Text of pending EO re: Abortion - from the White House

[Cerridwen]

the link is here

A snippet:

ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (approved March __, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Policy.
Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

The rest is at link.

[Cerridwen]

1. "segregation guidelines" - Interesting word choice.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

[suffragette]

7. segregation guidelines and requirements

That does stand out, doesn't it?

[Cerridwen]

8. Yeah, most definitely.

Surely there was a thesaurus around somewhere?

Perhaps it's a legally required use?

Very strange.

[riderinthestorm]

9. So are you thinking the insertion of that word will negate his EO?

That Obama has deliberately issued a segregationist order that codifies inequality?

[Cerridwen]

11. *unzipped lip*

My theory came to me prior to reading the wording of the EO. *zipped lip*

[suffragette]

15. I think I must have cat blood in me somewhere

since my curiosity is killing me.
:-)

[Cerridwen]

16. Just hope with me that my theory is correct.

:)

Sorry.

[riderinthestorm]

17. Trying to wrap my brain around Obama, our nation's first black president

writing an Executive Order basically "segregating" and codifying inequality for half the population of the US.

Do I have this right?

And what does that say about how low this President would stoop to get this bill?

[Cerridwen]

21. As marshall wrote below,

he can rescind the EO within minutes of the vote.

I'm not really ready to throw my hands in the air, yet.

:)

[riderinthestorm]

Okay so maybe he does do that (not holding my breath)

Aren't you just a bit staggered at the blatant hypocrisy? This was the first time I actually read the EO and it's pretty damn weird.

And the message to women, women's groups, women's rights... pretty ugly.

[Cerridwen]

24. I'm not holding my breath, either. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

"Blatant hypocrisy" in politics no longer amazes me, unfortunately. I noticed the, let's call it, irony in the wording.

Cynical, I am. A scintilla of hope, I have. Yoda, I am channeling.

~wry smile~ I smile to keep from screaming.

[marshall]

19. He can negate the EO five minutes after Stupak votes

He doesn't have to resort to using double meaning code words.

[Cerridwen]

22. stupak has to know that.

The repubs have to know that.

It's interesting to watch what's happening and how it will play out.

[suffragette]

10. Feels like a new century - a new segregation law

Frankly stunning that they would choose that language.
I wonder if it's used elsewhere in the bill and is a referent here.

[Cerridwen]

12. Woo hoo! 21st Century form of segregation!

I still have hope my theory is correct.

[Fumesucker]

2. How big a bus do you need to get 150 plus million people under it? n/t

[Cerridwen]

4. It would depend how pregnant they are? n/t

[Cerridwen]

3. I have a theory, which I will not share in the off chance that I am

through some rip in the space-time continuum, the only one who has thought of it so far. Not bloody likely but I don't care to divulge a potential strategy.

My theory gives me a scintilla of hope.

[Cerridwen]

5. "This EO does not create 'in equity'"

Section 4. General Provisions.
<snipperoonie>

(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. It's a term of art in contract law

enforceable at law
enforceable in equity

[Cerridwen]

18. Thank you! That's what I'm looking for.

Would you, could you, provide a legalese to layperson's language?

I'm usually not too slow, but legal language can mean something totally outside what I might have thought.

[Me.]

30. So. What.Exactly?

An out? And are signing statements actually law if they're not voted upon?

[Cerridwen]

31. I think he got called away before he could reply. :D n/t

[Me.]

32. Shoot

So what's your best guess on this?

[Cerridwen]

33. No best guess. I googled and got more confused.

I'm not familiar with those phrases - at all.

[suffragette]

34. Could this be it?

http://www.uscourts.gov/library/glossary.html
Equitable – Pertaining to civil suits in "equity" rather than in "law." In English legal history, the courts of "law" could order the payment of damages and could afford no other remedy. See damages. A separate court of "equity" could order someone to do something or to cease to do something. See, e.g., injunction. In American jurisprudence, the federal courts have both legal and equitable power, but the distinction is still an important one. For example, a trial by jury is normally available in "law" cases but not in "equity" cases.

[Cerridwen]

35. Looks like it.

But, how the heck does it apply here?

I've got to make a quick run to the store. I'll check back in a few.

Thanks, suffragette.

[suffragette]

36. Just guessing here (not a lawyer)

but it might mean enforceable by either type of court.

The main gist of the sentence seems to be specifying by using a bunch of legalese that the Executive Order is emphatically not creating a benefit or right (well, they got that part correct!). I wonder if it's standard legalese they append to any EO.

Checked a couple different ones and looks like that is the case:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Removing-Barriers-to-Responsible-Scientific-Research-Involving-Human-Stem-cells/
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[Cerridwen]

37. Thank you very much for de-tangling that.

That'll work as a working definition until one of our legal eagles comes in and tells us otherwise. :D

Good job and thanks for the help.

:yourock:

[suffragette]

41. Hopefully a legal eagle comes along

I could be completely wrong in my interpretation.
But I gave it my best shot.

Btw, did you see the thread urging us to now support Stupak?

[Cerridwen]

42. I saw the thread.

I was not surprised. Not surprised at all.

I promised EFerrari I'd be good this w/e. I'm staying away from a couple of threads in order to honor that promise.

You did a good job on figuring that out and finding the info. If a legal eagle doesn't come along to this thread, I'm sure we'll be parsing and arguing this for a few days more. LOL

:hi:

[suffragette]

43. I promised as well

I'm staying civil, though direct.

But yeah, some threads I just need to avoid too.

Thanks. I am that research geek. I can usually find info readily. English Lit major and all that.

I'm wondering now how long segregate has been getting used this way and for what specifically. So far I've seen it with this, with TANF, and (from Newsweek) with community health centers. And the community center part seems to also be abortion related, though the TANF also cites additional situations. This could use more research.

[Cerridwen]

6. Kick

:kick:

[suffragette]

14. Looks like the segregation wording might also be elsewhere

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/03/21/the-abortion-deal-that-saved-health-care-what-s-in-it.aspx

What the executive order adds to these provisions is a guarantee that they will be taken seriously in terms of enforcement. The President's order directs the Office of Management and Budget to, within six months, create "a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements," i.e. create rules for how insurers must keep abortion funds separate from public funds, and then make sure those rules are enforced. The executive order also contains a similar directive for segretation (sic) of funds within community health centers.


Seems to be "separate" would have been a better choice, but either way it still means unequal.

[Cerridwen]

20. Thanks.

Though it still gives me the squicks.

[suffragette]

25. Yeah, me too.

[JerseygirlCT]

23. That last sentence

Really sucks.

We had an issue here in CT recently, where the Catholic hospitals - although benefiting from state and federal funds - wanted to deny women who had been raped emergency contraception. No surprise Lieberman thought they ought to be able to do that. They lost that fight here in CT, but the above wording makes me think the fight will be reopened. And women in desperate, horrible need will be denied absolutely necessary medical care - because a bunch of men in the congress, aided and abetted unfortunately by our president, thought they were more important than those women.

[Cerridwen]

26. Yeah, I know and I agree.

Have you ever heard the old Chinese (I believe) curse*, "May you live in interesting times"?

Here we go.

*someday I should google that for attribution.

[JerseygirlCT]

27. I've had that same curse in mind for a few years now. nt

[Cerridwen]

28. I really shouldn't laugh

but, yep, I laughed.

:hi:

[Cerridwen]

38. I was just re-reading this thread and noticed my reply to you above

could sound the opposite of what I meant.

I meant I laughed because, OMG! I'm not alone in that thought. I hope that makes better sense, if in fact it makes any sense at all.

[JerseygirlCT]

39. No, I totally got it!

All is good! :toast:

[Cerridwen]

40. Whew! Thanks for letting me know.

With tensions running so high, I'm being more cautious; well, trying to.

:toast:

[JerseygirlCT]

44. Oh, I know

Me too.

[suffragette]

29. It "prohibits discrimination" against them while allowing them to freely

discriminate against women. Looks like not only can they deny care, they can even refuse to refer for care elsewhere.

Absolutely agree with all you wrote.

Really, really sucks.