HHS holds back critical comments on faith-based rule

[DonViejo]

Source: Politico




HHS’ selective disclosure could lead to legal challenges, particularly under the Administrative Procedure Act.

By DAN DIAMOND 12/18/2017 02:16 PM EST

The Department of Health and Human Services is refusing to make public more than 10,000 comments on a Trump administration proposal to reduce federal regulations for religious and faith-based groups that could affect access to abortion and care for transgender patients, according to sources with knowledge of the decision.

The agency has instead posted 80 comments — less than 1 percent of all submissions — that overwhemingly back the administration’s anti-abortion policies or attack regulations advanced by the Obama administration, such as a rule forcing health care providers that accept federal funding to provide services to transgender patients.

HHS’ selective disclosure could lead to legal challenges, particularly under the Administrative Procedure Act, and is raising new questions at a time when the agency’s transparency is already under scrutiny. If HHS doesn’t post and address comments on the rule, “there may be grounds for an APA challenge for whatever rule comes out of the process,” said Alison Tanner of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the missing comments three weeks ago.

Under that law, agencies must solicit public comment as part of the rule-making process. They typically post all comments received through the website regulations.gov.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/18/hhs-faith-based-rule-withholding-comments-236759?lo=ap_c1

[elleng]

1. Trouble with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Let's see how far the judiciary allows the fools to go.

[onenote]

3. Not sure that there is an APA issue here at the moment.

The item was not a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -- it was a request for information. I think an APA issue only would arise if and when HHS decides to proceed with an NPRM based on the responses to the request for information and those responses are not publicly available when comments/reply comments are due on the proposed rules.

[elleng]

6. Seems to me selective disclosure could be an issue at any juncture of the process,

but as 'retired' Fed atty, not willing to swear!!!

[ck4829]

2. Treason. Warfare against transgender Americans. Plain and simple.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Dominionist Big Orange Brother say No objections to faith-based policy-making are allowed. . . . nt

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. More, and a link to Regulations.gov:

HHS holds back critical comments on faith-based rule

HHS’ selective disclosure could lead to legal challenges, particularly under the Administrative Procedure Act.

By DAN DIAMOND 12/18/2017 02:16 PM EST

....
According to regulations.gov, HHS received 10,729 public comments, of which 10,649 have yet to be posted. HHS did post 71 comments that strongly support its proposal or raise related religious concerns. Those positive comments were heavily front-loaded at the start of the comment period; for the first two weeks, all 36 comments that the agency made public supported its position.

Meanwhile, HHS made public just nine critical comments, six of which were included in its final batch of posting. A person with knowledge of HHS' decision said that administrators, facing questions from outside the agency, posted a flurry of last-minute criticism in hopes of making a curated selection of comments appear more balanced.

HHS’ proposal is being overseen by Shannon Royce, who leads the agency’s Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships and previously served as chief operating officer of the conservative Family Research Council until May 2017. Royce is a prominent anti-abortion activist, and during her time running the FRC’s day-to-day operations, the group posted a 42-page issue brief that termed transgender people as "an assault on the sexes."

"Neither lawmakers … nor medical professionals should participate in or reinforce the transgender movement's lies about sexuality," the brief concluded. "Nor should they be required by the government to support such distortion."

[Fred Sanders]

7. Now this is administered by an extremist from the radical Family Research Council that is

intolerant of any other religion. Fascism creeping in all over.

[Initech]

8. Why does the religious right think they are above the law?

This is fucking sickening. This is pure fascism. Ugh, I hate these assholes.