The final rule comes at a time when GOP-led states are curtailing access to gender-affirming medical care. According to health research group KFF, 24 states have enacted laws or policies to restrict or ban gender-affirming care for children.
The previous administration’s policy kept protections against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability. But the then-update narrowed the definition of sex to only mean “biological sex,” cutting out transgender people from the protections.
Advocates were concerned that the previous policies would have made it easier for doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to deny care or coverage to transgender and nonbinary patients, as well as women who have had abortions.
Because discrimination based on certain things is pretty reasonable. Not allowing convicted sex offenders to work in schools is a type of discrimination. Not wanting kkk members to hang out in your bar is a type of discrimination. Even “no shirts, no shoes, no service” is discrimination.
And the discrimination that I face as a trans person is very different from the discrimination that a person of color feels in this country. The remedies aren’t the same, and umbrella terming discrimination just sweeps it under the rug and fails to provide a tangible set of goals to fix.
Fixing discrimination globally all at once is impossible. It creates apathy and makes us all bystanders to the problems. Legally ensuring that the nurse or teacher doesn’t misgender me is a very fixable and tangible thing that is very easy and clear cut.
In a wide-ranging final rule released Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) strengthened the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) rules that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, in certain health programs and activities.
So…
The White House gets credit for this, and when Trump was president he rolled it back…
This really makes it seem like a president has authority over federal agencies like HHS on stuff. But that can’t be true, because the only reason Biden hasn’t decriminalized cannabis is because he’s not a dictator and has no control over government agencies like HHS.
Biden can do no wrong, when he does it’s because he’s powerless, when he has power but still does wrong it’s because congress, when congress is irrelevant and he has power and still does wrong it’s because you want Trump to win.
Nobody’s saying that. But when you same 4-6 accounts (Lemmy’s not really big enough for you to get lost in the noise yet) show up on every article to shit on Biden for things that aren’t even related to the article, it gets really fucking old.
the only reason Biden hasn’t decriminalized cannabis is because he’s not a dictator and has no control over government agencies like HHS.
The only reason Biden hasn’t decriminalized cannabis is because it keeps (mostly ethnic minority) people in jails, and having full jails is very profitable.
Neither the president, nor HHS, nor the DEA can decriminalize a drug. They can only deschedule. Congress must pass a decriminalization measure before the president can sign it.
Descheduling has no effect on criminal charges. That would require decriminalization.
Biden addressed HHS two years ago, who recommended descheduling to class 3. The DEA has been stalling the approval ever since, regardless of pressure from Biden and Harris. Decriminalization requires Congressional approval prior to getting to the president for approval. The only way Biden could override would be with an Executive Order, a temporary form of legislation that’s designed to address a crisis while allowing time for proper legislation. A temporary decriminalization that would expire would be far more disruptive to the industry than using the current system.
The DEA has been stalling the approval ever since, regardless of pressure from Biden and Harris.
So the head of the DEA doesn’t serve at the pleasure of the president?
And the president can’t just replace the head of the DEA with someone willing to do the job?
The only way Biden could override would be with an Executive Order,
No, because he could just replace the head of the DEA.
Like, your logic is a kid that won’t stop playing a videogame for supper. You keep saying you can’t stop playing the game because it’s not over, but mom can just walk up and turn it off. Then the games over and your not playing.
Biden can tell the head of the DEA to decriminalize or pack his desk.
But he won’t.
Now you can make aaaaallllll the excuses in the world for why he won’t and why that’s good.
But you can’t say he can’t fucking do it when he obviously can.
You don’t even have to take my word for it:
Although the President may not unilaterally deschedule or reschedule a controlled substance, he does possess a large degree of indirect influence over scheduling decisions. The President could pursue the appointment of agency officials who favor descheduling, or use executive orders to direct DEA, HHS, and FDA to consider administrative descheduling of marijuana. The notice-and-comment rulemaking process would take time, and would be subject to judicial review if challenged, but could be done consistently with the CSA’s procedural requirements. In the alternative, the President could work with Congress to pursue descheduling through an amendment to the CSA.
If your boss told you to do something completely legal (and ethical), and you just went “Mmmm no” you’d find yourself looking for a new job after not too long.
Stop defending this bad behaviour.
And clearly I used the word subordinate because it flowed well with insubordinate.
If the only counter you have is to critic some stylisation of wording, you’ve got no legitimate reason.
The didn’t say no. They have yet to respond, and the president cannot assign a due date. I’m in full support of decriminalization, let alone descheduling. I’m only speaking to an understanding of the situation, not arguing my opinion of marijuana reform.
The President is a leader of the most important team in the nation. We are in stark disagreement if you believe otherwise. If you want to criticize actions, judge the DEA for stalling, or Congress for linking the DEA’s budget to their apprehension records. The President cannot control those things without wrongful termination or an irresponsible Executive Order.
The minute you terminate someone who disagrees with you, you admit to being unable to lead that individual. It erodes at your respect with other team members, and inhibits your growth as a leader.
Failure to act is as much a “no” as them putting it in words.
The minute you terminate someone you can’t control, you admit to being unable to lead that individual. It erodes at your respect with other team members, and inhibits your growth as a leader. It’s simply poor leadership.
That is utter bullshit. The minute you don’t remove a person who’s a problem you show what a poor leader you are.
If you just allow the shit to fester because “I can change him” you’re actively making it worse for everyone else.
I think we’re having two different conversations. I’m taking about addressing a team member that doesn’t agree with your direction. You’re talking about a long-term problem performer that has a proven negative impact on the rest of the team. One of those analogies is accurate in representing the DEA’s behavior, and the other warrants dismissal.
Now suddenly she’s insisting it has to be scheduled 1 even though literal medical experts and the president are telling her to deschedule?
There’s no world where you honestly believe federal agencies should be ran like that, answering to no one and ignoring science for personal beliefs that change without explanation
Congress is the problem with your proposal. Descheduling can be done by an agreement of HHS and the DEA. Congress needs to pass decriminalization for it to get to the president for approval.
Although the President may not unilaterally deschedule or reschedule a controlled substance, he does possess a large degree of indirect influence over scheduling decisions. The President could pursue the appointment of agency officials who favor descheduling, or use executive orders to direct DEA, HHS, and FDA to consider administrative descheduling of marijuana. The notice-and-comment rulemaking process would take time, and would be subject to judicial review if challenged, but could be done consistently with the CSA’s procedural requirements. In the alternative, the President could work with Congress to pursue descheduling through an amendment to the CSA.
The President could pursue the appointment of agency officials who favor descheduling, or use executive orders to direct DEA, HHS, and FDA to consider administrative descheduling of marijuana.
Add comment