◼︎Sunday, September 1-Tuesday, September 3
No posts.
◼︎Wednesday, September 4
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 11:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
“Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Title IX)
“With its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on July 12, 2022, the Biden Education Department seeks to gut the hard-earned rights of women with its changes to the department’s regulations implementing Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities. Instead, the Biden Administration has sought to trample women’s and girls’ athletic opportunities and due process on campus, threaten free speech and religious liberty, and erode parental rights in elementary and secondary education regarding sensitive issues of sex. The new Administration should take the following steps:
“▪︎ Work with Congress to use the earliest available legislative vehicle to prohibit the department from using any appropriations or from otherwise enforcing any final regulations under Title IX promulgated by the department during the prior Administration.
“▪︎ Commence a new agency rulemaking process to rescind the current Administration’s Title IX regulations; restore the Title IX regulations promulgated by then-Secretary Betsy DeVos on May 19, 2020; and define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth.
“▪︎ Work with Congress to amend Title IX to include due process requirements; define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth; and strengthen protections for faith-based educational institutions, programs, and activities.”
Pages 332-333
◼︎ Thursday, September 5
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 11:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
“The Trump Administration’s 2020 Title IX regulation protected the foundational right to due process for those who are accused of sexual misconduct. The Biden Administration’s proposed change to the interpretation of Title IX disposes of these rights.
“The next Administration should move quickly to restore the rights of women and girls and restore due process protections for accused individuals.
“At the same time, there is no scientific or legal basis for redefining ‘sex’ to ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ in Title IX. Such a change misrepresents the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock, threatens the American system of federalism, removes important due process protections for students in higher education, and puts girls and women in danger of physical harm. Facilitating social gender transition without parental consent increases the likelihood that children will seek hormone treatments, such as puberty blockers, which are experimental medical interventions. Research has not demonstrated positive effects and longterm outcomes of these treatments, and the unintended side effects are still not fully understood.
“The next Administration should abandon this change redefining ‘sex’ to mean ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ in Title IX immediately across all departments.
“On its first day in office, the next Administration should signal its intent to enter the rulemaking process to restore the Trump Administration’s Title IX regulation, with the additional insistence that ‘sex’ is properly understood as a fixed biological fact. Official notice-and-comment should be posted immediately.
“At the same time, the political appointees in the Offce for Civil Rights [OCR] should begin a full review of all Title IX investigations that were conducted on the understanding that ‘sex’ referred to gender identity and/or sexual orientation.
“All ongoing investigations should be dropped, and all school districts affected should be given notice that they are free to drop any policy changes pursued under pressure from the Biden Administration.
“The OCR Assistant Secretary should prepare a report of OCR’s actions for the new Secretary of Education, who should—by speech or letter—publicize the nature of the overreach engaged in by his predecessor.
“The Secretary should make it clear that FERPA [Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ] allows parents full access to their children’s educational records, so any practice of paperwork obfuscation on this front violates federal law.’
Pages 333-334
NOTE: This portion of Project 2025 reflects some of the bigotry and misconceptions on the transgender issue and LGBTQ+ youth generally.
It states, “Facilitating social gender transition without parental consent increases the likelihood that children will seek hormone treatments, such as puberty blockers, which are experimental medical interventions.” To be clear, no schools are transitioning youth with hormones or puberty blocker treatments. They are not equipped to do this. Plus this or any medical treatment of any kind, including common vaccinations, is prohibited in most or all states without parental consent — unless the minor is emancipated, not living with a parent or guardian, or married.
This section also states, “FERPA [Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ] allows parents full access to their children’s educational records.” The danger here is that schools are being pressured to out transgender students to their parents simply for wanting to use a different name or gender reference that the student feels is authentic. Not only is outing the student to his or her parents cruel, it is potentially dangerous. Even deadly. 28% of LGBTQ+ youth have experienced homelessness or housing instability — and those who did had two to four times the odds of reporting depression, anxiety, self-harm, considering suicide, and attempting suicide. [Trevor Project]
◼︎ Friday, September 6
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 11:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
“Phase Out Existing Income-Driven Repayment Plans
“While income-driven repayment (IDR) of student loans is a superior approach relative to fixed payment plans, the number of IDR plans has proliferated beyond reason. And recent IDR plans are so generous that they require no or only token repayment from many students.
“▪︎ The Secretary should phase out all existing IDR plans by making new loans (including consolidation loans) ineligible and should implement a new IDR plan. The new plan should have an income exemption equal to the poverty line and require payments of 10 percent of income above the exemption. If new legislation is possible, there should be no loan forgiveness, but if not, existing law would require forgiving any remaining balance after 25 years.
“President Biden has proposed a new income-driven repayment program that would be extremely generous to borrowers, requiring only nominal payments from most students. It would turn every policy lever to the most generous setting on record (e.g., lowering the percentage of income owed from 10 percent to 25 percent under existing plans to 5 percent, lowering the number of years of payment required from 20 or 25 years to 10 years, and increasing income exemption from 150 percent to 225 percent of the poverty line). The median borrower who earns an associate degree would owe only $15 a month, regardless of how much he or she had borrowed. The median bachelor’s degree borrower would owe only $68 a month. This plan essentially converts these student loans into delayed grant programs.”
Pages 337-338
◼︎ Saturday, September 7
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 11:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
“Reform the O!ce of Federal Student Aid
“This proposal urges the new Administration to end the abuse of FSA’s loan forgiveness programs, to manage the federal student loan portfolio in a professional way, and to work with Congress for a long-term overhaul of the program for the benefit of students and taxpayers.
“▪︎ The new Administration must end the prior Administration’s abuse of the agency’s payment pause and HEA loan forgiveness programs, including borrower defense to repayment, closed school discharge, and Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
“▪︎ The new Administration should also take immediate steps to commence the rulemaking process to rescind or substantially modify the prior Administration’s HEA regulations.
“▪︎ The federal government does not have the proper incentives to make sound lending decisions, so the new Administration should consider returning to a system in which private lenders, backed by government guarantees, would compete to o”er student loans, including subsidized and unsubsidized, loans. This would allow for market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure.
“If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Administration should consider the following reforms:
“▪︎ Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and
“▪︎ Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that
“1. Utilizes income-driven repayment,
“2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness,
“3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and
“4. Requires “skin in the game” from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment.
“The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again.”
Pages 340–341
◼︎ Sunday, September 8
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 11:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
“NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND…
“When the nation’s largest teacher association, the National Education Association (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an e!ectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nation’s other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), use litigation and other e!orts to block school choice and advocate for additional taxpayer spending in education. They also lobbied to keep schools closed during the pandemic. All of these positions run contrary to robust research evidence showing positive outcomes for students from education choice policies; there is no conclusive evidence that more taxpayer spending on schools improves student outcomes; and evidence finds that keeping schools closed to in-person learning resulted in negative emotional and academic outcomes for students. Furthermore, the union promotes radical racial and gender ideologies in schools that parents oppose according to nationally representative surveys.
“• Congress should rescind the National Education Association’s congressional charter and remove the false impression that federal taxpayers support the political activities of this special interest group.
“This move would not be unprecedented, as Congress has rescinded the federal charters of other organizations over the past century. The NEA is a demonstrably radical special interest group that overwhelmingly supports left-of-center policies and policymakers.
“• Members should conduct hearings to determine how much federal taxpayer money the NEA has used for radical causes favoring a single political party.”
Pages 341-342
NOTE: This is a direct anti-union assault against all teachers.
◼︎ Monday, September 9
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 11:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
“Advancing Legal Protections for Parental Rights in Education
“While the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts have consistently recognized that parents have the right and duty to direct the care and upbringing of their children, they have not always treated parental rights as co-equal to other fundamental rights—like free speech or the free exercise of religion. As a result, some courts treat parental rights as a “second-tier” right and do not properly safeguard these rights against government infringement. The courts vary greatly over which species of constitutional review (rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny) to apply to parental rights cases.
“This uncertainty has emboldened federal agencies to promote rules and policies that infringe parental rights. For example, under the Biden Administration’s proposed Title IX regulations, schools could be required to assist a child with a social or medical gender transition without parental consent or to withhold information from parents about a child’s social transition (e.g., changing their names or pronouns). The federal government could demand that schools include curriculum or lessons regarding critical race or gender theory in a way that violates parental rights, especially if it requires minors to disclose information about their religious beliefs, or beliefs about race or gender in violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (20 USC Sec. 1232h). To remedy the lack of clear and robust protection for parental rights, the next Administration should:
“▪︎ Work to pass a federal Parents’ Bill of Rights that restores parental rights to a “top-tier” right. Such legislation would give families a fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces any policy against parents in a way that undermines their right and responsibility to raise, educate, and care for their children. The law would require the government to satisfy “strict scrutiny”—the highest standard of judicial review—when the government infringes parental rights.
“▪︎ Further ensure that any regulations that could impact parental rights contain similar protections and require federal agencies to demonstrate that their action meets strict scrutiny before a final rule is promulgated.
“At the same time, Congress should also consider equipping parents with a private right of action. Two federal laws provide certain privacy protections for students attending educational institutions or programs funded by the department. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of student education records and allows parents and students over the age of 18 to inspect and review the student’s education records maintained by the school and to request corrections to those records. FERPA also authorizes a number of exceptions to this records privacy protection that allow schools to disclose the student’s education records without the consent or knowledge of the parent or student. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) requires schools to obtain parental consent before asking questions, including surveys, about political a”liations or beliefs; mental or psychological issues; sexual behaviors or attitudes; critical appraisals of family members; illegal or self-incriminating behavior; religious practices or beliefs; privileged relationships, as with doctors and clergy; and family income, unless for program eligibility.
“The difficulty for parents is that FERPA and PPRA do not authorize a private right of action. If a school refuses to comply with either statute, the only remedy is for the parent or student (if over the age of 18) to file an administrative complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, which must then work with the school to obtain compliance before taking any action to suspend or terminate federal financial assistance. Investigations can take months if not years. The department has never suspended or terminated the funding for an educational institution or agency for violating FERPA or PPRA. In essence, Congress has granted parents and students important statutory rights without an e!ective remedy to assert those rights.
“▪︎The next Administration should work with Congress to amend FERPA and PPRA to provide parents and students over the age of 18 years with a private right of action to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, together with attorneys’ fees and costs if a prevailing party, against educational institutions and agencies that violate rights enshrined in these statutes. This will empower parents and students, level the playing field between families and education bureaucracies, and encourage institutional compliance with these statutory requirements.”
Pages 343-345
NOTE: Parental rights are not co-equal with free speech or free exercise of religion, each of which are explicitly listed in the First Amendment. Nor should they be. The rights of parents must be measured against the rights of students and youth, LGBTQ+ or otherwise. One example is Henkle v. Gregory which recognized a First Amendment right to be out in school and protected against discrimination.
Iowa Safe Schools, et al v. Reynolds is currently fighting an Iowa law that violates the right of youth to safely define where and to whom they are out. The Iowa law requires teachers, counselors, and other school staff to report students to their parents or guardians if the student asks to be referred to by a name or pronouns that align with their gender identity, potentially putting students at risk for abuse and homelessness — which happens too often and is definitely NOT a parental right.
Placing parental rights at “top-tier” status in the manner described here in Project 2025 leaves youth vulnerable to the prejudices of parents, siblings and other family members.
◼︎ Tuesday, September 10
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 11:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
“Protect Parental Rights in Policy
“In addition to strengthening legal protections for parents, the next Administration should:
“▪︎ Prioritize legislation advancing such rights. Promising ideas have appeared in bills introduced in the 117th Congress such as H.R.8767, the Empowering Parents Act,15 sponsored by Representative Bob Good (R-VA); H.R. 6056, the Parents’ Bill of Rights Act,16 sponsored by Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA); and H.J.Res. 99,17 proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to parental rights, sponsored by Representative Debbie Lesko (R-AZ).
“▪︎ These congressional actions should be carefully reviewed to make sure they complement state Parents’ Bills of Rights, such as those passed in Georgia (2022), Florida (2021), Montana (2021), Wyoming (2017), Idaho (2015), Oklahoma (2014), Virginia (2013), and Arizona (2010).
“As documented by writers such as Abigail Shrier and others, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons documented a four-fold increase in the number of biological girls seeking gender surgery between 2016 and 2017. Larger increases were found in the U.K. from 2009 to 2019 and 2017 to 2018. These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hormone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and surgeries without parental involvement does not reduce the suicidality of these young people and may even increase suicide rates.
“▪︎ The next Administration should take particular note of how radical gender ideology is having a devastating e”ect on school-aged children today—especially young girls.
“School o”cials in some states are requiring teachers and other school employees to accept a minor child’s decision to assume a di!erent “gender” while at school—without notifying parents. In California, New Jersey, and certain districts in Kansas and elsewhere, educators are prohibited from informing parents about children’s confusion over their sex if the children do not want their parents to know. Such policies allow schools to drive a wedge between parents and children. The next Administration should work with Congress to provide an example to state lawmakers by requiring K–12 districts under federal jurisdiction, including Washington, D.C., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and Department of Defense schools, with legislation stating that:
“▪︎ No public education employee or contractor shall use a name to address a student other than the name listed on a student’s birth certificate, without the written permission of a student’s parents or guardians.
“▪︎ No public education employee or contractor shall use a pronoun in addressing a student that is di”erent from that student’s biological sex without the written permission of a student’s parents or guardians.
“▪︎ No public institution may require an education employee or contractor to use a pronoun that does not match a person’s biological sex if contrary to the employee’s or contractor’s religious or moral convictions.
“State lawmakers should use this model and adopt similar provisions for public schools within their borders. Federal lawmakers should not allow public school employees to keep secrets about a child from that child’s parents.”
Pages 345-346
NOTE: This entire section is a wholesale assault against LGBTQ+ students, particularly trans students who regrettably find themselves in the crosshairs of right wing bigotry. Hoping our transgender brothers and sisters can be exploited as a weak link, anti-LGBTQ+ forces are aiming all their attacks and vitriol against them — the goal being the bring down LGBGTQ+ rights across the board.
This section blows open the closet doors of trans students by legal mandate and prioritizes the tender sensibilities of adult teachers and staff over the rights and safety of their trans students. Project 2025 declares, “No public institution may require an education employee or contractor to use a pronoun that does not match a person’s biological sex if contrary to the employee’s or contractor’s religious or moral convictions.” These employees may have all kinds of religious or moral convictions for which we don’t grant them free rein — racism or antisemitism, for instance.
Many doctors have religious or moral convictions against LGBTQ+ people in general. Are they to be allowed to deny life-saving treatment in an emergency room? Appallingly, YES. States like South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio and Illinois have laws where doctors, nurses and other health care professionals can legally refuse treatment. [NBC News]
◼︎Wednesday, September 11
No post.
◼︎ Thursday, September 12
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 11:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
“Recommend Budget Cuts, Shifts, and Augmentations…
“▪︎ Eliminate competitive grant programs and reduce spending on formula grant programs. Competitive grant programs operated by the Department of Education should be eliminated, and federal spending should be reduced to reflect remaining formula grant programs authorized under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the handful of other programs that do not fall under the competitive/ project grant category. Remaining programs managed by the Department of Education, such as large formula grant programs for K–12 education, should be reduced by 10 percent. This would cut approximately 29 programs, most of which are discretionary spending. In total, this would generate approximately $8.8 billion in savings.
“▪︎ Eliminate the PLUS loan program. As mentioned above, the PLUS loan program, which provides graduate student loans and loans to the parents of undergraduate students, should be eliminated. This would generate an estimated $2.3 billion in savings.
“▪︎ End time-based and occupation-based student loan forgiveness. A low estimate suggests ending current student loan forgiveness schemes would save taxpayers $370 billion.
“▪︎ Eliminate GEAR-UP. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to provide taxpayer dollars to create a pipeline from high school to college. GEAR UP should be eliminated, and its functions should instead be handled privately or at the state and local levels, where policymakers are better equipped to increase college preparedness within their school districts.”
Pages 359-361
◼︎ Friday, September 13
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 12:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND RELATED COMMISSIONS
“The new energy crisis is caused not by a lack of resources, but by extreme ‘green’ policies. Under the rubrics of ‘combating climate change’ and ‘ESG’ (environmental, social, and governance), the Biden Administration, Congress, and various states, as well as Wall Street investors, international corporations, and progressive special-interest groups, are changing America’s energy landscape [with] ideologically driven policies…
“[T]he next conservative Administration should:…
“▪︎ Support repeal of massive spending bills like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)3 and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),4 which established new programs and are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to renewable energy developers, their investors, and special interests, and support the rescinding of all funds not already spent by these programs.
“▪︎ Unleash private-sector energy innovation by ending government interference in energy decisions.
“▪︎ Stop the war on oil and natural gas…”
Pages 363-365
◼︎ Saturday, September 14
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 12:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND RELATED COMMISSIONS
“Office of Nuclear Energy (NE)
“Mission/Overview
“The Office of Nuclear Energy’s ‘mission is to advance nuclear energy science and technology to meet U.S. energy, environmental, and economic needs.’ It has five stated goals: ‘Enable continued operation of existing U.S. nuclear reactors,’ ‘Enable deployment of advanced nuclear reactors,’ ‘Develop advanced nuclear fuel cycles,’ ‘Maintain U.S. leadership in nuclear energy technology,’ and ‘Enable a high-performing organization.’ Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Office of Nuclear Energy ‘has also been responsible for the DOE’s statutory requirements to collect and dispose of spent nuclear fuel…since the Obama Administration’s dissolution of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.’
“Needed Reforms
“NE is too influential in driving the business decisions of commercial nuclear energy firms. Instead of focusing on a limited set of basic research and development activities that solve foundational technical issues that apply broadly to energy production, NE intervenes in nearly all aspects of the commercial nuclear energy industry. Absent wholesale reforms that restructure the federal energy and science bureaucracy to eliminate such functional energy offices, the next Administration should:
“▪︎ Substantially limit NE’s size and scope.
“▪︎ Adopt broader regulatory and energy policy reforms that reduce regulatory obstacles, allow all energy sources to compete fairly in the marketplace, and establish a predictable policy environment. This will avoid unfair bias against the nuclear industry.”
Page 375
NOTE: When it comes to deregulation, be careful what you ask for.
People love to condemn the “excessive regulations” imposed by “government bureaucrats” — until there’s some accident that kills people, destroys property and homes, or pollutes the environment. THEN people demand to know why it was allowed to happen. “Someone needs to be held accountable!” “This should not be allowed to happen!”
The 2023 train derailment and resulting toxic spill in East Palestine, Ohio, might have been avoided had President Trump not scrapped regulations in 2019 that Obama imposed on the railroads a few years earlier in 2015. Trump canceled a rule that would have enforced new breaking requirements on certain trains by 2021 and others by 2023. Trump decided that “the cost of installing these more sophisticated brakes outweigh[ed] the benefit.” The Norfolk Southern train consequently did not have these new breaks. There is a high probability this contributed to the derailment. [Vanity Fair and PolitiFact]
◼︎Sunday, September 15
No post.
◼︎ Monday, September 16
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 12:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND RELATED COMMISSIONS
“▪︎ Eliminate carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) programs…
“▪︎ Eliminate FECM [Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management]…
“▪︎ Rename FECM (if it cannot be eliminated) under its original designation as the Office of Fossil Energy and with its original mission: increasing energy security and supply through fossil fuels…
“▪︎ End the focus on climate change and green subsidies…
“▪︎ Eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances…
“▪︎ Eliminate EERE [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy]…
“▪︎ Eliminate OCED [Office of Clean Energy Demonstration]
“▪︎ Eliminate ARPA-E [Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy]…
“Eliminate the Clean Energy Corps by revoking funding and eliminating all positions and personnel hired under the program.
“▪︎ Oppose ‘climate reparations.’ During the November 2022 United Nations climate conference in Egypt, the Biden Administration and other “developed” countries agreed to provide ‘climate reparations’ to developing countries for the harm allegedly caused by the developed countries’ use of fossil fuel…
“The President should refuse to provide climate reparations under an unratified treaty, and IA should encourage other countries to reconsider their desire to provide reparations.”
Pages 376-390
NOTE: So much for leaving a sustainable planet to our kids.
◼︎ Tuesday, September 17
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 12:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND RELATED COMMISSIONS
“The United States, through the NNSA [National Nuclear Security Administration], needs to make the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads a top priority. Existing warheads were designed and built during the Cold War, and the U.S. lacks su”cient plutonium production capabilities.103 Because this process will take time, NNSA and the NNSA Labs need to ensure that existing nuclear warheads are viable and provide an appropriate strategic deterrent…
“▪︎ Continue to develop new warheads for each branch of the triad (land, sea, and air defenses)…
“▪︎ Reject ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and indicate a willingness to conduct nuclear tests in response to adversary nuclear developments if necessary…
“▪︎ Expedite the review and approval of license extensions of existing [nuclear power] reactors, which will require the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] to streamline and focus its NEPA [National Environmental Protection Act] review process.
“▪︎ Set clear radiation exposure and protection standards by eliminating ALARA (’as low as reasonably achievable’) as a regulatory principle and setting clear standards according to radiological risk and dose rather than arbitrary objectives.’
Pages 398-409
◼︎ Wednesday, September 18
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 13:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
“The challenge of creating a conservative EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] will be to balance justified skepticism toward an agency that has long been amenable to being coopted by the Left for political ends against the need to implement the agency’s true function: protecting public health and the environment in cooperation with states. Further, the EPA needs to be realigned away from attempts to make it an all-powerful energy and land use policymaker and returned to its congressionally sanctioned role as environmental regulator…
“Not surprisingly, the EPA under the Biden Administration has returned to the same top-down, coercive approach that defined the Obama Administration. There has been a reinstitution of unachievable standards designed to aid in the ‘transition’ away from politically disfavored industries and technologies and toward the Biden Administration’s preferred alternatives. This approach is most obvious in the Biden Administration’s assault on the energy sector as the Administration uses its regulatory might to make coal, oil, and natural gas operations very expensive and increasingly inaccessible while forcing the economy to build out and rely on unreliable renewables. This approach has also been applied to pesticides and chemicals as the Biden Administration pushes the ‘greening’ of agriculture and manufacturing among other industrial activities…
“[T]he position of EPA Administrator has been overshadowed by the creation of multiple ‘Climate Czars’ at the Biden White House. In effect, current EPA Administrator Michael Regan, who has a reputation as a well-meaning, generally capable former state o”cial, has been left out of the political loop, serving mostly as a pleasant distraction from EPA’s expansive, costly, and economy-destroying agenda…
“Embedded activists have sought to evade legal restraints in pursuit of a global, climate-themed agenda, aiming to achieve that agenda by implementing costly policies that otherwise have failed to gain the requisite political traction in Congress. Many EPA actions in liberal Administrations have simply ignored the will of Congress, aligning instead with the goals and wants of politically connected activists.”
Pages 417-418
◼︎ Thursday, September 19
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 13:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
“Back to Basics. EPA’s structure and mission should be greatly circumscribed to reflect the principles of cooperative federalism and limited government. This will require significant restructuring and streamlining of the agency…
“Day One Executive Order. To initiate the review and reorganization, a Day One executive order should be drafted for the incoming President with explicit language requiring reconsideration of the agency’s structure with reference to fulfilling its mission to create a better environmental tomorrow with clean air, safe water, healthy soil, and thriving communities. The order should set up “pause and review” teams to assess the following:
“▪︎ Major Rules and Guidance Materials. Identify existing rules to be stayed and reproposed and initiate rule development in appropriate media offices.
“▪︎ Pending Petitions. Grant new petitions for rule reconsideration and stays of rules.
“▪︎ Grants. Stop all grants to advocacy groups and review which potential federal investments will lead to tangible environmental improvements.
“▪︎ Legal Settlements. Reassess any “sue and settle” cases and develop a new policy to establish standard review and oversight, including public notification and participation.
“▪︎ Employee Review. Determine the opportunity to downsize by terminating the newest hires in low-value programs and identify relocation opportunities for Senior Executive Service (SES) positions.
“▪︎ Budget Review. Develop a tiered-down approach to cut costs, reduce the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, and eliminate duplicative programs. EPA should not conduct any ongoing or planned activity for which there is not clear and current congressional authorization, and it should communicate this shift in the President’s first budget request.
“▪︎ Risk Management Policy. Revise guidance documents that control regulations such as the social cost of carbon; discount rates; timing of regulatory review (before options are selected); causality of health e!ects; low-dose risk estimation (linear no-threshold analysis); and employment loss analysis.”
Pages 420-423
NOTE: This sounds a little dry, bureaucratic and innocuous, but there’s more here than meets the layman’s eyes. I’ve worked a bit with the EPA and for several years was responsible for overseeing the City of Cleveland’s environmental compliance. The subtext here says cut back regs, cut staff, and ease up on enforcement (that is, environmental protection).
◼︎ Friday, September 20
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 13:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
“Personnel. The majority of the political appointee team must be assembled, vetted, and ready to deploy before Day One. To the extent provided by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, appointees in consideration for Senate-confirmed positions (excluding the Administrator) should be prepared to serve as a Deputy or Principal Deputy to get into the agency on Day One while their nomination and affiliated confirmation processes proceeds. In addition to a deputy slated for the Assistant Administrator role, each office will need a political chief of staff, senior advisers designated to run suboffices, and energized assistants. Teams should be balanced with technical knowledge, legal expertise, and political exposure. Ideally, they should also be geographically diverse. Appointee positions should also extend to all the regional offices and specialty labs.”
Page 423
NOTE: This section relates back to a core component of Project 2025 — what they call “Pillar II” — a personnel database of pre-screened, politically-aligned, ready-to-go workers. ProPublica reports this personnel database now exceeds 10,000.
Former Project Director Paul Dans wrote on Page 2 of the opening Note, “Our goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State.” They intend to get started on Inauguration Day with a detailed 180-Day Playbook. They further intend to have the bulk of the project implemented within the first year of Trump’s presidency.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) warns that Project 2025 intends to reinstate what’s known as “Schedule F” to gut the civil service. Career federal employees would be reclassified and lose their job protections. This would enable the Trump Administration to hire and fire for political reasons. More than 500,000 employees could be affected. These employees are dedicated professionals working in their area of expertise — I know, because I’ve worked with many. They serve conscientiously throughout all administrations. Their replacements under Project 2025 will be Trump sycophants — which is the whole point.
◼︎ Saturday, September 21
No post.
◼︎ Sunday, September 22
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 13:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
“Needed Science Policy Reforms
“Instead of … scaremongering risk communications and enforcement activities, EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny, especially in areas of data analysis, identification of scientific flaws, and research misconduct. In addition, EPA should:
“▪︎ Shift responsibility for evaluating misconduct away from its Office of Scientific Integrity, which has been overseen by environmental activists, and toward an independent body.
“▪︎ Work (including with Congress) to provide incentives similar to those under the False Claims Act for the public to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct, thereby saving taxpayers from having to bear the costs involved in expending unnecessary resources…
“Legislative Reforms
“While some reforms can be achieved administratively (especially in areas where EPA clearly lacks congressional authorization for its activities), Congress should prioritize several EPA science activity reforms:
“▪︎ Use of the Congressional Review Act for Congress to disapprove of EPA regulations and other quasi-regulatory actions and prohibit ‘substantially similar’ actions in the future…
“▪︎ Repeal Inflation Reduction Act programs providing grants for environmental science activities.”
Pages 438-439
NOTE: This strikes me as a jettisoning of objective professional science in favor public “science” fads and the partisan whims of Congress. Congress would be authorized to “disapprove of EPA regulations” and “substantially similar” ones thereafter — but based on what? God help us if Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jim Jordan, Elise Stefanik or James Comer start dictating environmental policy.
◼︎ Monday, September 23
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 14:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
“Goal # 1: Protecting Life, Conscience, and Bodily Integrity. The Secretary should pursue a robust agenda to protect the fundamental right to life, protect conscience rights, and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology.
“From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS [Heath and Human Services] programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.
“A robust respect for the sacred rights of conscience, both at HHS and among governments and institutions funded by it, increases choices for patients and program beneficiaries and furthers pluralism and tolerance. The Secretary must protect Americans’ civil rights by ensuring that HHS programs and activities follow the letter and spirit of religious freedom and conscience-protection laws.
“Radical actors inside and outside government are promoting harmful identity politics that replaces biological sex with subjective notions of “gender identity” and bases a person’s worth on his or her race, sex, or other identities. This destructive dogma, under the guise of “equity,” threatens American’s fundamental liberties as well as the health and well-being of children and adults alike. The next Secretary must ensure that HHS programs protect children’s minds and bodies and that HHS programs respect parents’ basic right to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children.
“Goal # 2: Empowering Patient Choices and Provider Autonomy. Basic economics holds that costs tend to decrease and quality and options tend to increase when there is robust and free competition in the provision of goods and services. Health care is no exception. Health care reform should be patient-centered and market-based and should empower individuals to control their health care–related dollars and decisions.
“Of course, providers who deliver health care also need the freedom to address the unique needs of their patients. States should be the primary regulators of the medical profession, and the federal government should not restrict providers’ ability to discharge their responsibilities or limit their ability to innovate through government pricing controls or irrational Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement schemes.
“Finally, America’s broken insurance system, run largely through confusing provider networks and third-party payers (employers), induces overconsumption of health care, limits consumer shopping, and hides true costs from patients.
“The federal government should focus reform on reducing burdens of regulatory compliance, unleashing innovation in health care delivery, ceasing interference in the daily lives of patients and providers, allowing alternative insurance coverage options, and returning control of health care dollars to patients making decisions with their providers about their health care treatments and services.”
Page 450
NOTE: Goal # 1 sets out the rationale for attacks on abortion later in this chapter: “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth.” Sounds nice, of course, but the anti-abortion implications are profound. A zygote has full human rights.
Goal # 2 sets the stage to roll-back caps on insulin and other drugs as pursued by the Biden Administration: “the federal government should not restrict providers’ … through government pricing controls or irrational Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement schemes.”
◼︎ Tuesday, September 24
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 14:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
“Goal # 3: Promoting Stable and Flourishing Married Families. Families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society. Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on “LGBTQ+ equity,” subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.
“Working fathers are essential to the well-being and development of their children, but the United States is experiencing a crisis of fatherlessness that is ruining our children’s futures. In the overwhelming number of cases, fathers insulate children from physical and sexual abuse, financial difficulty or poverty, incarceration, teen pregnancy, poor educational outcomes, high school failure, and a host of behavioral and psychological problems. By contrast, homes with non-related “boyfriends” present are among the most dangerous place for a child to be. HHS should prioritize married father engagement in its messaging, health, and welfare policies.
“In the context of current and emerging reproductive technologies, HHS policies should never place the desires of adults over the right of children to be raised by the biological fathers and mothers who conceive them. In cases involving biological parents who are found by a court to be unfit because of abuse or neglect, the process of adoption should be speedy, certain, and supported generously by HHS.
“Goal # 4: Preparing for the Next Health Emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how catastrophic a micromanaging, misinformed, centralized, and politicized federal government can be. Basic human rights, medical choice, and the doctor–patient relationship were trampled without scientific justification and for extended periods of time. Excess deaths, not due to COVID-19, skyrocketed because of forced lockdowns, isolation, vaccine-related mass firings, and colossal disruptions of the economy and daily rhythms of life.
“The federal government’s public health apparatus has lost the public’s trust. Before the next national public health emergency, this apparatus must be fundamentally restructured to ensure a transparent, scientifically grounded, and more nimble, efficient, transparent, and targeted response that respects the unique needs and input of patient populations and providers.
“Every one of the overreaching policies during the pandemic—from lockdowns and school closures to mask and vaccine mandates or passports—received its supposed legal justification from the state of emergency declared (and renewed) by the HHS Secretary. Tellingly, however, the threshold for what constitutes a public health emergency—how many cases, hospitalizations, deaths, etc.—was never defined. For the sake of democratic accountability, we must know with clarity what will trigger the next emergency declaration and, just as important, what will trigger its end.
“Unaccountable bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci should never again have such broad, unchecked power to issue health “guidelines” that will certainly be the basis for federal and state mandates. Never again should public health bureaucrats be allowed to hide information, ignore information, or mislead the public concerning the efficacy or dangers associated with any recommended health interventions because they believe it may lead to hesitancy on the part of the public. The only way to restore public trust in HHS as an institution capable of acting responsibly during a health emergency is through the best of disinfectants—light.”
Pages 451-452
NOTE: Where do I start? Under Goal # 3, only old-style nuclear families — without cats — are truly acceptable. I exaggerate, but not much. And I don’t think LBGTQ+ families make the cut at all.
Goal # 4 falls right in line with the right-wing anti-medical science crowd, laying more blame on masks than a deadly virus that filled refrigerator trucks. And the villain behind it all was Anthony Fauci.
◼︎ Wednesday, September 25
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 14:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
“COVID-19 exposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government. CDC continually misjudged COVID-19, from its lethality, transmissibility, and origins to treatments. We were told masks were not needed; then they were made mandatory. CDC botched the development of COVID tests when they were needed most. When it was too late, we were told to put our lives on hold for “two weeks to flatten the curve;” that turned into two years of interference and restrictions on the smallest details of our lives. Congress should ensure that CDC’s legal authorities are clearly defined and limited to prevent a recurrence of any such arbitrary and vacillating exercise of power…
“Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports 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. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion. Moreover, abortion should be clearly defined as only those procedures that intentionally end an unborn child’s life. Miscarriage management or standard ectopic pregnancy treatments should never be conflated with abortion…
“The Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 20239 would amend title XIX of the Social Security Act and Public Health Service Act to improve the CDC’s abortion reporting mechanisms by requiring states, as a condition of federal Medicaid payments for family planning services, to report streamlined variables in a timely manner.
“The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
Pages 452-456
NOTE: I have omitted here about two pages of rant that followed the first paragraph quoted above regarding COVID-19. Project 2025 joins the right and MAGA in condemning the CDC for not fully understanding the new lethal virus from Day 1. It condemned mask mandates and vaccines for testing “with aborted fetal cell lines.” It condemned the CDC’s pandemic guidance as playing “super-doctor” thereby inappropriately substituting for citizen’s personal physicians.
Project 2025 is implying that children’s lives are ebed deliberately through abortion for purposes of research. Also implied — if not explicitly outlined — is a national reporting system on abortion that states outlawing abortion, including out-of-state travel to obtain abortion, can use to track down and prosecute women, doctors anyone assisting them.
◼︎ Thursday, September 26
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 14:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
“Abortion Pills. Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn children in a post-Roe world. The rate of chemical abortion in the U.S. has increased by more than 150 percent in the past decade; more than half of annual abortions in the U.S. are chemical rather than surgical…
“Chemical abortion has been found to have a complication rate four times higher than that of surgical abortion. Since its approval more than 20 years ago, mifepristone has been associated with 26 deaths of pregnant mothers, over a thousand hospitalizations, and thousands more adverse events, but that number does not account for all complications. Of course, this does not count the hundreds of thousands to millions of babies whose lives have been unjustly taken through chemical abortion. FDA [Federal Drug Administration] should therefore:
“▪︎ Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women… at no point in the past two decades has the FDA ever acknowledged or addressed federal laws that prohibit the distribution of abortion drugs by postal mail; to the contrary, the FDA has permitted and actively encouraged such activity.
“Now that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Constitution contains no right to an abortion, the FDA is ethically and legally obliged to revisit and withdraw its initial approval, which was premised on pregnancy being an ‘illness’ and abortion being ‘therapeutically’ effective at treating this ‘illness.’ The FDA is statutorily charged with guaranteeing the safety and efficacy of drugs and therefore should withdraw this drug that is proven to be dangerous to women and by definition fatally unsafe for unborn children.
“As an interim step, the FDA should immediately restore the REMS [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy] by removing the in-person dispensing requirement to eliminate dangerous tele-abortion and abortion-by-mail distribution.
“Mail-Order Abortions. Allowing mail-order abortions is a gift to the abortion industry that allows it to expand far beyond brick-and-mortar clinics and into pro-life states that are trying to protect women, girls, and unborn children from abortion. The FDA should therefore:
“▪︎ Reinstate earlier safety protocols for Mifeprex that were mostly eliminated in 2016 and apply these protocols to any generic version of mifepristone. A bare-minimum policy of limiting abortion pills to the pre-2016 policy of 49 days gestation, returning to the pre-2021 in-person dispensing requirement, and returning to requiring prescribers to report all serious adverse events, not just deaths, to the drug sponsor would increase women’s health and safety.
“▪︎ Address weaknesses in the current FAERS (FDA Adverse Events Reporting System). The Administration and policymakers should ensure that health care workers, particularly those in hospitals and emergency rooms, report abortion pill complications. Women who experience complications from abortion pills typically go to an emergency room, not to the abortion pill prescriber, so putting the onus of reporting on the prescriber who typically has no idea that a complication has occurred means that the FAERS is seriously undercounting adverse events. Submitting an adverse event to the database should be a quick and efficient process for busy health care practitioners. Currently, providers report that the process is difficult and convoluted.
“▪︎ Implement a policy of transparency about inspections of the abortion pill’s sponsors, Danco and GenBioPro, as well as facilities that manufacture the pills. The FDA should respond to congressional requests and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests about inspections, compliance, and post-marketing safety in a timely manner.
“▪︎ Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
Pages 457-459
NOTE: Abortion rights in the crosshairs.
◼︎ Friday, September 27
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 14:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
“LIFE, CONSCIENCE, AND BODILY INTEGRITY
“▪︎ Prohibit abortion travel funding…
“▪︎ Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds…
“1. Issue guidance reemphasizing that states are free to defund Planned Parenthood in their state Medicaid plans.
“2. Propose rulemaking to interpret the Medicaid statute to disqualify providers of elective abortion from the Medicaid program…
“Congress should pass the Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act,50 which would accomplish the goal of defunding abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood…
“▪︎ Withdraw Medicaid funds for states that require abortion insurance… withdraw appropriated funding, up to and including 10 percent of Medicaid funds, from states that require abortion insurance coverage…
“▪︎ Permanently codify both the Hyde family of amendments and the protections provided by the Weldon Amendment [see Note below]. Congress can accomplish this through legislation such as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (Hyde) and the Conscience Protection Act (Weldon).”
Pages 471-474
NOTE: Project 2025 aims squarely at shutting down women’s access to abortion. Due to length, I’ve omitted quite a bit from these excerpts.
The Weldon Amendment and related federal “refusal of care” policies embolden health insurance plans, health care institutions and medical providers to deny abortion services and coverage, without regard to the impact on patients’ rights, health or well-being and often under the rubric of protecting “conscience” or “religious freedom.”
The Weldon Amendment has been used by antiabortion policymakers and institutions to undermine patient protections, threaten state governments that support abortion rights with the loss of critical federal health care funding and provide cover for institutions that refuse to abide by basic standards of medical care. [Guttmacher]
Since 1977, the Hyde Amendment has banned the use of any federal funds for abortion, only allowing exceptions to pay for terminating pregnancies that endanger the life of the pregnant person or that result from rape or incest. [KFF]
◼︎ Saturday, September 28
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 14:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
“Radical Redefinition of Sex. On August 4, 2022, HHS published a proposed rule entitled “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities.”58 This rule addresses nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act, known as Section 1557, which is enforced by the Office for Civil Rights and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Section 1557 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and sex in covered health programs or activities.
“Under the proposed rule, sex is redefined: ‘Discrimination on the basis of sex includes, but is not limited to, discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes; sex characteristics, including intersex traits; pregnancy or related conditions; sexual orientation; and gender identity.’ In other words, the department proposes to interpret Section 1557 as if it created special privileges for new classes of people, defined in ways that are highly ideological and unscientific.
“The redefinition of sex to cover gender identity and sexual orientation and pregnancy to cover abortion should be reversed in all HHS and CMS programs as was done under the Trump Administration. This includes the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Low-income families who rely on CHIP should not be coerced, pressured, or otherwise encouraged to embrace this ideologically motivated sexualization of their children.
“However, while the Biden Administration’s Section 1557 regulation should be altered and corrected, the lactation room requirements added in the regulation should either be consistently included in any upcoming Section 1557 rulemaking or be proposed in a new individual rule.”
Page 475
NOTE: There’s a little bit to unpack here. Even if one questions the scientific basis for gender identity beyond the strict binary definition, this section goes way beyond to be a broadside attack against everyone LGBTQ+. It’s grounded in a deeply bigoted trope about the entire LGBTQ+ community, that being: our very existence is an “ideologically motivated sexualization of their children.”
Project 2025 is condemning anti-discrimination protection of gay people as creating “special privileges for new classes of people, defined in ways that are highly ideological and unscientific.” We should be long past the days when the existence and validity of basic sexual orientation is considered unscientific and unproven.
Project 2025 asserts that anti-discrimination protections, by their mere existence, have “coerced, pressured, or otherwise encouraged [families] to embrace this ideologically motivated sexualization of their children.”
Then there’s the implication here that Project 2025 also objects to protecting people who are pregnant from discrimination. I didn’t realize that pregnancy is also “highly ideological and unscientific.”
◼︎ Saturday, September 28
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 14:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
“The Life Agenda. The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children. Additionally, HHS should return to being known as the Department of Life by explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care and by restoring its mission statement under the Strategic Plan and elsewhere to include furthering the health and well-being of all Americans ‘from conception to natural death.’
“▪︎ Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. One of the emergency contraceptives covered under the HRSA preventive services guidelines is Ella (ulipristal acetate). Like its close cousin, the abortion pill mifepristone, Ella is a progesterone blocker and can prevent a recently fertilized embryo from implanting in a woman’s uterus. HRSA should eliminate this potential abortifacient from the contraceptive mandate…
“▪︎ Ensure that training for medical professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) and doulas is not being used for abortion training. HHS should ensure that training programs for medical professionals—including doctors, nurses, and doulas—are in full compliance with restrictions on abortion funding and conscience-protection laws.
“Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear: All other family forms involve higher levels of instability (the average length of same-sex marriages is half that of heterosexual marriages); financial stress or poverty; or poorer behavioral, psychological, or educational outcomes…
“▪︎ Eliminate the Head Start program… Research has demonstrated that federal Head Start centers, which provide preschool care to children from low-income families, have little or no long-term academic value for children. Given its unaddressed crisis of rampant abuse and lack of positive outcomes, this program should be eliminated along with the entire OHS [Office of Head Start]. At the very least, the program’s COVID-19 vaccine and mask requirements should be rescinded.”
Pages 481-489
NOTE: I juggled the order of paragraphs here a bit to keep similar points together.
It’s been said that Project 2025 calls for renaming the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Life. Reading the text, I can’t tell if Project 2025 means this literally. Specifically they write “HHS should return to being known as the Department of Life” — except HHS never bore that name to return to. It used to be the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) until 1979 when the Department of Education was spun off separately.
Regardless, the pages covered today — 481 to 489 — focus on what they consider an emphasis on life: anti-abortion, anti-contraception and anti-physician-assisted suicide (now legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia).
◼︎ Sunday, September 29
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 14:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
“The Life Agenda. The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children. Additionally, HHS should return to being known as the Department of Life by explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care and by restoring its mission statement under the Strategic Plan and elsewhere to include furthering the health and well-being of all Americans ‘from conception to natural death.’
“▪︎ Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. One of the emergency contraceptives covered under the HRSA preventive services guidelines is Ella (ulipristal acetate). Like its close cousin, the abortion pill mifepristone, Ella is a progesterone blocker and can prevent a recently fertilized embryo from implanting in a woman’s uterus. HRSA should eliminate this potential abortifacient from the contraceptive mandate…
“▪︎ Ensure that training for medical professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) and doulas is not being used for abortion training. HHS should ensure that training programs for medical professionals—including doctors, nurses, and doulas—are in full compliance with restrictions on abortion funding and conscience-protection laws.
“Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear: All other family forms involve higher levels of instability (the average length of same-sex marriages is half that of heterosexual marriages); financial stress or poverty; or poorer behavioral, psychological, or educational outcomes…
“▪︎ Eliminate the Head Start program… Research has demonstrated that federal Head Start centers, which provide preschool care to children from low-income families, have little or no long-term academic value for children. Given its unaddressed crisis of rampant abuse and lack of positive outcomes, this program should be eliminated along with the entire OHS [Office of Head Start]. At the very least, the program’s COVID-19 vaccine and mask requirements should be rescinded.”
Pages 481-489
NOTE: I juggled the order of paragraphs here a bit to keep similar points together.
It’s been said that Project 2025 calls for renaming the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Life. Reading the text, I can’t tell if Project 2025 means this literally. Specifically they write “HHS should return to being known as the Department of Life” — except HHS never bore that name to return to. It used to be the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) until 1979 when the Department of Education was spun off separately.
Regardless, the pages covered today — 481 to 489 — focus on what they consider an emphasis on life: anti-abortion, anti-contraception and anti-physician-assisted suicide (now legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia).
◼︎ Monday, September 30
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 14:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
“OCR [Office of Civil Rights] should return its enforcement of sex discrimination to the statutory framework of Section 1557 and Title IX. Specifically, it should:
“1. Remove all guidance issued under the Biden Administration concerning sexual orientation and gender identity under Section 1557, particularly the May 2021 announcement of enforcement and March 2022 statement threatening states that protect minors from genital mutilation.
“2. Issue a general statement of policy specifying that it will not enforce any prohibition on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the Section 1557 regulation and that it will prioritize compliance with the First Amendment, RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993], and federal conscience laws in any case implicating those claims. DOJ [Department of Justice] should commit to defending these actions aggressively against inevitable court challenges, including under cases such as Heckler v. Chaney.
“3. Issue a proposed rule to restore the Trump regulations under Section 1557, explicitly interpreting the law not to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination based on the textual approach to male and female biology taken by Congress in the ACA, the need to recognize biological distinctions as part of the sound practice of health care, and the need to ensure protections of medical judgment and conscience. DOJ should agree to defend this rule to the Supreme Court if necessary.”
Pages 495-496
NOTE: Here Project 2025 is stating its explicit intent to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Provisions in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and federal regulations contained in 42 CFR Part 438 that prohibit discrimination on the basis of “race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics)” WILL NOT BE ENFORCED in cases involving sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination.
Project 2025 says it will defend this decision not to enforce this nondiscrimination statute and rule by pointing to the Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in Heckler v. Chaney. SCOTUS ruled that administrative agencies may decline to enforce laws and rules based on various factors including the agency’s allocation of scarce resources or interpretation of law — and an agency’s decision not to enforce is presumptively unreviewable.
The complete Project 2025 document including all chapters and footnotes are available online at the Heritage Foundation (click here). I encourage everyone to go and read the full original for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.
Title image of Trump is by George Skidmore available under Creative Commons license. Inset is book cover to 2025 Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (a.k.a. “Project 2025”) available online.
Note to Email Subscribers: Thank you for your interest and support! The email notifications you receive omit some elements and others don’t display properly. To see this post as designed and intended, please click on the post title to view it in your web browser.
A Request to my Facebook Friends: If you have a comment I encourage you to enter it below instead of on Facebook. This way everyone can participate in the conversation!
A Request to Everyone: All opinions are welcome. I only ask that we remain civil and respectful of one another.