Sen. Ben Sasse Grills Biden HHS Nominee Xavier Becerra, SEEMS TO Trap Him On Last Question

SEN. BEN SASSE (R-NE): Many thanks, Chairman. Mr. Becerra, you said a time ago that you won’t ever sued the nuns, that is a pretty fascinating method of reframing your bullying. You truly sued the government who had provided an exemption to the nuns. Is it possible to show us what the tiny Sisters the indegent, were doing incorrect?

XAVIER BECERRA, BIDEN HHS NOMINEE: So senator, when i make an effort to explain, my activities were against the authorities, it’s not the tiny Sisters of the indegent, we in no way alleged that the tiny Sisters of the indegent did anything incorrect. Our issue was that the government had not been abiding by regulations, as we noticed it. And what we do was we took actions against the authorities. Therefore California could administer its applications to ensure that the Affordable Care Take action continued to function.

SASSE: What were the nuns doing that managed to get difficult for California to manage that program? That has been only a complete nonsense solution. What were the nuns doing that it managed to get hard for California to manage your system?

BECERRA: Well when i said, Senator, our action was contrary to the authorities. It’s what –

SASSE: No, no. You continued and you also said, in order that California could administer your program. What did the nuns do this made it problematic for California to manage that program?

BECERRA: And Senator, what I’m attempting to show you is that, we didn’t we weren’t looking at what of the tiny Sisters or any program, our actions were contrary to the federal government, and just how it was applying regulations since it existed to California.

SASSE: But what did the government do? It was concerning the nuns. That is nonsense, like what you’re saying isn’t true. You say you didn’t sue the nuns, you sued the government that has been keeping you from ensuring the nuns had to get contraceptive insurance. Were the nuns gonna have a baby?

BECERRA: Senator, what of circumstances of California, and I had been defending what of our condition and the laws which were in place, the government took actions to improve the way that people would administer the applications that we had beneath the Affordable Care Take action. Our actions linked to how companies are providing solutions to individuals of California. Once the authorities took action that people thought has been unlawful. We took activity to protect individuals of California.

SASSE: So once again, a lot of words. Nevertheless, you know, nicely, you’re incredibly smart guy, you know, properly, that what the government did was ensure that you couldn’t focus on the nuns. And that means you sued the government, as the federal government stated, the nuns didn’t need to buy contraceptive insurance coverage. You can place 17 layers of, you’re following a law to follow the government for administering this program or performing X or carrying out Y that managed to get difficult that you should for California to manage the program. Nonetheless it was nearly nuns buying contraceptive protection. Was there another thing the government did that you’re suing them for when when in the event called California versus Small Sisters of the indegent?

BECERRA: Senator the the situation was not again, that has been not the title of the situation. And what I’ll tell you is our actions were predicated on trying to adhere to regulations that when the government took motion, which we believe didn’t comport with regulations. At that time, we took actions. And our activity was in line with the law therefore as I’ve mentioned, we may disagree on what we observe this. And I regard the differences that people could have. But my motion was to follow regulations.

SASSE: Think about the law, because the federal government government’s conscience exemptions used, in the event where you sued the government? What about regulations put on anybody except the nuns along with other likewise situated religious institutions? You’re targeting religious liberty.

BECERRA: Sir, i want to see easily can make an effort to answer. The Inexpensive Care Work, it tries to ensure that we are offering health care to all or any Americans. And we must be sure that we offer the services that People in america are usually entitled to receive. We attempted to ensure that in California, under the Inexpensive Care Behave, every Californian receives the advantages they’re entitled to under the that take action. And therefore when we noticed that federal government government was taking activities, which might abridge those legal rights-

SASSE: Therefore I’m likely to ask the question again, you said the government taking actions, this is actually the third time you haven’t answered, were some of those actions about anything except nuns and religious liberty? Was the government taking other actions that you’re suing about if so? Or was it because you wished to target the nuns and religious liberty?

BECERRA: Senator, again, I respect how you notice, but from the-

SASSE: Because it’s really what occurred.

BECERRA: Senator I, once again, I am aware that we may notice differently, but I had been trying to protect usage of care.

SASSE: I’m providing you the opportunity to explain everything you think it had been about if it wasn’t this, and you’ve not yet told any celebration except ‘the law will be administered by the government,’ nonetheless it was concerning the nuns.

BECERRA: Senator, I’ll attempt once again to describe. Californian’s are usually entitled under the Inexpensive Care Act to entry care.

SASSE: And the nuns had been keeping them from obtaining treatment how?

BECERRA: The government was changing the-

SASSE: To be sure the religious liberty rights of the nuns were protected. Was there other things the government was doing except making certain the nuns had religious liberty?

BECERRA: Senator, I respect the difference-

SASSE: For the fifth time, you didn’t answer fully the question. I’ve asked you for just about any party aside from the nuns and you’ve just said you respected the diversity of opinions but I’m likely to move on to some other question. Former abortion industry employees, employees from your own state have claimed on camera that babies who survived abortions were left to die by Planned Parenthood staff in a state in clear violation of both state and federal law. Rather than investigating these claims, you raided the houses of the filmmakers who brought these atrocities to light. Why did you do this?

BECERRA: Senator, again, I respect how you framed it. I’d tell you that it’s clear that people have we consider it differently. California has privacy laws, and we enforce privacy laws. Whenever we take action predicated on violation of privacy laws, it’s because we’ve evidence that the rights of Californians with their privacy has been violated. You’ve described it differently. But what I’ll tell you is my job would be to follow regulations and make certain others do aswell. 

SASSE: So, I believe what you’re saying may be the baby areas of the body weren’t interesting, however the filming of it had been? However in 2014 and 2015, that California poultry farms-

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): The senator from Nebraska has ended his time and his colleague, Senator Barrasso is next and two others-

SASSE: MAY I ask my colleague if he minds easily choose 45 seconds?

WYDEN: Sure. 45 seconds and that’s it.

SASSE: Many thanks, chairman. In 2014 and 2015, California poultry farms were recorded secretly showing inhumane treatment of animals in California. Did you investigate the filmmakers of the poultry farm filmings?

BECERRA: In what years?

SASSE: 2014 and 2015. 

BECERRA: Senator, I had not been the attorney general then.

SASSE: And-

WYDEN: Enough time of the gentlemen’s expired.

Read More From Original Article Here: