297
American Academy of Pediatrics loses government funding after criticizing RFK Jr (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/health@lemmy.world
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Cuts, which affect projects focused on issues including early identification of autism, made without prior notice to AAP

The US department of health and human services (HHS) has terminated several multi-million-dollar grants to the American Academy of Pediatrics following the association’s criticisms of health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr’s policies.

The funding cuts, which affect projects focused on issues including fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and early identification of autism, were first reported by the Washington Post and made without prior notice to the AAP.

In a statement to the Guardian, AAP CEO, Mark Del Monte, said: “AAP learned this week that seven grants to AAP under the US Department of Health and Human Services are being terminated.

“This vital work spanned multiple child health priorities, including reducing sudden infant death, rural access to health care, mental health, adolescent health, supporting children with birth defects, early identification of autism, and prevention of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, among other topics.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

Except that nullifying the 1st amendment isn't exactly just a reinterpretation...it would be a complete reversal of its core meaning. That's why I said it's "civil war level fuckery". This was literally what the Founders started the war of independence over...the right to criticize the government, among other things detailed in the Bill of Rights. It's a pretty foundational concept.

If the Supreme Court just decides the 1st amendment doesn't mean that anymore, then the 2nd amendment should be invoked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Oh, I entirely agree with the severity and the "they are not supposed to do that"-ness of it. It's far from right.
    I'm just saying that there's nothing in the law or constitution that says they can't.

    In this case they'd just say something about the government having an overriding interest in financial management, and without direct evidence that funding was pulled as retaliation the claim doesn't pass the threshold for consideration.
    The court has used related reasoning to say that removal of books is speech by the government, and so you have no recourse when the government censors information in libraries.
    Or "ice needs to be racist to do their job, and that's more important than equal protection under the law".

    It's a fucked situation, but it's not new, and it's not illegal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent