/PRNewswire/ -- Ordering federal employees to work during a government shutdown violates the U.S. Constitution, according to a lawsuit filed today by the nation's largest federal employee union.
The American Federation of Government Employees filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew and Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry are named as defendants.
The lawsuit contends that the Obama administration is violating the U.S. Constitution's Appropriations Clause and Thirteenth Amendment by requiring federal civilian employees to work without pay during a period of lapsed federal appropriations.
"Hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be required to work during a shutdown, and there's no guarantee that Congress will keep the administration's promise to pay those employees once the shutdown is over," AFGE National President John Gage said.
Section 1341 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code prohibits federal and D.C. government workers from spending or obligating funds that have not already been appropriated by Congress.
The administration claims that it can require certain employees to work during a shutdown under Section 1342 of Title 31, which includes a clause covering "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property."
However, AFGE's lawsuit contends that this section of U.S. Code is not a valid exception to the prohibition on incurring debts during a shutdown because it is not an appropriations law and does not empower federal agencies to force Congress to pay for debts incurred during a shutdown.
"The Constitution requires an appropriation by Congress before federal dollars can be spent, no exceptions," Gage said. "Without an appropriation, the agencies simply can't spend money or incur debts by forcing employees to work."
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union, representing 625,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label violates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label violates. Show all posts
Friday, April 8, 2011
Friday, November 20, 2009
Senate Mandatory Health-Insurance Bill Infringes on Choice and Privacy
/PRNewswire/ -- The Senate's newly released health-reform bill ("Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act") infringes on Americans' health-insurance choices and medical privacy, says Sue Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom (IHF) -- a patients' rights group in Washington, D.C.
The bill would (among many other provisions):
-- Require nearly every legal resident to buy government-sanctioned
health insurance;
-- Increase Medicare payroll taxes on individuals earning over $200,000
per year and couples earning over $250,000 per year (raising $54
billion in taxes over 10 years);
-- Slap a new tax on "Cadillac" health plans (high-cost plans offered by
employers to their employees) -- raising $149 billion in taxes over 10
years (2010-2019); and
-- Finish laying the building blocks for a computerized "Nationwide
Health Information Network" (NHIN) without patients' consent.
Section 937 of the bill, titled "Dissemination and Building Capacity for Research," includes the following provision:
''(f) BUILDING DATA FOR RESEARCH.--The Secretary [of Health and Human Services] shall provide for the coordination of relevant Federal health programs to build data capacity for comparative clinical effectiveness research, including the development and use of clinical registries and health outcomes research data networks, in order to develop and maintain a comprehensive, interoperable data network to collect, link, and analyze data on outcomes and effectiveness from multiple sources, including electronic health records." [Emphasis added.] (See pages 1683-684 of the bill.)
Dissemination of the collected data will be governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy rule, which actually permits patients' personal health information to be shared among more than 600,000 organizations without patients' consent. "Combining a mandatory national electronic medical-records data network with the so-called HIPAA privacy rule means patients will lose control over the flow of their personal health information," says Robin Kaigh, an attorney and medical-privacy advocate. "The only way to ensure that patients control their personal health data is to make sure patient consent is obtained before data can be shared."
IHF points out that Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health, recently stressed in U.S. News & World Report:
"...[T]he doctor-patient relationship was never meant to be other than confidential and privileged and solely for the benefit of the patient. Patients expect it, or they would not be forthcoming. And doctors take the Hippocratic oath, pledging to hold sacred their patients' secrets. This pledge of confidentiality, however, is now challenged by a world where computers rule and health information falls into many hands. One might well ask whether medical privacy is just too outmoded a concept for today's information-hungry world. We had better decide...."
Do you really wish to have your personal health information become part of a Nationwide Health Information Network without your consent?
IHF is encouraging citizens to call their Senators as soon as possible and tell them to "vote no on a motion to proceed" on Senator Reid's mandatory health-insurance bill, because it infringes on patients' choice and privacy.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
The bill would (among many other provisions):
-- Require nearly every legal resident to buy government-sanctioned
health insurance;
-- Increase Medicare payroll taxes on individuals earning over $200,000
per year and couples earning over $250,000 per year (raising $54
billion in taxes over 10 years);
-- Slap a new tax on "Cadillac" health plans (high-cost plans offered by
employers to their employees) -- raising $149 billion in taxes over 10
years (2010-2019); and
-- Finish laying the building blocks for a computerized "Nationwide
Health Information Network" (NHIN) without patients' consent.
Section 937 of the bill, titled "Dissemination and Building Capacity for Research," includes the following provision:
''(f) BUILDING DATA FOR RESEARCH.--The Secretary [of Health and Human Services] shall provide for the coordination of relevant Federal health programs to build data capacity for comparative clinical effectiveness research, including the development and use of clinical registries and health outcomes research data networks, in order to develop and maintain a comprehensive, interoperable data network to collect, link, and analyze data on outcomes and effectiveness from multiple sources, including electronic health records." [Emphasis added.] (See pages 1683-684 of the bill.)
Dissemination of the collected data will be governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy rule, which actually permits patients' personal health information to be shared among more than 600,000 organizations without patients' consent. "Combining a mandatory national electronic medical-records data network with the so-called HIPAA privacy rule means patients will lose control over the flow of their personal health information," says Robin Kaigh, an attorney and medical-privacy advocate. "The only way to ensure that patients control their personal health data is to make sure patient consent is obtained before data can be shared."
IHF points out that Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health, recently stressed in U.S. News & World Report:
"...[T]he doctor-patient relationship was never meant to be other than confidential and privileged and solely for the benefit of the patient. Patients expect it, or they would not be forthcoming. And doctors take the Hippocratic oath, pledging to hold sacred their patients' secrets. This pledge of confidentiality, however, is now challenged by a world where computers rule and health information falls into many hands. One might well ask whether medical privacy is just too outmoded a concept for today's information-hungry world. We had better decide...."
Do you really wish to have your personal health information become part of a Nationwide Health Information Network without your consent?
IHF is encouraging citizens to call their Senators as soon as possible and tell them to "vote no on a motion to proceed" on Senator Reid's mandatory health-insurance bill, because it infringes on patients' choice and privacy.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Judicial Watch Raises Ethics Concerns about Judge Sotomayor Prejudicial Statements, Discriminatory Affiliation and Improper Political Activities
/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it sent a letter of complaint on July 7 to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) expressing concern that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly violated the Judicial Code of Conduct through her statements and behavior and
is therefore unfit to serve on the High Court.
According to the letter signed by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
"I write to you out of concern that out-of-court statements and activity by Judge Sonia Sotomayor violate various provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges ("Code of Conduct"). In fact, Judge Sotomayor may be in violation of the Code of Conduct as a result of the following:
· Repeated prejudicial and racist comments.
· Recent membership in an organization that
practices "invidious discrimination" based on sex.
· Improper political activity.
The Judicial Code of Conduct notes that the duty to "act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge's activities, including the discharge of the judge's adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias."
Judge Sotomayor's statements and activities, Judicial Watch contends, have repeatedly violated this and other canons of the Code of Conduct. Among the evidence presented by Judicial Watch to support its contention:
Sotomayor's Prejudiced and Racist Comments: During an October 2001 speech at the University of California Berkeley, Sotomayor said the following: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Judge Sotomayor has also promoted the idea that "gender and national origins" of judges "may and will make a difference in our judging."
Sotomayor's Membership in an Organization That Practices "Invidious Discrimination" Based on Sex: According to Canon 2 (c) of the Judicial Code of Conduct: "A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor recently resigned her membership from the Belizean Grove, a private organization consisting entirely of professional women that claims
to represent the counterweight to the "elite old boys' network." In her recent Senate questionnaire Judge Sotomayor wrote the following with respect to her organizational affiliations: "None of the above organizations, other than the Belizean Grove, discriminates on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor stated that the group does not "invidiously" discriminate but the evidence seems otherwise.
Sotomayor's Improper Political Activity: On April 17, 2009, Judge Sotomayor made a political speech to the Black, Latino, Asian Pacific American Law Alumni Association. Among the statements made by Judge Sotomayor during that speech: "The wide coalition of groups that joined forces to elect America's first Afro-American President was awe inspiring in both the
passion the members of the coalition exhibited in their efforts and the discipline they showed in the execution of their goals... Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence."
Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct plainly states that "A judge should refrain from political activity," and that a judge should not "publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."
"Judge Sotomayor seems to be in violation of the ethical guidelines that governs the conduct of judges. Frankly, this apparent misconduct ought to give the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate further reason to reject her nomination for the High Court," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
is therefore unfit to serve on the High Court.
According to the letter signed by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
"I write to you out of concern that out-of-court statements and activity by Judge Sonia Sotomayor violate various provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges ("Code of Conduct"). In fact, Judge Sotomayor may be in violation of the Code of Conduct as a result of the following:
· Repeated prejudicial and racist comments.
· Recent membership in an organization that
practices "invidious discrimination" based on sex.
· Improper political activity.
The Judicial Code of Conduct notes that the duty to "act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge's activities, including the discharge of the judge's adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias."
Judge Sotomayor's statements and activities, Judicial Watch contends, have repeatedly violated this and other canons of the Code of Conduct. Among the evidence presented by Judicial Watch to support its contention:
Sotomayor's Prejudiced and Racist Comments: During an October 2001 speech at the University of California Berkeley, Sotomayor said the following: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Judge Sotomayor has also promoted the idea that "gender and national origins" of judges "may and will make a difference in our judging."
Sotomayor's Membership in an Organization That Practices "Invidious Discrimination" Based on Sex: According to Canon 2 (c) of the Judicial Code of Conduct: "A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor recently resigned her membership from the Belizean Grove, a private organization consisting entirely of professional women that claims
to represent the counterweight to the "elite old boys' network." In her recent Senate questionnaire Judge Sotomayor wrote the following with respect to her organizational affiliations: "None of the above organizations, other than the Belizean Grove, discriminates on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor stated that the group does not "invidiously" discriminate but the evidence seems otherwise.
Sotomayor's Improper Political Activity: On April 17, 2009, Judge Sotomayor made a political speech to the Black, Latino, Asian Pacific American Law Alumni Association. Among the statements made by Judge Sotomayor during that speech: "The wide coalition of groups that joined forces to elect America's first Afro-American President was awe inspiring in both the
passion the members of the coalition exhibited in their efforts and the discipline they showed in the execution of their goals... Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence."
Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct plainly states that "A judge should refrain from political activity," and that a judge should not "publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."
"Judge Sotomayor seems to be in violation of the ethical guidelines that governs the conduct of judges. Frankly, this apparent misconduct ought to give the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate further reason to reject her nomination for the High Court," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)