Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#31

Post by JumpCrisscross »

23% of the AAP’s revenue comes from grants and pledges [1], and their $100mm in investments could cover the shortfall for up to three years if all $28.5mm of that is HHS. A crisis, for sure. But not an urgent one. The AAP can fight.

To that end:

1) Does the AAP have a case that RFK Jr. acted unconstitutionally?

2) Were these “grants…previously awarded” in a binding nature? Or does the government sign grants with a get-out-of-jail-free clause?

3) Is Senator John Barasso, a pediatrician, a dues-paying member of the AAP?

[1] https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20Financial%20Statemen...

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#33

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kr99x wrote: post #30
lovich wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, I was mocking them. They’ve been liars from the start who always start screeching the second their thin skin is tested. They desire the ability to say the most atrocious shit to anyone without consequences but then want anyone who questions them immediately silenced. Meeting a self described “free speech absolutist” with principles is as rare as meeting a self described libertarian with principles

Hello. I would not trust any corporation (sometimes it's profitable to remove something so they retain control of some market) or government (sometimes it secures their power to keep people unaware of some facts about their actions) to only censor what is "truly" good for us to have censored. Why would anybody? The free exchange of ideas is a prerequisite for a just world. You cannot build one without it, because to…

> I am in favor of extremely strong free speech, legally and more importantly morally

Sure. Whatever. Irrelevant.

The point is the loudest voices in Silicon Valley who were all in on free speech, knowingly joined hands with an authoritarian who is trashing it in its most protected form, political speech.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#34

Post by wat10000 »

db48x wrote: post #22
klaff wrote: post #6

How many people will this administration kill?

[flagged]

That’s not the point. This isn’t about a professional association losing some government money. This is about the government’s war on vaccines.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#35

Post by db48x »

rtollert wrote: post #29
db48x wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think the content of the article sufficiently disproves your assertion. Actually, the headline does too IMHO. The idea that it’s immoral for NGOs (much less professional orgs) to represent themselves to legislatures is unserious.

I didn’t say it was immoral, I said that canceling a grant to them doesn’t somehow reduce treatment to patients. Of course they’re going to claim that it will, because they want to be important. But the reality is that most of what they do is either unnecessary, or easily replaced. Telling new mothers not to drink during pregnancy is useful but we don’t require this particular group to do it. Anyone can tell new mothers that. Same with all the other “outreach” and “advocacy” stuff that they do.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#36

Post by kr99x »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33
kr99x wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hello. I would not trust any corporation (sometimes it's profitable to remove something so they retain control of some market) or government (sometimes it secures their power to keep people unaware of some facts about their actions) to only censor what is "truly" good for us to have censored. Why would anybody? The free exchange of ideas is a prerequisite for a just world. You cannot build one without it, because to…

> I am in favor of extremely strong free speech, legally and more importantly morally Sure. Whatever. Irrelevant. The point is the loudest voices in Silicon Valley who were all in on free speech, knowingly joined hands with an authoritarian who is trashing it in its most protected form, political speech.

Not irrelevant. I'm responding directly to somebody saying people like me basically don't exist so that I am a data point. We do exist. We're rare, but not that rare.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#37

Post by rtollert »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

23% of the AAP’s revenue comes from grants and pledges [1], and their $100mm in investments could cover the shortfall for up to three years if all $28.5mm of that is HHS. A crisis, for sure. But not an urgent one. The AAP can fight. To that end: 1) Does the AAP have a case that RFK Jr. acted unconstitutionally? 2) Were these “grants…previously awarded” in a binding nature? Or does the government sign grants with a ge…

My recollection (apologies, I'm not able to turn up a citation on this) is that the AAP has not really shied away from gripping ideological third rails with both hands; they've taken very liberal-leaning positions on abortion rights, gun violence, trans healthcare, etc. (Of course, depending on how you look at things, such policy positions might appear either partisan or nonpartisan.) I would be surprised if Sen. Barasso were a member.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#38

Post by rtollert »

db48x wrote: post #35
rtollert wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the content of the article sufficiently disproves your assertion. Actually, the headline does too IMHO. The idea that it’s immoral for NGOs (much less professional orgs) to represent themselves to legislatures is unserious.

I didn’t say it was immoral, I said that canceling a grant to them doesn’t somehow reduce treatment to patients. Of course they’re going to claim that it will, because they want to be important. But the reality is that most of what they do is either unnecessary, or easily replaced. Telling new mothers not to drink during pregnancy is useful but we don’t require this particular group to do it. Anyone can tell new moth…

I'd want to see the grants in question (which infuriatingly haven't been linked to yet..?) before drawing further conclusions. And I continue to be annoyed at how nudge-based so much policy is nowadays... even more so when it seems to make an impact? Otherwise, fair enough.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#39

Post by db48x »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #27
db48x wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> American Academy of Pediatrics treats nobody. At best it’s a lobbyist group In their FYE 2025, the AAP spent 6% and 3% of its $113mm budget on advocacy and membership, respectively [1]. Most of its money goes to child health activities (43%), educational publishing (30%) and education activities (14%). [1] https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20Financial%20Statemen...

    Nature of Business
    The mission of the American Academy of Pediatrics (the Academy) is to obtain optimal … health and well-being for all …. The Academy seeks to promote this goal by encouraging and assisting its members in their efforts …, by providing support and counsel …, and by serving as an advocate … within the community at large.
They don’t actually treat anybody. They spend $28 million a year on salaries and benefits for people who advocate for improving children’s health, not on treating children. And then some more on offices and software for those advocates to use, for meals and meetings attended by those employees, postage, freight, etc, etc. None of that is related to treating people.

Re: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr.

#40

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kr99x wrote: post #36
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am in favor of extremely strong free speech, legally and more importantly morally Sure. Whatever. Irrelevant. The point is the loudest voices in Silicon Valley who were all in on free speech, knowingly joined hands with an authoritarian who is trashing it in its most protected form, political speech.

Not irrelevant. I'm responding directly to somebody saying people like me basically don't exist so that I am a data point. We do exist. We're rare, but not that rare.

> saying people like me basically don't exist

Fair enough. To be fair to OP, the top-level reference to any “they” is to “Elon Musk fans.”

Post reply on HN