#oklahoma v hhs

[fromkenari]

Goddamnit, Oklahoma.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ian Millhiser at Vox:

Oklahoma v. Department of Health and Human Services is the sort of case that keeps health policy wonks up late at night. On the surface, it involves a relatively low-stakes fight over abortion. The Biden administration requires recipients of federal Title X grants — a federal program that funds family-planning services — to present patients with “neutral, factual information” about all of their family-planning options, including abortion. Grant recipients can comply with this requirement by giving patients a national call-in number that can inform those patients about abortion providers. Oklahoma had long received Title X grants to fund health programs in the state. After receiving a $4.5 million grant in 2023, however, the state decided it would no longer comply with the requirement to give patients the call-in number. Accordingly, the administration terminated Oklahoma’s grant. Now, however, Oklahoma wants the Supreme Court to allow it to receive Title X funds without complying with the call-in number rule. Its suit has landed on the Court’s shadow docket, a mix of emergency motions and other expedited matters that the justices sometimes decide without full briefing or oral argument.

Oklahoma raises two arguments to justify its preferred outcome, one of which could potentially sabotage much of Medicare and Medicaid. Briefly, the state claims that federal agencies may not set the rules that states must comply with when they receive federal grant money, even if Congress has explicitly authorized an agency to do so. Taken seriously, Oklahoma’s proposed limit on federal agencies’ power would profoundly transform how many of the biggest and most consequential federal programs operate. As the Justice Department points out in its Oklahoma brief, “Medicare’s ‘Conditions of Participation’ for hospitals alone span some 48 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations.” All of those rules, plus countless other federal regulations for Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs, could cease to function overnight if the justices accept Oklahoma’s more radical argument. (Oklahoma’s second argument, which contends that the call-in rule is contrary to a different federal law, is less radical and more plausible than its first.)

This fight over whether Title X grant recipients must provide some abortion-related information to patients who seek it will be familiar to anyone who closely follows abortion politics. In 1988, the Reagan administration forbade Title X grant recipients from providing any counseling on abortion, and the Supreme Court upheld the Reagan administration’s authority to do so in Rust v. Sullivan (1991). Since then, the policy has sometimes changed depending on which party controls the White House. The Reagan-era policy was eliminated during the Clinton administration, and then revived in 2019 by the Trump administration. Biden’s administration shifted the policy again during his first year in office.

[...] Oklahoma, however, argues that Congress cannot delegate this kind of rulemaking power to a federal agency. If it wants to impose a condition on a federal grant, Congress must write the exact terms of that condition into the statute itself. The implications of this argument are breathtaking, as there are scads of agency-drafted rules governing federal grant programs. The Medicare rules mentioned in the Justice Department’s brief, for example, cover everything from hospital licensure to grievances filed by patients to the corporate governance of hospitals receiving Medicare funds. The rules governing Medicaid can be even more complicated. These are more vulnerable to a legal challenge under Oklahoma’s legal theory because Medicaid is administered almost entirely by states receiving federal grants. Oklahoma, in other words, is asking the Court to fundamentally alter how nearly every single aspect of hospital and health care administration and provision works in the United States — and that’s not even accounting for all the federal grant programs that are not health care-related.

[...]

If the justices are determined to rule in Oklahoma’s favor, there’s a way to do it without breaking Medicare and Medicaid

Oklahoma does raise a second legal argument in its suit that would allow it to receive a Title X grant, but that would not require the Court to throw much of the US health system into chaos. The Biden administration’s requirement that Title X providers must give patients seeking abortion information a call-in number arguably conflicts with a federal law called the Weldon Amendment.

The Weldon Amendment prohibits Title X funds from being distributed to government agencies that subject “any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” The three appellate judges who previously heard the Oklahoma case split on whether the Weldon Amendment prohibits the Biden administration’s rule. Two judges concluded, among other things, that providing a patient with a phone number that will allow them to learn about abortion is not the same thing as referring a patient for an abortion, and thus that the Biden rule was permissible. One judge (who is, notably, a Biden appointee) disagreed. In any event, Oklahoma’s Weldon Amendment argument gives this Supreme Court a way to rule against the Biden administration’s pro-abortion access policy without doing the kind of violence to Medicare and Medicaid contemplated by Oklahoma’s other argument. If the justices are determined to rule in Oklahoma’s favor, anyone who cares about maintaining a stable health system in the United States should root for the Court to take this less radical option.

The Oklahoma v. HHS case could be very big regarding Title X impact, along with Medicare and/or Medicaid.

[stephobrien]

Oklahoma politicians are trying to make it harder for patients to access abortion services... and the way they're going about it could potentially sabotage much of Medicare and Medicaid.

[justsayyesmiss]

ABORTION

PAGE ONE

Panel 1

A rally for reproductive rights. Women in partial silhouette and abstracted colors hold signs that read “My Body My Choice,” “We Will Not Go Back,” “Keep Abortion Safe & Legal,” “Reproductive Rights are Human Rights,” and “Never Again.” The “Never Again” sign has an image of a coat hanger in a red circle with a red line slashed through, like a no smoking sign.

CAPTION: The landmark abortion decision Roe v. Wade has been dismantled by the Trump-appointed Supreme Court and reproductive rights in the United States are in tatters.

Panel 2

The signs from panel 1 are now on fire.

CAPTION: However, if Trump is re-elected and enacts Project 2025, shit’s about to get downright dystopian.

Panel 3

An array of states, color-coded by their current anti-abortion laws. The colors are as follows:

Pink: Abortion is banned.

Yellow: No exception for lethal fetal anomalies.

Orange: No exceptions for rape or incest.

Bright red: No exception for the health of the pregnant person.

Dark red: Complete ban, no exceptions.

Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, Indiana, Iowa, West Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida are pink. Arizona, Missouri, and North Dakota are yellow. Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama are orange and yellow. Ohio is orange. Wisconsin is orange and bright red. Idaho and Mississippi are yellow and bright red. Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and South Dakota are dark red.

CAPTION: There are already 23 states – almost half of the country – that either have total abortion bans or 6, 8 or 15 week bans in place.* On top of that, 7 of those states have no exceptions for the health of the pregnant person, 12 states have no exceptions for rape or incest, and 13 states have no exception for lethal fetal anomalies.

CAPTION: *Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Iowa, Wisconsin & Ohio’s abortion bans are currently blocked by state courts. This will change of Project 2025 goes through.

Panel 4

A woman in partial silhouette, standing in front of a high-rise building, looks down at a home pregnancy test.

CAPTION: Pregnancy in these states can be deadly. Reproductive healthcare is nonexistent, and Project 2025 will make it WORSE.

Panel 5

The woman walks past a building, looking worriedly behind her. Behind the glass doors of the high-rise we see the silhouettes of onlookers.

CAPTION: Hospitals will no longer be willing to perform emergency abortions, even to save the life of the mother. [Project 2025, page 473]

CAPTION: Funding for abortion travel will be prohibited under the Hyde Amendment. [page 471]

Panel 6

The woman is now behind prison bars.

CAPTION: Since the end of Roe v. Wade, more than 200 women have been jailed for having miscarriages that are suspected of being abortions or for “fetal abuse.”

CAPTION: This number will only grow under Project 2025.

PAGE TWO

Panel 1

The Project 2025 book flies open and begins to fall apart, spreading its pages across a map of the United States that stretches through panels 2 and 3. It casts the shadow of a reaching arm and hand across the map. On the first falling page, we see an excerpt about government agencies encouraging “heterosexual marriage and procreation” and “biblically based” science.

CAPTION: Under Project 2025, being in a blue state doesn’t guarantee your rights.

Panel 2

The sprawling pages visible here include one that calls Mifepristone “a controlled dangerous substance” to be banned, and another that notes that “HHS will be known as the Department of Life and explicitly reject the notion that abortion is healthcare.”

CAPTION: “Fetal Personhood” will become federal law via the new “Department of Life.” [page 489]

CAPTION: In Vitro Fertilization (which depends on frozen embryos) will be banned in the entire country. [page 450]

Panel 3

One page visible here repeats the note about the Mifepristone ban, and another notes “Every state will report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method.”

CAPTION: The medication Mifepristone, a life-saving drug used to stop deadly postpartum hemorrhages that’s also used in chemical abortions, will be banned. [pages 458-459]

Panel 4

Blue and white pills dissolve into a gray background on the left side of the panel. On the right side of the panel, we see a repeat of the page with an excerpt about reporting abortions, and under that page we see a series of green ID tags with women’s photos, logging their abortions. At the top of the panel, we see a partial excerpt of an addition to the U.S. Code that bans the distribution of abortion pills through the mail.

CAPTION: Your mail will be monitored;

CAPTION: Project 2025’s resurrection of the 1873 Comstock Act will ban mail-order abortion pills and “any article or thing designed or intended for…procuring an abortion” up to and including certain kinds of contraception. [page 459]

CAPTION: You’ll lose medical privacy. All states, even ones where abortion is still allowed, will be required to submit detailed information about pregnancies, abortions and miscarriages to a federal database. [page 455]

Panel 5

A trail of women in black clothing march along a bloody path to a graveyard.

CAPTION: US maternal death rates are already the highest in the “first world,” especially among women of color. With Project 2025 destroying reproductive rights, these deaths will skyrocket.

Panel 6

White space between panels.

CAPTION: Project 2025 ensures women will no longer be autonomous beings.

CAPTION: If you get pregnant under Project 2025, you will be forced to give birth.

CAPTION: Even if it kills you.

Panel 7

At the top of the panel we see an embryo in a petri dish, which a ruler measuring it as about half an inch big. Below the petri dish, we see the stylized image of a teenage girl.

CAPTION: This [arrow pointing to the embryo] will have more rights than this [teenage girl].

CAPTION [under embryo]: This is a representation of tissue removed at six weeks, when “fetal heartbeat” bills outlaw abortion.

CAPTION [next to girl]: This is a representation of a teenage girl, who will have no bodily autonomy.

CAPTION: You can do something about this. You can save lives. You can save women’s rights. You can vote.

[creepingsharia]

Tennessee: Memphis Physicians (from Pakistan) Agree To Pay More Than $340,000 for Alleged Overbilling

Not only do elections have consequences, so do the mass immigration policies elected officials force on their constituents. Tennessee is a prime example. At least one Both of the “doctors” below, are from Pakistan.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, October 30, 2020

Doctor Shoaib Qureshi, Doctor Imran Mirza, Memphis Primary Care Specialists, Lunceford Family Health Center, and Getwell Family Medicine agreed to pay $341,690 to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by knowingly charging Medicare for services rendered by nurse practitioners at the higher reimbursement rate for physician services, the Justice Department announced today.  

Doctor Qureshi and Doctor Mirza are family medicine physicians who practice in and around Memphis, Tennessee.  Doctor Qureshi owns and operates Memphis Primary Care Specialists and Lunceford Family Health Center; Doctor Mirza owns and operates Getwell Family Medicine.

“Healthcare providers who overcharge Medicare contribute to the soaring cost of health care,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark for the Department of Justice’s Civil Division.  “The department will continue to investigate and hold accountable those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of federal health care programs and the American taxpayers.” 

"Falsely billing Medicare for services by absent physicians encourages fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer funds and can ultimately harm patients," said D. Michael Dunavant, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee. "Settlements like this achieve provider accountability, protect public funds, and safeguard the beneficiaries of federal health care programs."

“Medicare is a system based on trust and depends on the integrity of health care providers,” said Derrick L. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General in Atlanta.  “Physicians have a duty to ensure claims are accurate in order to prevent the program from over-paying for the services rendered to patients.”

Medicare pays a higher rate for physician services than for non-physician services.  Medicare will pay the higher physician rate for services rendered by non-physician providers if the services are “incident to” the services of a physician.  Such “incident to” services, however, must be provided under the direct supervision of a physician.  The United States alleged that, from 2015 to 2018, Doctor Qureshi, Doctor Mirza, and their clinics billed Medicare as though the physicians had provided the services in question, when in fact nurse practitioners had treated the patients without the supervision required by Medicare’s “incident to” rules.  Indeed, the government alleged that the services were rendered when the physicians were out of the office, including times when they were traveling out of state or abroad.     

The settlement resolves allegations filed in a lawsuit by Michael Grace under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private individuals to sue for false claims on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery.  The civil lawsuit is docketed in the Western District of Tennessee and is captioned United States; the States of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas; the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia; and the City of Chicago ex rel. Grace v. Tenet HealthCare Corp., St. Francis Hospital-Memphis, Desert Regional Medical Center, Apollo MD, Shoaib Qureshi, MD; and Imran Mirza, MD, Case No. 2:20-CV-2209.  As part of this settlement, Grace will receive $58,087 as his share of the government’s recovery. 

The resolution of this matter illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud.  One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act.  Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement can be reported to the Department of Health and Human Services at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).

This matter was investigated by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Tennessee, and the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability. 

----------------------------

Both were educated in Pakistan prior to coming to the U.S.

Quereshi

Mirza

[rightsinexile]

Detention and Deportation News

AUSTRALIA:

Prime Minister Scott Morrison toured the Christmas Island immigration detention camp south of Jakarta, Indonesia, to show Australians that the re-opened detention centre was "up to the job" of providing healthcare to all single male asylum seekers brought to Australia under new medical transfer legislation.

The Australian government says it will dramatically expand healthcare operations at the Christmas Island Detention Centre to cater for more than 500 refugees and asylum seekers. 

Most of the 57 men currently earmarked for Christmas Island detention have been classed as refugees under the government's processing procedures. However, according to the PM, anyone on Manus or Nauru deemed a risk to Australia would be sent to the centre's high-security North West Point facility if they apply for a medical transfer under the legislation.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet criticizes Australia's refugee policies, specifically condemning plans to reopen Christmas Island detention centre.

GERMANY:

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that Germany may deport asylum-seekers to other EU member states, stating that shortcomings in the welfare system of a member state should not prevent asylum-seekers from being deported, and exceptions apply only in extreme cases, where the individual is deprived of his or her "most basic needs, such as feeding, washing and finding shelter."

According to Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, Germany failed to deport 27,000 rejected asylum seekers last year, nearly half of the total 57,000 cases, but the government will soon step up deportation efforts.

INDIA:

The Supreme Court of India has asked the government to review its repatriation policy regarding foreigners in detention and to come up with other ways to allow detainees to live a dignified life, including granting refugee status on them.

UNHCR has expressed regret over India's decision to repatriate a group of Rohingya to Myanmar, the second such return in three months, and has sought clarification from India on the circumstances under which the asylum seekers were sent back, voicing concern over the unconducive conditions for such returns.

LIBYA:

UNHCR is troubled by reports of the use of force against protesting asylum seekers in Sikka detention centre in Libya; around 50 people were reportedly injured when police moved to end the protest and two individuals were badly injured and transferred to hospital.

Refugees and migrants – particularly men and boys – are being subjected to brutal and routine sexual violence in Libyan detention centres and all along the Central Mediterranean Route to Italy, a recent report based on surveys and focus groups conducted by the Women’s Refugee Commission finds. The extent of sexual violence perpetrated against refugees appears in part to be contingent on their financial resources, their connections, and the year that they travelled – those traveling in recent years are seemingly more likely to have experienced sexual violence. Perpetrators often film the abuse and send (or threaten to send) it to victims’ relatives in an attempt to extract extra ransom money.

QATAR:

Qatar authorities are threatening to forcibly expel a Yemeni national without considering his claim for asylum, according to Human Rights Watch, who state that the Qatar government has so far failed to implement a law passed in September 2018 that sets out the standards for granting asylum and the rights and benefits for people granted asylum in the country, claiming that the infrastructure necessary to enforce the law has not yet been established.

UK:

A man faces deportation to Malaysia, where homosexual acts are punishable under federal and sometimes sharia law, after the Home Office said it did not believe he was gay suggesting it was suspicious that he did not have a boyfriend.

US:

The US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the government may detain — without a hearing — legal immigrants long after they have served the sentences for crimes they committed, reversing a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has made it harder for the US government to quickly deport asylum-seekers if they fail an initial “credible fear” screening at the border. The court held that a law passed by Congress in 1996 limiting asylum-seekers’ access to US courts if they want to challenge decisions of an asylum officer and immigration judge is unconstitutional. The ruling in Thuraissigiam v. USDHS could give thousands of asylum-seekers the right to seek habeas review in the federal court system.

According to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) documents released on Capitol Hill by Florida Democratic representative Ted Deutch’s office, thousands of allegations of sexual abuse against unaccompanied minors (UAC) in the custody of the US government have been reported over the past 4 years. The allegations range from adult staff members having relationships with minors, and the showing of pornographic videos, to forcible touching. 

The US government is keeping at least 16 unaccompanied minors, some as young as nine years old, in at least five undisclosed facilities in Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Virginia; the facilities have never been acknowledged by the US Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

The Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) says it has uncovered evidence that the Office of Refugee Resettlement was proactively sharing information that it gained during the family reunification process with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in effect using the children as bait to snare undocumented sponsors. “We suspected it all along but what cemented it for us was the leaking of a memo that this policy is being used for the purpose of deterring immigration” said Saira Draper, a senior staff attorney with the SPLC.

At least nine infants under the age of one are being held in a Texas immigrant detention facility, according to a complaint filed with the US Department of Homeland Security that warned of an “alarming increase” in how many infants are detained.

In the past five years, median bond amounts for immigration cases in the US have increased by 50 percent, to USD 7,500. For those who can’t afford to pay, Libre by Nexus acts as a sort of middleman, connecting detainees with licensed bond companies that front the money.

[maxwellyjordan]

Pharmaceutical roundup

“A federal judge has ordered the nation’s leading pharmacy chains to turn over billions of nationwide prescription records going back 14 years – even as the American Civil Liberties Union and some states attack similar requests by the government as overbroad and an invasion of privacy.” [Daniel Fisher, Legal NewsLine] “Without evidence and unable to make public nuisance argument, Delaware’s opioid claims against Walgreens fail” [same] “Oklahoma Opioid Ruling: Another Instance of Improper Judicial Governance Through Public Nuisance Litigation” [Eric Lasker and Jessica Lu, Washington Legal Foundation, earlier]

“Merck v. HHS tests the limits of the federal government’s ability to control and compel commercial speech” [Ilya Shapiro and Dennis Garcia on Cato amicus brief in D.C. Circuit raising First Amendment issues]

Let’s try correcting the New York Times on drug pricing. Where to begin? [Molly Ratty, Popehat]

“Court Strikes Down NECC Convictions [New England Compounding Center] for Vagueness” [Stephen McConnell, Drug & Device Law]

Defense perspective: the ten worst and best prescription drug and medical device decisions of 2019 [Jim Beck, Drug & Device Law]

“If there are people out there with no options and they have terrible diseases, we are going to get those drugs to them as fast as feasible.” FDA approving potential breakthrough drugs more speedily [Michelle Fay Cortez and Cristin Flanagan, Bloomberg/MSN; related, Alex Tabarrok]

Tags: advertising, Delaware, FDA, lawyering vs. privacy, opioids, pharmaceuticals, public nuisance

from Law http://www.overlawyered.com/2020/01/pharmaceutical-roundup-8/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[democratsunited-blog]

Democrat Bill Would Let Parents Who Commit Fed Crimes Go Scot-Free

https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=4158

Democrat Bill Would Let Parents Who Commit Fed Crimes Go Scot-Free

Democrats’ proposed legislation to prohibit so-called border separations would actually prevent federal law enforcement agencies almost anywhere inside the United States from arresting and detaining criminals who are parents having nothing to do with unlawfully crossing the border and seeking asylum.

Every Senate Democrat has now signed on to cosponsor a bill written so carelessly that it does not distinguish between migrant children at the border and U.S. citizen children already within the United States. The bill further does not distinguish between federal officers handling the border crisis and federal law enforcement pursuing the ordinary course of their duties.

Let’s break down Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed “Keep Families Together Act” to see where Democrats went wrong. The bill provides that “[a]n agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States” (with three exceptions to be discussed later). Four immediate warning signs in this provision should put the reader on notice that this bill is not what Democrats claim.

First, “designated agency” here is defined as the entirety of the federal departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services. The scope of the bill is not limited to those portions of these departments involved with the border crisis, and there is no other limiting factor in the bill that would cabin the prohibition on family separation to immigration-related matters. In other words, this bill is going to regulate conduct across a great many federal offices that have nothing to do with separating children from families arriving unlawfully in the United States.

Second, “agent or officer” is not defined by the legislation, except to say that it includes contractors. Federal law, however, already defines “officer” to include (with exceptions not relevant here) every federal employee appointed to the civil service by the head of an executive agency and ultimately overseen by the head of an executive agency.

Here again, this bill is not limited to controlling the behavior of the DHS, DOJ, or HHS officers involved in the border crisis. The proposed law would apply with equal force to, say, FBI agents (part of DOJ), Secret Service agents (part of DHS), and Centers for Disease Control officers (part of HHS) in the exercise of their everyday duties.

Third, “at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border” does not meaningfully limit the geographic scope of this bill. That area includes almost the entirety of the geographical territory of the United States and the vast majority of people living in it. Two hundred million people live within 100 miles of the border. That’s roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population. Even more live near ports of entry, including in places far from the border crisis, like Salt Lake City, Utah (nearly 700 miles from the nearest border crossing), Tulsa, Oklahoma (more than 600 miles from the nearest border crossing), and Nashville, Tennessee (nearly 600 miles from the nearest border crossing). All major U.S. metropolitan areas fall within either 100 miles of the border or are near a port of entry or both.

Finally, “child” is defined in this legislation as any individual who has not reached 18 years old who has no permanent immigration status. This astonishing definition includes U.S. citizens under the age of 18. Citizen children by definition have no immigration status, permanent or otherwise. (Even if the Democrats belatedly amended this provision to restrict the definition to alien children without a permanent immigration status, that amended definition would still include non-migrant aliens, like tourist children, Deferred Action for Child Arrivals recipients under the age of 18, and children whose parents have had their immigration status revoked.)

Thus, far from addressing the border crisis, the Democrats’ Keep Families Together Act applies almost everywhere in the country to prohibit any DHS, DOJ, or HHS officer from removing almost any child from a parent. The listed exceptions to the prohibition—a state court authorizes separation, a state child welfare agency determines that the child is in danger, or certain DHS officials establish that the child is a victim of trafficking or is in danger from the parent, or that the parent is not the actual parent of the child��are completely unrelated to the vast majority of DHS, DOJ, and HHS enforcement activity.

Two groups would not benefit from the prohibition on family separation in this bill. First, parents who have children with a permanent immigration status go unprotected. Additionally, the childless would obviously find no shelter from this legislation. This disparity in treatment for the childless and lawful permanent residents borders on the farcical.

The ridiculous consequences of passing the Democrats’ hastily written mess are easily demonstrated. Let’s say FBI agents hear about a drug trafficker and murderer in Buffalo, New York. The agents get a warrant to raid the drug trafficker’s house and arrest him. While they do so, they discover the drug trafficker’s minor daughter is home with him. Feinstein’s bill would prohibit the FBI agents, while arresting a drug trafficker, from separating this child from her father.

This is not a farfetched hypothetical. FBI agents are agents of DOJ (a designated agency) and Buffalo is within 100 miles of the border. So long as the daughter is either a U.S. citizen or an alien without permanent status, the FBI agents would be unable to proceed with normal law enforcement activities. The agents would be forced to choose between booking the drug trafficking murderer into jail with his daughter or not booking him into jail at all.

Panicky lawmaking often produces absurd results, and this one presents law enforcement with the choice between keeping children with their criminal parents while prosecuting them almost anywhere in the United States and for any crime whatsoever, or not prosecuting criminal parents at all. The legislation is not limited to unlawful entry prosecutions, to migrants, or (absent amendment) even to alien children.

A more honest method of ending unlawful entry prosecutions—and the family separations that ensue—would be to repeal 8 U.S.C. § 1325, which criminalizes unlawful entry in the first place. That would at least have the benefit of not curtailing federal enforcement of every other criminal law on the books for parents who keep their children close.

At a minimum, Democrats’ proposed legislation is the consequence of extremely careless and hurried drafting. If this is actually what Democrats intend to do—and every Democratic senator has now signed on—it is a monstrous attack on law and order. If enacted, this bill would turn federal law enforcement upside down in the name of protecting relatively few unlawful border crossers from being prosecuted. This sloppiness is a prime example of why Democrats are unserious about outcomes and unfit to govern when the emotional stakes get high.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function()n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments);if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');

fbq('init', '683573541742108'); fbq('track', 'PageView'); Read full story here