HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » New York AG: I'll sue if ...

Sat May 6, 2017, 06:23 AM

New York AG: I'll sue if Senate passes ObamaCare repeal

Source: The Hill

New York AG: I'll sue if Senate passes ObamaCare repeal

By John Bowden - 05/05/17 11:23 PM EDT

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) warned Congress on Friday that he would file a lawsuit to protect abortion rights if the Senate passes the House GOP's healthcare bill.

In an interview with CNN's Erin Burnett, Schneiderman attacked the bill, called the American Health Care Act, as "bad public policy." "It doesn't protect people with pre-existing conditions, it will cost millions of people healthcare," he said.

Schneiderman said that the bill in its current form is unconstitutional due to attacks on "prohibited state funding." "In a tricky way, [it] tries to wipe out Planned Parenthood," he said. "It's an effort to kill off Planned Parenthood, which would impose an undue burden on women's Constitutionally-protected rights."
(snip)

"I hope it'll never become law, I hope we'll be able to save a lot of time and trouble and not have to bring this litigation," Schneiderman said.


Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/332186-new-york-ag-warns-ill-sue-if-senate-passes-obamacare-repeal

7 replies, 9757 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply New York AG: I'll sue if Senate passes ObamaCare repeal (Original post)
nitpicker May 2017 OP
cstanleytech May 2017 #1
BumRushDaShow May 2017 #2
cstanleytech May 2017 #4
BumRushDaShow May 2017 #5
cstanleytech May 2017 #6
BumRushDaShow May 2017 #7
colsohlibgal May 2017 #3

Response to nitpicker (Original post)

Sat May 6, 2017, 07:19 AM

1. I'm not sure if he will win that case to be honest if Congress only decides to cut funding for

things like PP as Congress has the power of the purse on its side and usually has wide latitude in how it can spend federal money or designate how it can be spent.
Now if they also tried to ban abortions outright with something asinine like a 8 week ban or pass ridiculous laws designed to put as many hurdles in front of a women as possible to prevent her from getting an abortion then ya he might have a case but cutting funding and or designating how federal money can be spent is a different story and I suspect SCOTUS would decide that the funding cut isnt a constitutional violation though I could be wrong of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #1)

Sat May 6, 2017, 08:37 AM

2. In the past, they have been able to argue

that this type of legislation specifically targeting an entity, amounted to a "bill of attainder"

<...>

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm


So if federal funding is being directed towards organizations that provide "health services", and we know PP does provide that, yet they try to pull an "except PP" in the appropriations legislation, despite the fact that all of the services performed by PP are "legal" (regardless of type of service) and fit the criteria as being "health services", then IMHO, they might be able to attempt to sue on that basis, particularly if it involves funding health services contracts already in place with PP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #2)

Sat May 6, 2017, 08:50 AM

4. Wont they argue though that PP is a private organization and thus the federal government is under no

Constitutional obligation to provide it any funding whatsoever?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #4)

Sat May 6, 2017, 10:47 AM

5. Doesn't matter whether it is public or private

The case of ACORN was a most recent example of use of the argument regarding a bill of attainder and targeting some punishment (restricting funding). Some discussion here.

And we all recall that awful time of the that fucker O'Keefe and the GOP's ultimate destruction of that organization regardless of the later positive final outcome -
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122275494

The problem here is the specificity of the funding restriction (explictly naming a person/persons or organization to restrict), which circumvents the ability for the government to award a contract to that entity with that funding. The government can explicitly designate funds for itself (own agencies) or other government entities (state/local) for distribution how they see fit within the scope of the funding description (e.g., via grants or inter-agency agreements or contracts) but can't cherry pick the recipients or non-recipients of those grants/agreements/contracts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #5)

Sat May 6, 2017, 11:07 AM

6. What if they word is vaguely and simply say no federal funding may go to any organization

that provides any reproductive services? Thats assuming they havent tried that yet of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #6)

Sat May 6, 2017, 11:37 AM

7. The closest they have done with similar language is the Hyde Amendment

(re: abortions) and that has been upheld since 1980.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121402281

And in that case, the scope of the funding can be limited in that manner. But note that doing that doesn't explicitly denote a prohibition for a specific "person" (or "persons" or entity, which is what naming Planned Parenthood as some "exception" to funding currently permitted to others providing similar services, would do.

Of course if they attempt to cut off funding for any reproductive services, then that would piss off a whole lot of folks (and I know there are some RW extremist nutjobs trying to get there by nibbling away - e.g., trying to equate "contraception" with "abortion", etc).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nitpicker (Original post)

Sat May 6, 2017, 08:49 AM

3. Love That Guy

He is all in on fighting this right wing nationalist plutocratic takeover.

This is a war to stem the forces of evil.

When will the non foaming at the mouth Trump voters realize they have been conned? I hope soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread