With a name like "Obfuscant" I'd lean towards the former.
And now your argument is pure ad hominem.
As far as I can tell, the actual bill requires all data to be reproducible.
You tell wrong. Are you making it up out of whole cloth? It requires data to be available online in a form that anyone who wishes to verify or reproduce it can. It makes no requirement of reproducibility. Some people even lie and say that this law requires the EPA to reproduce it.
That means the raw data used by a study has to be available publicly (and probably on the internet) or it's "secret science" and can't be used by the EPA.
Close. You could read it for yourself if you want. It says nothing about all raw data, only "all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action". The raw data leads to results, the results are the scientific and technical information that are relied on.
In fact most sources I've seen actually say that even including difficult to reproduce data bans the EPA from using the study.
They lie. There is no such language in the law. Read it for yourself. It is even shorter than the FCC net neutrality rules.
Several say flat-out that private data of all types is banned.
They lie. The data isn't banned, but use of data that isn't available "in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results" cannot be used in formulation of EPA regulations.
But what about private medical data? Doesn't have to be made available. "Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as requiring the public dissemination of information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law." If your private medical data is covered by HIPAA, it doesn't have to be made available -- but it doesn't have to be made available anyway, only the results used to support regulatory actions. If you've signed away your legal protections to that data, well, you should have gotten legal advice prior to signing.
The Amendment that would have fixed this would have given peer-reviewed articles a free pass on the point, and it was voted down by the committee.
The process of peer-review is prior to publication. If it is published, then put it online and the law is satisfied. People here seem quite enamored with Open Access publishing, so any law that furthers the cause should be greeted with open arms. But here we have opposition to law, so keeping science private is somehow good.
So please, tell me how you could use a private database in your study and still get it used by the EPA.
That depends on what the "private database" contains, but I'd say that if you want public regulations then you should provide support for your desire and not just "because I say so". If your entire study is based on someone's private database then you have reproducibility and validity issues from the get-go and that means you aren't really doing science, you're trolling for data to support whatever conclusion you're looking for. That's the kind of science this law would stop, and I think that's just fine.