Monthly Archives: May 2017

After months of rumors, President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpConway: 'Where the hell were those Democrats' when veterans waiting for care Pentagon moves forward on Trump Tower lease: report Trump transition officials warned Flynn about contacts with Russian ambassador: report MORE finally signed an executive order on religious freedom. At his press conference, he delivered forceful remarks that many conservatives have longed to hear from the president, [n]o American should be forced to choose between the dictates of the federal government and the tenets of their faith. And the order itself includes similar language, Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government.

But when it comes to creating actual legal protections the stuff that makes an immediate difference in the real world the Presidents order is short on specifics and doesnt include half of what was in a prior draft. So while people of faith are heartened by the Presidents gesture, they are left to hope that this is just the beginning not the end of the Presidents efforts to secure religious freedom. In other words, they hope that this isnt just a gesture, but is a harbinger of real action to come.

The executive order has four primary sections. First, it includes broad language declaring that the policy of the executive branch is to vigorously enforce Federal laws robust protections for religious freedom. This sounds significant, but it has no effect until federal officials apply it in specific circumstances.

Second, the order instructs IRS officials to protect the freedom of churches and houses of worship to speak about moral or political issues from a religious perspective. Again, this seems like a game-changer, but the Johnson Amendment is an existing federal law that authorizes the IRS to punish certain political speech by churches. Trumps executive order does not undo the Johnson Amendment nor could it. So the impact of the orders second section is quite limited. (Incidentally, Congress is considering the Free Speech Fairness Act, which is a legislative solution to the free-speech problems created by the Johnson Amendment).

Third, the order directs federal officials, including the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, to consider issuing amended regulations that would protect nonprofit groups with faith-based objections to providing abortion pills in their insurance coverage. Those groups range from religious universities like Geneva College to social-service organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor. A directive to consider fixing the problem is not what Id consider a strong affirmation of religious freedom, particularly given that the Supreme Court in the Zubik v. Burwell case already told HHS to do this nearly a year ago.

Fourth, the order tells the Attorney General to issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law. Once again, this doesnt provide any concrete safeguards for people of faith.

Religious-freedom advocates have been mixed in their response to the order. Some groups, like the Family Research Council, applaud it as a significant first step to defending religious liberty. Others, like the Heritage Foundation, observe that it doesnt take on the most pressing religious liberty threats. I think the best response is to reserve judgment until we see what Trumps administration does with the vision he cast in the order.

This can go one of two ways. Federal officials will throw the order onto their shred piles and ignore its hortatory language. HHS officials ordered to consider issuing amended regulations will ponder the question for a moment, maybe even seek comments from the public, and fail to take satisfactory steps toward resolution (which is exactly what theyve done for the past year). If this is how the situation unfolds, religious-freedom advocates, much like the Trump supporters still looking for the wall, will grow disillusioned and cynical.

Or the federal government will snap into widespread action in defense of religious freedom. Federal agencies will take to heart the orders sweeping directives to vigorously enforce Federal laws robust protections for religious freedom, safeguard everyones right to exercise religion and participate fully in civil life, and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. And HHS officials will amend Obamacare regulations to extend the existing exemption for churches to other faith-based nonprofit organizations.

In this scenario, when Attorney General Sessions issues guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law, he will do so in circumstances where the threats to religious freedom are most palpable. And his guidance will provide unequivocal protection for people of faith. If he wants, General Sessions could start by condemning the Department of Agricultures efforts to shut down Donald Vander Boons meatpacking facility, West Michigan Beef Company, simply because he put literature explaining his views about marriage in the companys break room. (Full disclosure: Vander Boom is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization that I work for).

It is only through these sorts of tangible actions that religious-freedom advocates will know President Trump is serious about making religious liberty his administrations first priority. Without concrete steps, many will come to believe that all the talk about protecting people of faith was just campaign bluster.

The President still has a chance to make good on his campaign promise about religious freedom. But its going to take more than this executive order.

Jim Campbell is senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, which defends religious freedom in the U.S. and worldwide.

The views of contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Disclosure:Vander Boom is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization that the author works for.

View post:

Trump's religious freedom executive order can be successful - The Hill (blog)

MILTON, Wis. May 5, 20147 Freedom has continued to focus its attention on the growing concern and demand of information security as it relates to protected health information (PHI). Many healthcare organizations are increasingly dependent on business associates to create, receive, transmit, or process PHI and patient data. Elevated regulatory requirements over the past decade require stricter controls for healthcare organizations, as well as their related business associates. As a business associate, Freedom agrees that this sensitive information should be protected with the highest regard.

Increasing regulatory and contractual requirements for covered entities and business associates demand implementation and maintenance of stronger controls over the use and disclosure of PHI. These organizations are required to demonstrate their ability to secure and safeguard PHI through an effective risk management program, states Marty Liebert, President and CEO of Freedom.

He continues, We have been focusing on data security for over a decade working with external independent auditors to validate the effectiveness of our information security and risk management programs. Security from desktop to dock door has been part of Freedoms culture and DNA since the inception of the company. As the regulatory compliance requirements increase, so does our direction for the protection of PHI.

Most healthcare organizations are now leveraging the Health Information Trust (HITRUST) Alliance Common Security Framework (CSF) as a standard to design and implement data security systems. The HITRUST Alliance has collaborated with leaders from the healthcare and information security realms to develop this framework, and the CSF provides a clear and concise structure for securing and safeguarding this PHI.

Liebert adds, This framework aligns with the initiatives Freedom implemented years ago, and adds to the integrity of our systems. Choosing the adoption of this framework and becoming HITRUST CSF Certified was a decision Freedom felt was a match for continued work with healthcare entities. With this certification, we can now provide the assurance that we are fully committed to protect the sensitive data of our healthcare entities. We anticipate receiving our official HITRUST CSF Certification by the end of October, 2017.

Liebert also notes, Freedom has worked for years at adapting our comprehensive Security Management System to mitigate ever changing risks and meet requirements. Data security has many ancillary benefits including improved product quality. As a part of this continuous process, our systems are assessed and accredited by external independent audit firms. Our compliance road map included the SAS 70 audit process.

He continues, We realized that this one-size fits-all approach was outdated and did not fit the requirements for truly safeguarding the security and confidentiality of our customers data. We have since achieved the SOC2 Type2 Compliance and continue to work with recognized audit CPA firms to maintain that compliance annually. In addition, the Qualified Security Assessors that we work with attest to our PCI compliance. Freedom has maintained annual compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS Level 1 Certified) since 2012.

Source: Freedom.

Read the rest here:

Freedom to Adopt HITRUST CSF Compliance and Certification Practices - Printing Impressions

The Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial board wrote on Tuesday: Trump administration continues to threaten a free press. Did I miss the news about President Trump vowing to shut down CNN or the New York Times? Of course, that didnt happen. So what is the editorial board talking about?

[A]t a campaign-rally style event on Saturday, Trump used the bully pulpit to try to bully the news media, which he said included some very dishonest people.

So what? A free press is not a press that is immune from criticism. On the contrary, disagreement is the corollary of freedom. And we all know that the press has monolithically opposed President Trump, accusing him of dishonesty and worse. As the editorial board did in its very next sentence:

But it was actually Trump who lied about the failing New York Times subscriptions have surged since the election claiming the paper apologized because its campaign forecasts were so bad. In fact, no apology was issued.

Is the New York Times failing? That is a matter of opinion, and the fact that subscriptions have surged since the election doesnt answer the question. The Times has conducted one layoff after another, as declining revenues have forced personnel cuts. And this chart shows the New York Times share price from 2001 to the present:

Is the Times failing? As I said, that is a matter of opinion, but it violates all norms of journalism for the editorial board to say that Trump lied in expressing that judgment.

Did the Times apologize for its coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign? That, too, is a judgment call. The papers publisher and editor sent a letter to its readers on November 13, 2016, that can be read as a mea culpa. That is how the New York Post saw it. (The publishers letter to subscribers was part apology and part defense of its campaign coverage, but the key takeaway was a pledge to do better.)

The Strib editorial board continues:

The administration ratcheted up the rhetoric with an even more chilling message the next day, when Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told ABC that the White House had looked at potential changes to libel laws, echoing Trumps irresponsible campaign pledge to open up laws to make it easier to sue news media organizations.

The editorial refers to the 1964 Supreme Court case of New York Times vs. Sullivan, under which (along with succeeding cases) the Supreme Court has established a regime that is probably more tolerant of reporters who publish falsehoods than any other country in the world. Does the Strib think that freedom of the press dates only from 1964? And is New York Times vs. Sullivan somehow above criticism?

The Strib editorialists probably have never been lied about in a newspaper, but that is an experience that Donald Trump and his family have gone through many times. Just a few weeks ago, Melania Trump settled a lawsuit which she brought against the Daily Mail in London. The Daily Mail reported a false rumor that Mrs. Trump was a prostitute early in her career as a model. The lawsuit was resolved with a cash payment by the Daily Mail and an apology:

We accept that these allegations about Mrs. Trump are not true and we retract and withdraw them, a lawyer for the British newspaper told a judge, Andrew Nicol, at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. We apologize to Mrs. Trump for any distress that our publication caused her. To settle Mrs. Trumps two lawsuits against us, we have agreed to pay her damages and costs.

Note that Mrs. Trump brought her case in the United Kingdom. If an American newspaper had published the same lie about her, in all probability New York Times vs. Sullivan would have prevented her from obtaining either damages or an apology. President Trump can perhaps be forgiven for considering this a sub-optimal legal arrangement. And does the Star Tribune think that England, with its stricter libel laws, doesnt have a free press?

In any event, so what if President Trump disagrees with the current state of defamation law? Disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision doesnt make you an enemy of free speech. Unless, of course, you disagree with the Citizens United case, which means that you want the government to be able to ban books and movies that criticize politicians. (Citizens United held that it was unconstitutional for the government to ban the showing of a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton.) Overturning Citizens United really would deal a body blow to free speech, but because that is a position favored by the Democratic Partyand in particular by Barack Obamait doesnt bother the Star Tribunes editorial board.

The editorial continues:

In the introduction to its annual World Press Freedom Index report, Reporters Without Borders wrote that this years index reflects a world in which attacks on the media have become commonplace, and strongmen are on the rise. We have reached the age of post-truth, propaganda, and suppression of freedoms especially in democracies.

The U.S. should be a beacon of media freedom, but the country ranked a pathetic 43rd in the index, just below the African country Burkina Faso.

If you didnt know better, you might infer that the U.S.s pathetic rank of 43rd in the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index was Donald Trumps fault. So, how did the U.S. rank in the halcyon days of the Obama administration? In 2014, we ranked 46th. In 2015, we ranked 49th, three slots below Burkina Faso. I guess the Strib should congratulate President Trump on our improving press freedom rating.

Mostly, though, this is all silliness. The dominant liberal press has been bashing Republicans for as long as any of us can remember, and we finally have a Republican president who is willing to hit back at partisan journalists. What the press wants is not to be freeit is as free as anyone can imaginebut rather to be above criticism. To be able to throw punches without ever taking any. This is the Stribs vision:

Americans, regardless of party, should reject Trumps destructive attacks on journalists and instead unite behind freedom of the press.

That is completely wrong-headed. We give reporters the freedom to criticize government officials, and government officials (like the rest of us) have the reciprocal freedom to criticize journalists. Freedom of the press does not mean that reporters enjoy a unique immunity from disagreement. What we have today is a free-for-all, which is exactly what the Founders envisaged.

See more here:

Trump Threatens Press Freedom? Ridiculous - Power Line (blog)

President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan led the Rose Garden celebration, but the Freedom Caucus came out of Thursday's healthcare vote big winners.

The group of conservative lawmakers had been derided as an obstacle to Republican unity, good only for killing legislation or forcing it to be passed with Democratic votes. But this time, the Freedom Caucus was instrumental in shaping a bill partially repealing Obamacare that could get to a majority in the House with only Republicans.

"I think they ultimately made the bill better," Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., told the Washington Examiner about his fellow conservatives' Obamacare efforts. "I think the trajectory of the bill has been changed in regard to real world savings in the individual marketplace, which I think will be very important not only from a political standpoint but from a policy standpoint as well."

Trump himself blamed the Freedom Caucus for the initial failure of the Republican Obamacare replacement plan, suggesting they would need to be fought alongside the Democrats in 2018. On Thursday, the president sang their praises.

"The groups have all come together," Trump said at the White House. "We have the Tuesday Group we have so many groups. We have the Freedom Caucus. We have and they're all great people."

Only one Freedom Caucus member voted against the latest version of the American Health Care Act, while over a dozen centrists and Republicans from swing districts voted no. Even Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., a leading libertarian lawmaker, voted yes.

"Tough vote today," Amash tweeted. "I decided only after I had read and understood the entire bill. A lot of exaggeration from both parties about its effects."

By contrast, there were reports that the centrist Tuesday Group was mulling the expulsion of the member most crucial to achieving a breakthrough on healthcare negotiations: Rep. Tom MacArthur, R-N.J.

Sanford pointed out that Trump said he was "moving on" after Obamacare repeal failed the first time around, after leadership pulled the bill from the House floor, while Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., kept trying to negotiate with centrists.

"[T]hen you have Meadows and MacArthur begin to kick ideas around and form their amendment that I think resuscitated this bill," he said. "Executive branch is always important but I think that the real credit in this one belongs to a lot of rank-and-file members who rolled up their sleeves and said, 'This issue is too big to be abandoned and it's too important in people's lives and we have to work on it.' So they did."

"I think the lesson here is that the White House should work with conservatives right out of the gate," said a Freedom Caucus source. "You can't ignore conservatives in the Trump era."

The initial argument within the Republican conference was that Freedom Caucus members mostly held safe seats while the centrists were taking all the political risks. A GOP strategist complained about centrist Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., having to "walk the plank" for members winning 70 percent of the vote in their re-election races.

Over time, however, Freedom Caucus members made a variety of concessions to bring other Republicans on board. They moved away from full repeal, backed off their opposition to refundable tax credits, lowered the number of Obamacare mandates they insisted on rescinding from 12 to two, and then accepted allowing states to apply for waivers allowing them to opt out of the mandates.

As centrist vote totals fluctuated, it became difficult to sustain the argument that conservatives were the ones moving the goalposts. "We've moved them much closer," Meadows said after the Obamacare push stalled the first time. "All they have to do is kick a chip shot."

The core conservative argument remained the same: allow the sale of bare-bones insurance plans to lower premiums and bring more young, healthy people into the marketplace. "Our main goal, our only goal, is to lower premiums," Meadows said.

Not everyone was pleased with the group's sudden pragmatism. "Why are Freedom Caucus members, who only yesterday were opposing the lousy budget agreement to increase federal expenditures, chucking their principles aside for a flawed bill they probably haven't read?" asked Reason magazine's Matt Welch. He attempted to answer his own question: "The truth is that Donald Trump generally inspires more positive passion in GOP-held congressional districts than the local congress-critters themselves."

Many grassroots conservatives despise the bill even its current form. So do some holdout lawmakers.

"I voted against this bill not because it's imperfect, but because it's not good," said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., in a statement. Massie previously compared the bill to a kidney stone that House only cared about passing.

"Now in 2017, for reasons I cannot understand, instead of moving a bill to repeal Obamacare and replace it with reforms that will fix our broken health care system, the Washington Republican leadership jammed a bill through the House that does neither," said Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. "Furthermore, the rushed, behind-closed-doors process they've used is shameful."

Lots of last-minute horse-trading was involved in passing the bill, which some supporters admittedly didn't read and the Senate isn't even going to vote on as written.

Still, Freedom Caucus support helped get outside conservative groups to drop their American Health Care Act opposition. And conservative lawmakers were happy to keep even partial Obamacare repeal alive.

"I think it's important to recognize this vote for what it is: a vote to continue the conversation about where we go next on healthcare," Sanford said.

Some even think this is a model for passing future legislation.

"The president cares about how his base responds to policy on Capitol Hill and more often than not that base is going to be aligned with the demands of House conservatives," the Freedom Caucus source said. "If he wants to keep his base happy, he should start by working with conservatives, then make concessions to get enough moderates on board. Not the other way around."

"And this exercise showed us that the Freedom Caucus is willing to stick to its guns," the source added.

Kimberly Leonard contributed to this report.

Go here to read the rest:

Freedom Caucus comes to save Obamacare repeal, not bury it - Washington Examiner

Supporters of contraception rally before Zubik v. Burwell, an appeal brought by Christian groups demanding full exemption from the requirement to provide insurance covering contraception under the Affordable Care Act, is heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington DC., March 23, 2016.

(Washington, DC) An executive order issued by President Donald Trump on May 4, 2017, opens the way to overriding regulations that protect womens health, Human Rights Watch said today. While media attention has largely focused on the orders efforts to roll back limits on political speech by religious leaders, its other and less sensational provisions could harm the rights of millions of women.

President Trump described the executive order on promoting free speech and religious liberty as an effort to defend the freedom of religion and speech in America. Its signing was timed to coincide with the National Day of Prayer. But the order also invites agencies to issue regulations that would allow the conscience-based objections of employers and insurers to override regulations that protect womens health.

Its shameful to target life-saving womens health services and call it an act of conscience, said Amanda Klasing, senior womens rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. This order will take away many womens access to affordable family planning options.

Senior womens rights researcher

The Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty invites the secretaries of the treasury, labor, and health and human services departments to consider issuing amended regulations to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate as it pertains to women and women only.

The mandate was introduced as part of the Affordable Care Act. It states that: A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements forwith respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described in paragraph (1).

Preventive care and screenings under this provision currently include breast cancer screening for average-risk women; breastfeeding services and supplies; contraception; screening for cervical cancer, gestational diabetes, HIV, and interpersonal and domestic violence; counseling for sexually transmitted infections; and visits to health facilities for preventive care, known as well women visits. Religious employers are already exempted from the contraceptive mandate while religious non-profits and certain closely held corporations have also been extended accommodations to address religious objections to contraception. Yet, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price quickly responded to the order by welcoming the opportunity to re-examine the contraception mandate, promising swift action.

The order also instructs the attorney general to issue guidance to all agencies interpreting religious liberty protections in federal law. This vague provision seems to invite new interpretations of existing law that recognize new religious exemptions, which is deeply alarming given that both President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have signaled support in public statements for broad religious exemptions aimed at facilitating discrimination.

As the governor of Indiana, Vice President Pence signed a religious exemption law that drew widespread criticism from the LGBT community. On the campaign trail, President Trump repeatedly indicated he would sign the First Amendment Defense Act, a bill that would prohibit the federal government from taking action against those who discriminate or refuse service based on their opposition to same-sex marriage or sex outside of marriage.In South Dakota and Alabama, state governments have recently enacted religious exemptions that facilitate discrimination against LGBT people in adoption and foster care.

This order attacks the rights of women using religion as a pretext, Klasing said. Even as the House guts health care, the President struck a real and immediate blow with this order, giving free reign to restrict the contraceptive mandate that benefits millions of women in the US.

Read the original here:

US: Religious Freedom Order Opens Way for Bias - Human Rights Watch

CNSNews.com

Trump's Religious Freedom EO Proves America's Salvation Won't Come on Air Force One CNSNews.com President Trump's long-anticipated order on religious freedom reminds us that salvation won't come on Air Force One. Yesterday, on the National Day of Prayer, President Trump signed an executive order on religious liberty. Unfortunately, though it was ... and more »

Read the original:

Trump's Religious Freedom EO Proves America's Salvation Won't Come on Air Force One - CNSNews.com