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.
Like both legislative statutes and the regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution. Some policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes. As the head of state and head of government of the United States, as well as commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, only the president of the United States can issue an executive order.
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.
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
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 executive order is not,declared unconstitutional by the court).
Unfortunately, this is something only Congress can fix, and I’m not holding my breath.
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
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.