272
Senate Republicans block bill that establishes right to IVF across the US
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
272 points (99.6% liked)
News
23296 readers
1289 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Whether or not he could is largely irrelevant. Executive orders can be completely undone by the next administration. Plus I’d wager this is out of scope for an executive order. Executive orders generally have to do with operations issues with the federal government.
He can issue an executive order to limit the number of immigrants can cross the US-Mexico border per day because that’s an operational issue for an agency within the executive branch. He can’t say, “Everyone can have access to IVF”. Essentially, he’d be saying that individual states can’t make illegal, IVF procedures. That’s a legislative policy issue, and would be up to congress to pass a law that would force the states to fall in line.
That’s my understanding at least. I’m sure I’ve mucked something up in that explanation, but would wager that the overall gist of it is correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
emergencies count
if you're actually interested, even the considerable powers granted in a state of emergency are defined by laws passed by Congress:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-emergency-powers-and-their-use
link you posted backs up what said
he more than could executive order this
choosing not to do anything except to make it a fundraising topic for the DNC
not trying to be both sides but the way this is playing out benefits BOTH sides but NOT the people
gives the democrats something else to say they voted on and it gives the republicans something else to be against
How is this an emergency? The dealing with emergencies here (personal interpretation) would be for national security emergencies or natural disasters to allocate resources. An individual citizen’s lack of access to a medical procedure, while tragic, fails to rise to that level.
The key bit you quoted has to do with deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced. Also remember that this is at the federal level, not the state level. So he can issue an executive order to keep the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies from enforcing any anti-IVF laws, similar to how they’ve directed the DEA to not pursue marijuana charges in states where recreational use has been legalized. hHe cannot simply write a law into existence, which is what would be needed for what you’re asking.
https://guides.library.umass.edu/govinfo/exec/orders#:~:text=An%20executive%20order%20is%20not,declared%20unconstitutional%20by%20the%20court).
Unfortunately, this is something only Congress can fix, and I’m not holding my breath.
him doing something even if it is doomed to fail would show more than just votes and asking for more funding
But like I said… he can’t. There’s no “doomed to fail” about it… it’s outside his executive powers. He can’t dictate law.
You're going to have to read past the first two sentences.