Could also be filed under politics.
Under the new rule, a closely held for-profit company that objects to covering contraception in its health plan can write a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services stating its objection. HHS will then notify a third-party insurer of the company's objection, and the insurer will provide birth control coverage to the company's female employees at no additional cost to the company.
UPDATE NOTICE TO ALL WHO POST ON THIS SEED:
FOUR OF MY COMMENTS WERE REMOVED BY THE NATION "LEFT WING NUT JOBS". THE NATION IS BLOCKED FROM MY SEED UNTIL MY COMMENTS ARE RESTORED.
THIS INTRO IS ABOUT TO GET A WHOLE LOT LONGER:
HERE ARE THE TEXTS OF THE COMMENTS REMOVED. WHEN NEWSVINE SENDS AN EMAIL ADVISING OF THE REMOVAL OF A COMMENT, SOME PUNCTUATION GETS CODED INTO AN UNREADABLE SERIES OF CHARACTERS, SO PLEASE EXCUSE THAT PART. COMMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
In reply to: Ronin-2 #1.1
No. It's not an EO. Anyone who attended 8th grade to high school knows the basic Constitutional set-up. Executive Branch enforces the laws the Legislative Branch passes, once those bills become actual law. The President is doing his job.
In reply to: King Leonidas #1if decisions handed down by the SCOTUS can be overridden, what other decisions will follow?
It's not that decisions can be overridden so much as new laws can be passed to address a particular issue.
Take Lily Ledbetter Act for instance. SCOTUS reached its decision based on the wording of an existing law. However, that ruling changed a long-standing procedure and opened the door for considerably more wage discrimination, as discussed below:
Lilly Ledbetter was one of the few female supervisors at the Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Alabama, and worked there for close to two decades. She faced sexual harassment at the plant and was told by her boss that he didn’t think a woman should be working there. Her co-workers bragged about their overtime pay, but Goodyear did not allow its employees to discuss their pay, and Ms. Ledbetter did not know she was the subject of discrimination until she received an anonymous note revealing the salaries of three of the male managers. After she filed a complaint with the EEOC, her case went to trial, and the jury awarded her back-pay and approximately $3.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages for the extreme nature of the pay discrimination to which she had been subjected.The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the jury verdict, holding that her case was filed too late - even though Ms. Ledbetter continued to receive discriminatory pay - because the company’s original decision on her pay had been made years earlier. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court upheld the Eleventh Circuit decision and ruled that employees cannot challenge ongoing pay discrimination if the employer’s original discriminatory pay decision occurred more than 180 days earlier, even when the employee continues to receive paychecks that have been discriminatorily reduced.This decision upset longstanding precedent under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other important civil rights statutes.
Essentially, SCOTUS set the discrimination time clock at 180 days from the FIRST instance of pay inequality instead of the ongoing, last instance. Although the LLA was passed, Lily Ledbetter never saw a dime in compensation for those decades of wage discrimination, because the new bill was passed after the SCOTUS ruling, even though, as it says above, the Act was passed and made retroactive to the day before the SCOTUS decision.
Goodyear got away with two decades of wage and sex discrimination, bottom line.So Congress passed a new law, the Lily Ledbetter Act, that basically said the time clock starts once the injured party finds out about the injury. This case is also why the Paycheck Fairness Act, originally created in 2011 and voted down, was written. Here's what the EEOC website says about it:
The newest Senate version is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c114:S.862:That bill is not to be confused with a House version, of nearly the same name, which deals with CEO to employee pay ratios, but the House bill shares the same name as the Senate bill.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/620 This House bill comes up first in a search for "Paycheck Fairness Act 2015".
Now. PPACA provides that women are to be granted the same access to reproductive health that men had been enjoying decades before PPACA was passed. One provision is that FDA recognized birth control methods are covered with no out-of-pocket costs to the insured - the women.
Hobby Lobby, using politics and the court, while participating in public commerce and benefitting from THAT, claimed that this provision violated their religious rights, even though they were not a 'religious group' like an actual church. We all know this was about the politics, not the religion. SCOTUS ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor rather than in favor of the women working for the for-profit company.
So, under the authority of the Executive Branch, which is charged with enforcing laws passed by the Legislative Branch, the new rule is what I posted in the seed intro.
Insurance companies are receiving billions in premium subsidies their insured receive from the government under PPACA.
So, as I pointed out, the next step will be for insurance companies to try and increase their premium structures to get more tax dollars to do the job they are already receiving billions to do.
Can a law be passed? Sure. Laws are passed all the time. But they have to be signed by the President to become law or a veto overridden. So, given the rest of 2015 is part of the election cycle, and given that the country is leaning more left than right, the chances Congress will be able to screw with PPACA (after its other 56 attempts, I might point out), are reduced.
And again, I'm going to point out that the 'mandate' was a Republican construct from the 90s, and used in Mitt Romney's version of PPACA in Massachusetts long before PPACA became law. They got what they asked for.
In reply to: trust_verify #1.5
I'll say it again.The President has the responsibility to enforce the laws the best way possible, which means he has latitude in that implementation. He can delay or step up deadlines if these serve the greater good purpose. He can clarify parts of laws to avoid costs and confustion or worse, discrimination against certain groups. He's. Allowed.
Some corners of the political spectrum do call this law making, but they are being inaccurate. In some cases, they are being downright disingenuous.
Really. People need to read the Constitution and Google some of the discussions (not Fox news or any of those echo chambers) by organizations, professors, and authors who actually know something about it.I am flabbergasted that so many are completely in the dark about who does what in government, or who twist it around to make it something it isn't.
At the age of 10, my youngest son knew that if the President couldn't be President, the VP stepped in and that if he couldn't do it, the Speaker of the House stepped in. I didn't teach him that directly. The kid was a daydreamer. If he could get that concept at 10, it's mystifying that people conducting conversations about this don't know how things work.
In reply to: Ronin-2 #1.7
First off, PPACA is the law and women's reproductive health care is specifically provided with no extra out-of-pocket expense when it comes to birth control. Even if a Republican won the White House, he is REQUIRED to enforce the law and ensure all of its provisions are enforced. If he doesn't, challenges go to SCOTUS.
Second, with respect to EOs, here's the historical count of EOs by every President.
Spoiler: Since Truman, Republicans have issued significantly more than Dems. Note that Ford's term was only 2.45 years. Had it been 4, using the algebraic ratio formula, the number would have been around 262 in 4 years. And in only 5.55 years, Nixon issued more EOs than Johnson or Carter.
Y'all need to do some research before you accuse Dems of what your own party does, with regularity and deliberation.
Second, the President, as the head of the Executive Branch, is Constitutionally REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THE LAWS. PPACA provides that women's reproductive health does not cost them extra out-of-pocket anymore than the men whose reproductive health items are no extra cost. PPACA brought women up to equal in that regard, since men had been getting theirs "free" decades before women did.
Third, it's unlikely the GOP will win the White House.
END OF REMOVED COMMENTS.
THANK YOU TO ALL WHO HAVE COMMENTED SO FAR WITH CIVILITY. IT IS MUCH APPRECIATED.
I’VE COPIED THIS ENTIRE INTRO IN CASE SEED IS GANG COLLAPSED.