Judge temporarily blocks Planned Parenthood ‘defunding’ in Trump megabill

[CLAX1911]

Are you familiar with the constitutionality of bills of attainder?

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.

And this applies to Congress revoking funding for penalty

Explain how no longer funding planned Parenthood is a penalty.

 

[Trumpetman]

Are you familiar with the constitutionality of bills of attainder?

Are you suggesting that if the government doesn't decide to give you money they are punishing you?

 

[CLAX1911]

Are you suggesting that if the government doesn't decide to give you money they are punishing you?

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.

So it's not like governments haven't used the threat of monetary penalty in order to coerce people into things that's why the section 1 article 9 and section 1 article 10 exists.

 

[Gordy327]

GOOD. Taco has no business defunding a critical health provider.

Agreed. Not to mention defending PP is just plain stupid and only hurts people seeking their services.

 

[Lursa]

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.

 

[Trumpetman]

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.

 

[Lursa]

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.

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.

 

[Taylor]

How or why are they being denied funds while other clinics and organizations that offer all the same services arent?

Like who?

 

[Ikari]

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.

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.

 

[Lursa]

Like who?

Google a city name and reproductive health services. You'll get a huge list.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well the silence is the answer. and the attempt to suggest that you're entitled to funding because of free speech is the answer.

And association (1st Amendment) ...

And equal protection (5th Amendment) ...

And not be subject to Bill of Attainder (Article 1, Section 9).
.
.
.
.
You trying to paint this a "right to funding" which isn't the case, per the link previously supplied showing the filing. The case is about being denied equal access to reimbursement the same as other medical practitioners for qualifying services.

But go ahead, ask your question about "where is funding guaranteed" and ignore what the case is about.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Like who?

Any Medicare/Medicaid provider that provides breast cancer screenings,

Any Medicare/Medicaid provider that provides birth control,

Any Medicare/Medicaid provider that provides STD Testing,

Any Medicare/Medicaid provider that provides STD Treatment,

Any Medicare/Medicaid provider that provides emergency contraception,

Any Medicare/Medicaid provider that provides pregnancy testing,

Any Medicare/Medicaid provider that provides cervical cancer screenings,

Any Medicare/Medicaid provider that provides hysterotomy or vasectomy counseling,

etc.

 

[Trumpetman]

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.

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.

 

[Buster Keaton]

Contraceptives are much cheaper

 

[AZRWinger]

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.

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.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

They aren't being asked to meet the same criteria as every other provider.

For the delivery of a variety of medical services they are being DENIED reimbursement for the same services provided by other providers when they have the same qualifications to be able to deliver those services.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

The Judge hasn't rendered a decision, he's paused action for two weeks so the parties can brief and possibly hold a hearing on the issues.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Contraceptives are much cheaper

PP is being cut off from providing contraceptives services that are reimbursable through Medicare/Medicaid.

WW

 

[Ikari]

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.

The judge hasn't rendered a decision yet. It's merely a temporary injunction while both sides can get arguments in.

 

[CLAX1911]

PP isn't entitled to "free money".

It isn't entitled to funding at all. Nothing is.

People are entitled to freedom of association and equal protection.

So what is the issue with defunding?

If Congress defunds organizations which impact these rights of the individual,

There's no such thing. Rights are negative in nature.

then there's an argument to be made.

No there isn't see above.

We don't know if that argument will hold in court,

It must unless all the sudden we decide rights are positive. That opens a lot of doors.

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.

Nobody is entitled to funding.

 

[Ikari]

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.

Well in a few weeks, we'll see how the case comes out. The judge could very well side with the government on this.

 

[Lursa]

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.

What same criteria arent they meeting?

 

[CLAX1911]

And association (1st Amendment) ...

First amendment doesn't entitle PP to funding

And equal protection (5th Amendment) ...

Still doesn't entitle PP to funding

And not be subject to Bill of Attainder (Article 1, Section 9).

This is about taking away finding as a penalty.

.
.
.
.
You trying to paint this a "right to funding"

No that's what this is about. The problem is they are being defunded.

which isn't the case, per the link previously supplied showing the filing.

It's a stretch.

The case is about being denied equal access to reimbursement the same as other medical practitioners for qualifying services.

You're not entitled to reimbursement

But go ahead, ask your question about "where is funding guaranteed" and ignore what the case is about.

The case is about funding. But ignore what it's really about to pretend it's about anything else

WW

 

[CLAX1911]

Well in a few weeks, we'll see how the case comes out.

Unless they can show that it's punitive they have no case.

The judge could very well side with the government on this.

It most likely will.

 

[Athanasius68]

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):

• 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.

WW

1. Bill of attainder is about crime. That isn't the situation here. It's a political decision where to spend, or nor spend, money.
Nothing to do with the Judiciary.

2. 1st mendment-- no violation. No group has the right to receive federal funding.

3. Do organizations that do not promote abortions receive federal $$$? That's the only way that equal protection can conceivably work. But it's still a bad argument.