In the News

The Oct. 9th letter to NYU Law Dean Richard L. Revesz states that a May 9th memo from White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to federal agencies ‘was not intended to be a moratorium on proposed regulations’ and ‘contemplates some circumstances in which it would be appropriate for individual regulations to proceed without regard to deadlines if approved by’ her office. Dudley is administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

In less than a week, this country will have a new President … but the old administration will still be hard at work, potentially pushing through last minute regulations for three more months. That leaves plenty of time for more bad news for the environment and public health.

10.28.08 Executive Director, Michael Livermore on NPR’s “The Diane Rehm Show” regarding Bush Administration’s “midnight regulations.”

A look at the regulatory changes made by presidents in the final days of their administrations.

Richard Revesz, Dean of NYU’s School of Law, and Michael Livermore, Director of the Institute for Policy Integrity sent a letter to OMB Director Jim Nussle in early September, expressing concern that OMB was not asserting “appropriate controls over the regulatory process,” and giving three examples of proposed rules that appeared to violate the Bolten memo. One of the three mentioned is the infamous rule proposed by the Department of Labor on occupational health risk assessment.

Our next President will face triplet crises on the economy, environment, and energy. A fiscal crisis teetering on recession, uncontrolled greenhouse gases, and oil-rich dictators profiting from sky-high prices at the pump. With these three major storm fronts rolling in and threatening to collide, we’d better be prepared with a good plan. And I don’t think evacuation is an option.

10.23.08 : Coverage of IPIs response from OIRA on Bush Administration’s midnight regulations.

“There are many reasons to oppose the new Health and Human Services regulations that would expand provider conscience protections. The new regulations would enable providers not only to refuse to supply but refuse to refer patients for procedures or services the providers opposed, including contraception, abortion, and sexual health care services.”

We don’t yet know who will win the White House on November 4th. But what we do know is that the next administration will need to deal with a triplet of crises in the economy, environment, and energy. We’re watching the upward tick of the cost of a gallon of gas, the downward spiral of our economy, and the steady march towards 390 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Any one of these issues could make for a disaster. But as the three fronts converge, what we have is the perfect storm.

The next administration is certain to face intertwined crises on the economy, environment, and energy. There’s the prospect of a significant recession, coming on the heels of a shallow economic expansion that mostly benefited the wealthy. There’s the fact that the United States has gone years without taking any action on the great environmental challenge of our time.

Pro-choice organizations and women’s groups have rightly been vocal about a recent proposal by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to expand protections for medical professionals who refuse to provide health care services that they object to on moral grounds.

Despite a short 30-day comment period, dozens of interested individuals and organizations provided comments to Asst. Secretary Leon Sequeira about his proposed so-called risk assessment policy. I’ve pulled some of my favorite excerpts for your consideration: