s health? You got any particular problem we could eliminate from coverage? Any women in your circle have problems with ovarian cancer? Or should women be kept barefoot and pregnant? As I recall, viagra might have been covered. Why are women’s needs minimized in your view?
 
Among other things, agency rulemaking is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. There are other restrictions on agency action, and I'm definitely not going to list them all. But to say the FCC can undo it just because it did it is a statement oversimplified to the point of falsehood.

No it isn't.
If the power lay with the FCC to regulate it lays with he FCC to get rid of it.

You can't say they have to power to make rules for one but not remove it.
My point still stands.
 
Hence, Planned Parenthood...which is already funded by tax dollars.

Why should I pay twice?

My impression is that PP is just one area where the government sponsors such benefits. You are not paying twice any more than you are whenyou support both the army and the marine corps, coast guard and the navy.
 
Among other things, agency rulemaking is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. There are other restrictions on agency action, and I'm definitely not going to list them all. But to say the FCC can undo it just because it did it is a statement oversimplified to the point of falsehood.

No it isn't.
If the power lay with the FCC to regulate it lays with he FCC to get rid of it.

You can't say they have to power to make rules for one but not remove it.
My point still stands.

Unless I threw it out, I could mail you my 1,300 page textbook* on the American Procedure Act and various laws/constitutional rules governing executive agency quasi-legislative powers, governing rule-making, which in turn covers substantive rules. Want me to set up a Paypal account so you can PM me your address and send me the shipping cost?

Before, I could say that you were simply ignorant of the statutory and constitutional restrictions on the quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions of administrative agencies. Now I can say that you are lying.

Yes, the FCC is subject to the APA and other restraints, provided we speak of a "substantive rule". The APA even explicitly provides for judicial review of various agency actions.

THIS IS LITERALLY WHY REPEAL WENT THROUGH THE NOTICE-AND-COMMENT PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE APA




_____________
*Literally. I just found it under a dresser. "Administrative Law. The American Public Law System" Masha, Merrill, Shane (5th Ed. 2003).

Perhaps you can move the goalposts by complaining about how that isn't an appropriate legal citation format....
 
Last edited:
Unless I threw it out, I could mail you my 1,300 page textbook* on the American Procedure Act and various laws/constitutional rules governing executive agency quasi-legislative powers. Want me to set up a Paypal account so you can PM me your address and send me the shipping cost?

Before, I could say that you were simply ignorant of the statutory and constitutional restrictions on the quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions of administrative agencies. Now I can say that you are lying.

Yes, the FCC is subject to the APA and other restraints. The APA even explicitly provides for judicial review of various agency actions.






_____________
*Literally. "Administrative Law. The American Public Law System" Masha, Merrill, Shane (5th Ed. 2003).

Perhaps you can move the goalposts by complaining about how that isn't an appropriate legal citation format....

Which has 100% nothing to do with what I said congrats.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-appeals-court-ruling.html

A set of judges have already ruled that the FCC has the power to do this.
So there you have it. Sorry you don't like it but the FCC has the power to or not do NN.
 
Which has 100% nothing to do with what I said congrats.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-appeals-court-ruling.html

A set of judges have already ruled that the FCC has the power to do this.
So there you have it. Sorry you don't like it but the FCC has the power to or not do NN.

Your last sentence proves your first sentence is another stupid lie. I wanted to give you some credit - not everyone, in fact few, know much of anything about how agencies work - but then you had to go and double-down. My post was about why the last sentence is 100% false, because I know that even though I went into a different area of law, my 1,300 page textbook and the thousands of cases it cites - on the subject of what executive agencies can or cannot do, and how they must or must not do it - is not a lie.

The question in that case was whether or not broadband ISPs were a "common carrier utility" subject to existing anti-blocking and discrimination rules. Basically, whether or not the FCC had the authority to regulate it in general in the means it intented to. In NO WAY did it exempt the FCC from the APA when it came to NN. In no way did it say "the FCC has the power to or not do NN", full stop, which is how you are attempting to use it.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...8AF85257FD200505A3A/$file/15-1063-1619173.pdf

That does not support your stupid and unsupported claim that "the FCC has the power to or not do NN". The question was whether there was any possibility they could regulate it in a certain fashion, not whether it is exempt from the APA. (Or are you trying to deny the APA exists?). It is not exempt from the procedures required by the APA.

Again, THAT IS LITERALLY WHY THE FCC WENT THROUGH THE APA'S NOTICE AND COMMENT PROCEDURE BEFORE REPEALING THE REGULATIONS

They didn't do it because they wanted to be nice. They did it because it was REQUIRED. An executive agency is NOT allowed to just make up and get rid of regulations because somebody felt like it. There are procedures to follow and failure to follow those procedures can easily lead to court cases.

And again, the link you didn't understand was about a case that decided whether or not they could make any rules like NN at all, which is 100% different than the way you are trying to use it. The decision did not exempt the process of making any such rules from the APA.





It's really quite amazing. Classes on Administrative Law, governing what agencies can or cannot do, and how they must or must not do it, are taught in every single law school.

But Random Internet Poster "ludin" says it's all a lie.

But Random Internet Poster "ludin" says agencies can make any regulations they want and get away with them whenever they want.




I'd spend more time responding, but I know you'll just lie and BS more, knowing that it'll just get buried in the thread as pages go on and people, generally ignorant of the law, just skip over explanations of why you're full of ****. It's depressing, but that's current reality. If someone can't dumb something down to 144 characters (or is it 288 now?), the vast majority of people will pat themselves on the back for not reading it....
 
Last edited:
And just FYI, I want to lay a little out. This is the FCC's summary for laymen (non-lawyers), of just one of thirteen basic FAQs; as with any question of law the answer as to any particular question or case is "it's ****ing complicated":


What are the requirements for the rulemaking process:

Unless otherwise indicated, this summary describes the "notice and comment" process for issuing legislative rules (rules that create legally binding rights or obligations). The requirements for "notice and comment" generally do not apply to non-legislative, procedural or organizational rules, which the Commission may issue without notice and comment.

Administrative Procedure Act. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) sets forth the basic requirements for notice and comment rulemaking (also called "informal" rulemaking), the process generally used by agencies to issue legislative rules. Other statutes, executive orders, or agency rules impose additional requirements.

NPRM. In notice-and-comment rulemaking, an agency must first issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and provide an opportunity for public comment on the proposal before it can issue a final rule. There are exceptions to the requirement for notice and comment. For example, notice and comment may be waived for "good cause" for such things as emergencies.

The NPRM explains the need, source of authority, and reasons for the proposed rule changes. The NPRM will contain either the text of a proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. The agency's explanation of its proposal may include how the agency chose its proposed solution to the problem or alternative solutions that the agency is considering. Although the public may comment on anything in the proposal, the agency usually will include specific questions on which it particularly wants public comment and data. The NPRM also includes such information as the deadline for public comments, how and where to file comments, and people to contact for further information about the proposal.

NPRM publication. When an agency issues an NPRM, it is normally published in the Federal Register, which provides online and print access to the official text of federal laws, presidential documents and agency regulations and notices. It is accessible at Federal Register | National Archives.

Public comment period. Generally, the Commission will allow at least 30 days for the public to file comments on an NPRM with the Commission. Sometimes, especially for highly technical and complex matters, we provide much longer periods. We may also use shorter periods where there is a need to act quickly. The public may request more time to comment; if you provide a clear reason, that will help us make a decision on whether to extend the comment period.

Public comments. The volume and length of comments received in response to an NPRM vary depending on the nature and scope of the proposed rule changes. We may receive thousands of comments or only a few, and individual comments may be hundreds of pages or only a paragraph or two.

We have found that public comments can be very helpful to our decisions. The public may identify a better way for us to achieve our objective or it may point out problems with our proposal that we did not see. Our rules are improved through public participation.

Sometimes, commenters say things in their comments without including data or analysis to support them. While anyone may comment, our ultimate decision has to be reasonable pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act; we have to provide a basis for our decision and show how our rule will achieve its purpose. We have included in this document a section on how to prepare effective comments.
 
Reply comments. The Commission generally permits reply comments, in which members of the public may respond to each others' initial comments. Reply comments are especially valuable because they allow the public to point out flaws in other parties' initial comments.

Ex parte presentations and comments. Most rulemakings are "permit-but-disclose" proceedings. This means that the FCC allows oral and written presentations to agency decision makers in addition to initial and reply comments. Copies of any such written comments must be filed in the docket of the proceeding and any oral presentations must be reflected in a written summary filed in the docket. A separate summary of the rules governing ex parte presentationsis available at https://www.fcc.gov/proceedings-actions/ex-parte/general/ex-parte-resources. Some, but not all, rulemakings are considered by the Commission at its monthly public business meetings. For these matters, ex parte presentations are permitted until the start of the Sunshine Period, which begins with the issuance of a public notice one week before the public meeting at which the Commission will consider an NPRM or final rule. Unless an exemption applies, outside parties – other than members of Congress and other federal agencies – may not make presentations, oral or written, on items that will be considered at the public meeting once the Sunshine Notice is issued.

Public docket. The rulemaking docket is the electronic file in which the Commission places all of the rulemaking documents it issues (e.g., the NPRM, any extensions of comment periods, and final rules), supporting documents that it prepares, and public comments, replies, and ex parte presentations related to the rulemaking. The public dockets for the FCC are maintained on the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), which is accessible on the Internet athttp://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. That site is searchable by docket number, among other things, and the docket number may be found at the beginning of the NPRM.
Peer review. Under a 2005 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin, draft agency products containing important scientific (and social scientific) information should be peer reviewed by qualified specialistsin the field who were not involvedin producing the draft before it is disseminated by the federal government. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that the quality of published information meets the standards of the scientific and technical community

Logical outgrowth test. The APA notice-and-comment process recognizes that changes may be made to the proposed rule based on the public comments received, but the courts have required that any changes made in the final rule be of a type that could have been reasonably anticipated by the public – a logical outgrowth of the proposal. If a change is not a logical outgrowth of the proposal in the NPRM, an agency is required to provide the public with a further opportunity for comment.

The final rule. After the comment period closes and the Commission has reviewed and analyzed the comments received, we decide whether to proceed with the rulemaking we proposed, issue a new or modified proposal, or take no action on the proposal.
 
Any final rule must include an explanatory preamble and the rule text. The preamble includes a response to the significant, relevant issues raised in public comments and a statement providing the basis and the purpose (i.e., an explanation) of the rule. The Commission is not required to respond to each commenter; similar comments may be grouped together with an opening statement such as "several commenters suggested that" or the commenters may be referred to by name.

Final rule publication. The final rule is published in the Federal Register or in rare cases personally served on affected entities. In addition, a copy is placed in the rulemaking docket. The Office of the Federal Register, on a rolling, annual basis, updates the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), which contains the federal agency rules currently in effect. The FCC's rules are in volume 47 of the C.F.R. You can also find a current copy of the FCC's rules at About the Code of Federal Regulations | National Archives.

Effective date. Legislative rules generally become effective at least 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register. This delay allows affected parties time to come into compliance with the new rules. For the same reason, agencies sometimes will set compliance dates that are later than the effective date of the rule.

Reconsideration and Judicial Review. Parties who disagree with the final rules or accompanying analysis issued by the Commission may file a petition for reconsideration explaining why they believe the Commission was wrong. The Commission will then issue an order granting or denying the petition. Alternatively, as long as the Commission has addressed an issue, parties who disagree with a rule that affects them may seek court review of the decision.

Waiver. Individuals or entities such as businesses can petition an agency for a full or partial exemption from a final rule or for additional time to come into compliance. We may grant a waiver request, if we find unique circumstances not considered during rulemaking that we believe justifies the waiver. We may attach conditions to the waiver.


https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/rulemaking-process

That's just the super-ultra-tiny-super-basic summary of ONE of thirteen questions for the public.

Like I said, I went into a different area. That was 15+ years ago, that I sat in Admin law. But don't pontificate if you don't have the slightest basis. Cheeeee-rist. When agencies do substantive things that affect people, there are rules to follow.

They cannot do anything they want simply because the the thing they are affecting (or effecting, depending) falls within their enabling statute.
 
Your last sentence proves your first sentence is another stupid lie. I wanted to give you some credit - not everyone, in fact few, know much of anything about how agencies work - but then you had to go and double-down. My post was about why the last sentence is 100% false, because I know that even though I went into a different area of law, my 1,300 page textbook and the thousands of cases it cites - on the subject of what executive agencies can or cannot do, and how they must or must not do it - is not a lie.

There is no lie about it. The FCC said they had the power to do it in the first place. the cable companies sued over and lost. There was no lie.
I even proved it and supported it with an actual court case.

The question in that case was whether or not broadband ISPs were a "common carrier utility" subject to existing anti-blocking and discrimination rules. Basically, whether or not the FCC had the authority to regulate it in general in the means it intented to. In NO WAY did it exempt the FCC from the APA when it came to NN. In no way did it say "the FCC has the power to or not do NN", full stop, which is how you are attempting to use it.

You didn't read the case did you? this case involved classifying the internet as a utility so that the FCC had better regulation over it. This was how the implemented NN in the first place. If the internet is simply just and entertainment venue then there is little the FCC could do in way of NN. the courts agreed that the FCC has the ability to regulate the internet.

That does not support your stupid and unsupported claim that "the FCC has the power to or not do NN". The question was whether there was any possibility they could regulate it in a certain fashion, not whether it is exempt from the APA. (Or are you trying to deny the APA exists?). It is not exempt from the procedures required by the APA.

It absolutely does. The courts ruled that the FCC has the power to regulate how the internet operates. that would also include no enforcing NN if it so chooses. This case as already been decided.
the fact you don't like it is not my issue.

Again, THAT IS LITERALLY WHY THE FCC WENT THROUGH THE APA'S NOTICE AND COMMENT PROCEDURE BEFORE REPEALING THE REGULATIONS

They didn't do it because they wanted to be nice. They did it because it was REQUIRED. An executive agency is NOT allowed to just make up and get rid of regulations because somebody felt like it. There are procedures to follow and failure to follow those procedures can easily lead to court cases.

It is a procedural step nothing more. the lawsuit will get tossed out on it's ear like it should. This case has already been decided before.

It's really quite amazing. Classes on Administrative Law, governing what agencies can or cannot do, and how they must or must not do it, are taught in every single law school.
But Random Internet Poster "ludin" says it's all a lie.

I never said it was a lie that is your lying. I said that the FCC has the power to regulated the internet and it does. that includes not enforcing NN. the case has already been decided before hand.
I even posted it for you.

But Random Internet Poster "ludin" says agencies can make any regulations they want and get away with them whenever they want.

Never said that either why are you lying? ol yea because you were showed where you are wrong and now the only thing you can do is make stuff up instead of admitting you were wrong.


I'd spend more time responding, but I know you'll just lie and BS more, knowing that it'll just get buried in the thread as pages go on and people, generally ignorant of the law, just skip over explanations of why you're full of ****. It's depressing, but that's current reality. If someone can't dumb something down to 144 characters (or is it 288 now?), the vast majority of people will pat themselves on the back for not reading it....

Sorry you are sore because the courts disagree with you. not my issue.
 
^^
And that is a reminder to me why I avoid responding to ludin. None of that has any relevance to what I said about general rulemaking under the APA and other statures.
 
1. Don't call women "sluts." (I certainly didn't. :doh )

2. Then buy an insurance rider for your particular need. Why should everyone else pay for that?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rider.asp

That isn't how insurance works. Like that poster's wife, I was on the pill from the time I was about 19 until menopause, and it was because of regularity issues and terrible cramping. All gynecologists prescribed the pill to help with that. Why wouldn't my insurance cover that? I have to pay for everything that you are covered by.

If you have asthma, buy a rider for your need. If you have high cholesterol, buy a rider for your need. If you have irritable bowel syndrome, buy a rider for your need. If you fall and break your arm, and need pain meds, buy a rider for your need. if your kid has acne, and needs to see a dermatologist, buy a rider. I mean, why should I have to pay for you?
 
I have Chron’s Disease, so I should also buy a rider for that need? Used to have vicious cluster headaches, ditto? Why do you single out for elimination a medicine that protected my wife’s health? You got any particular problem we could eliminate from coverage? Any women in your circle have problems with ovarian cancer? Or should women be kept barefoot and pregnant? As I recall, viagra might have been covered. Why are women’s needs minimized in your view?

Viagra treats a abnormal condition. Birth control typically prevent a normal condition which could be prevented for free through abstinence. All youre proving is that govt needs to stay of deciding what is and isnt covered. That should be between you and your insurer.
 
Viagra treats a abnormal condition. Birth control typically prevent a normal condition which could be prevented for free through abstinence. All youre proving is that govt needs to stay of deciding what is and isnt covered. That should be between you and your insurer.

The birth control pill is used for medical reasons other than birth control by a majority of women.

In fact over 750,000 Women who never had sex use birth control.

From the following:


The pill users include an estimated 762,000 women who've never had sex. Ninety-five percent of them cited reasons other than birth control for their use of the pill.


Such as?

Among the reasons for using oral contraception other than the most obvious one are reducing cramps associated with periods, regulating periods, which for some women can prevent menstrual-related migraine headaches.

Other uses include controlling endometriosis, a condition in which uterine tissue grows outside the uterus, and reducing bleeding due to uterine fibroid tumors.

Some women also use birth control pills to control acne.

In fact, the study found, most women who use the pill use it for multiple reasons.

Only a minority — 42 percent — said they used it exclusively for contraception.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...13/the-pill-not-just-for-pregnancy-prevention
 
The birth control pill is used for medical reasons other than birth control by a majority of women.

You read it wrong. It says 42% used it exclusively for contraception. 84% used it for both contraception and other uses. Only 14% used it for non contraception reasons.

The nonprofit Guttmacher Institute, using federal survey data from the National Survey of Family Growth, found that 14 percent of pill users said they were taking the medication for a purpose other than contraception.

But again, this is why such coverage should be between consumer and insurer. Plenty of insurers cover it, and it isnt expensive, thus there is no logical reason to force those who morally oppose it to pay for it. Win win.
 
You read it wrong. It says 42% used it exclusively for contraception. 84% used it for both contraception and other uses. Only 14% used it for non contraception reasons.


That means that 58 percent of women who use birth control have medical reasons other contraception that birth control helps.

58 percent is a majority.

14 percent of the women never had sex so the birth control meds they took were not used for contraception.
 
But again, this is why such coverage should be between consumer and insurer. Plenty of insurers cover it, and it isnt expensive, thus there is no logical reason to force those who morally oppose it to pay for it. Win win.

No birth control should be covered by insurance.

My daughter has polycistic overy syndrome which is a disease that causes multiple small cysts on the overy because of a hormone imbalance. She was 13 when OB/GYN did a exploratory scope operation to why she had such pain mid cycle and why since at age 10 her periods were so heavy and long.

Her birth control pills were special birth control and of course before the ACA the pills were not covered by insurance. They cost $80 a month.
 
Back
Top Bottom