Article 1 section 9 and article 1 section 10 you should start with this if you're trying to familiarize people with a constitution reference it.Are you familiar with the constitutionality of bills of attainder?
Are you familiar with the constitutionality of bills of attainder?
Well there were the weaponized audits during Obama's second term. Oddly these activist judges were quiet about those. That was an actual attack on freedoms and rights.Are you suggesting that if the government doesn't decide to give you money they are punishing you?
Agreed. Not to mention defending PP is just plain stupid and only hurts people seeking their services.GOOD. Taco has no business defunding a critical health provider.
Singled out how exactly? By what rationale are they REQUIRED to be funded by the Federal Government?
It was passed and signed in the legislation. It's not an EO or even an interpretation of the legislation. Congress just didn't fund it.
How or why are they being denied funds while other clinics and organizations that offer all the same services arent? Why are they being singled out? I guess there needs to be a legal foundation behind doing so.
Must there be? The government can't decide to simply go with certain vendors for certain services as long as they aren't discriminating and the cost is the same?
That reasoning is crazy.
Like who?How or why are they being denied funds while other clinics and organizations that offer all the same services arent?
PP isn't entitled to "free money". People are entitled to freedom of association and equal protection. If Congress defunds organizations which impact these rights of the individual, then there's an argument to be made. We don't know if that argument will hold in court, as the case hasn't been heard. But if you restrict Medicaid patients from medical options in a systematic nature to restrict their association and protection, there's an argument to that which is Congress have overstepped the restrictions of the Constitution to take that choice from the People.Regardless of how you lie to yourself about your position on this you are arguing that planned Parenthood is entitled to free money from the taxpayer because they have the right to free speech.
If you're not arguing for that it's okay that they are completely and totally defunded.
Like who?
Well the silence is the answer. and the attempt to suggest that you're entitled to funding because of free speech is the answer.
Like who?
Yes...that's taxpayer $$ meant to be spent on taxpayers. What is the reason for the punitive action? So for it seems discriminatory.
Are there contracts involved here? That is not the current process.
Judges aren't supposed to issue injunctions unless they assess the requesters case has a good chance of success. Judges aren't supposed to render decisions based on "good cause", they are supposed to rule based on the law. This injunction isn't supported by law.The judge hasn't heard the case yet, lol. The judge just said that PP had provided enough for "good cause".
It's like you don't understand how any of this works.
Punitive action? How is it punitive to have them meet the same criteria as every other provider. Also from the criteria I read it also seems more like it is opening competition rather than just having the government funnel money almost exclusively to PP for certain services.
I guess it's punitive to not show favoritism.
Judges aren't supposed to issue injunctions unless they assess the requesters case has a good chance of success. Judges aren't supposed to render decisions based on "good cause", they are supposed to rule based on the law. This injunction isn't supported by law.
Before accusing someone of not understanding it's a good idea to make sure you understand it. Just like the judge you offer no explanation for your assertion.
Contraceptives are much cheaper
The judge hasn't rendered a decision yet. It's merely a temporary injunction while both sides can get arguments in.Judges aren't supposed to issue injunctions unless they assess the requesters case has a good chance of success. Judges aren't supposed to render decisions based on "good cause", they are supposed to rule based on the law. This injunction isn't supported by law.
Before accusing someone of not understanding it's a good idea to make sure you understand it. Just like the judge you offer no explanation for your assertion.
It isn't entitled to funding at all. Nothing is.PP isn't entitled to "free money".
So what is the issue with defunding?People are entitled to freedom of association and equal protection.
There's no such thing. Rights are negative in nature.If Congress defunds organizations which impact these rights of the individual,
No there isn't see above.then there's an argument to be made.
It must unless all the sudden we decide rights are positive. That opens a lot of doors.We don't know if that argument will hold in court,
Nobody is entitled to funding.as the case hasn't been heard. But if you restrict Medicaid patients from medical options in a systematic nature to restrict their association and protection, there's an argument to that which is Congress have overstepped the restrictions of the Constitution to take that choice from the People.
Well in a few weeks, we'll see how the case comes out. The judge could very well side with the government on this.It isn't entitled to funding at all. Nothing is.
So what is the issue with defunding?
There's no such thing. Rights are negative in nature.
No there isn't see above.
It must unless all the sudden we decide rights are positive. That opens a lot of doors.
Nobody is entitled to funding.
Punitive action? How is it punitive to have them meet the same criteria as every other provider. Also from the criteria I read it also seems more like it is opening competition rather than just having the government funnel money almost exclusively to PP for certain services.
I guess it's punitive to not show favoritism.
First amendment doesn't entitle PP to fundingAnd association (1st Amendment) ...
Still doesn't entitle PP to fundingAnd equal protection (5th Amendment) ...
This is about taking away finding as a penalty.And not be subject to Bill of Attainder (Article 1, Section 9).
No that's what this is about. The problem is they are being defunded..
.
.
.
You trying to paint this a "right to funding"
It's a stretch.which isn't the case, per the link previously supplied showing the filing.
You're not entitled to reimbursementThe case is about being denied equal access to reimbursement the same as other medical practitioners for qualifying services.
The case is about funding. But ignore what it's really about to pretend it's about anything elseBut go ahead, ask your question about "where is funding guaranteed" and ignore what the case is about.
Unless they can show that it's punitive they have no case.Well in a few weeks, we'll see how the case comes out.
It most likely will.The judge could very well side with the government on this.
That of course isn't true.
Congress is required to follow the law and the Constitution. They must follow existing law, unless as part of the legislation they change the law. But Congress cannot change the Constitution without an amendment. So it is still bound by HOW it chooses to appropriate money.
For example, Congress cannot appropriate (or withhold money):
WW
- As a Bill of Attainder,
- In a manner that violates the First Amendment (speech, association, etc.)
- 5th Amendment and it's equal protection aspects. For example, allowing everyone to get Medicare reimbursements for breast cancer screenings, but baring an organization from getting the same reimbursement because they are targeted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?