shareblue--2020-03-04--Trump campaign is taking lots of cash from companies profiting off opioid epidemic

Donald Trump has benefited from more than $ 4.5 million in campaign funds linked to the deadly opioid epidemic ravaging the nation .
The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee raised the funds from heirs to the Johnson & Johnson fortune as well as Stewart Rahr , former head of Kinray , a pharmaceutical distributor .
According to financial contributions flagged by American Bridge , a progressive opposition research organization , the Johnson family and Rahr donated $ 4,508,100 to Trump campaign efforts between late 2016 and February 2020 .
Woody Johnson , a Johnson & Johnson heir , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of stock in the company .
Over the past several years , he donated $ 2.17 million to help Trump 's campaign , including $ 1 million for Trump 's inaugural committee .
In 2017 , Trump nominated — and the Republican-led Senate subsequently approved — Johnson to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom .
Woody 's wife , Suzanne Johnson , donated $ 715,000 to the RNC and Trump 's election campaign , and Betty Wold Johnson , Woody 's mother , donated an additional $ 680,000 .
During the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & Johnson was the leading supplier of the raw ingredients in opioids , the New York Times reported .
The company even developed a stronger strain of opium poppies and supplied the resulting product to Perdue Pharma to make Oxycontin .
In 2019 , an Oklahoma judge ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay more than a half-billion dollars in damages to the state for its role in fostering opioid dependency and for its responsibility for thousands of deaths in the state .
In the case , the judge found that Johnson & Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prescribe more opiates .
Johnson & Johnson denied all wrongdoing .
`` There would have been no OxyContin without J & J ramping up in Tasmania , '' Andrew Kolodny , co-director of opioid policy research at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University , told the Times .
Kolodny was a paid expert witness in the trial .
Rahr , who inherited pharmaceutical distributor Kinray from his father , donated $ 944,000 to Trump reelection efforts between 2016 and early 2020 .
From 2006 through 2014 , Kinray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation .
In 2016 , Preet Bharara , then-U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York , forced Kinray to pay a $ 10 million civil penalty for its role in the opioid epidemic .
`` When distributors like Kinray fail to alert the DEA to suspicious order activity , they end up facilitating the illegal sale and distribution of highly addictive opioids , '' Bharara said at the time .
In his 2020 State of the Union address , Trump claimed credit for a reduction in deaths from opioid overdoses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ go largely toward policies implemented in the Obama administration .
Trump also championed the GOP-backed repeal of the Affordable Care Act , which health experts said would have worsed the opioid epidemic .
The bill passed the House of Representatives in 2017 , but failed in the Senate .
In January , the Trump administration failed to renew the declaration that the opioid epidemic was a `` public health emergency '' for more than a week , blaming the lapse on a `` clerical error . ''
`` For years Donald Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and now it looks like he 's just given up , '' Kyle Morse , spokesperson for American Bridge , said in a statement .
`` Thousands are dying due to this crisis every year , '' he added , asking if Trump will `` ever put the country 's interests ahead of his campaign 's ? ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump has benefited from more than $4.5 million in campaign funds linked to the deadly opioid epidemic ravaging the nation.
The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee raised the funds from heirs to the Johnson & Johnson fortune as well as Stewart Rahr, former head of Kinray, a pharmaceutical distributor.
According to financial contributions flagged by American Bridge, a progressive opposition research organization, the Johnson family and Rahr donated $4,508,100 to Trump campaign efforts between late 2016 and February 2020.
Woody Johnson, a Johnson & Johnson heir, owns more than $200 million worth of stock in the company. Over the past several years, he donated $2.17 million to help Trump’s campaign, including $1 million for Trump’s inaugural committee.
In 2017, Trump nominated — and the Republican-led Senate subsequently approved — Johnson to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom.
Woody’s wife, Suzanne Johnson, donated $715,000 to the RNC and Trump’s election campaign, and Betty Wold Johnson, Woody’s mother, donated an additional $680,000.
During the peak of the opioid epidemic, Johnson & Johnson was the leading supplier of the raw ingredients in opioids, the New York Times reported.
The company even developed a stronger strain of opium poppies and supplied the resulting product to Perdue Pharma to make Oxycontin.
In 2019, an Oklahoma judge ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay more than a half-billion dollars in damages to the state for its role in fostering opioid dependency and for its responsibility for thousands of deaths in the state.
In the case, the judge found that Johnson & Johnson engaged in tactics to encourage doctors to prescribe more opiates. Johnson & Johnson denied all wrongdoing.
“There would have been no OxyContin without J&J ramping up in Tasmania,” Andrew Kolodny, co-director of opioid policy research at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University, told the Times. Kolodny was a paid expert witness in the trial.
Rahr, who inherited pharmaceutical distributor Kinray from his father, donated $944,000 to Trump reelection efforts between 2016 and early 2020.
From 2006 through 2014, Kinray distributed 630 million opioid pills across the nation. In 2016, Preet Bharara, then-U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, forced Kinray to pay a $10 million civil penalty for its role in the opioid epidemic.
“When distributors like Kinray fail to alert the DEA to suspicious order activity, they end up facilitating the illegal sale and distribution of highly addictive opioids,” Bharara said at the time.
In his 2020 State of the Union address, Trump claimed credit for a reduction in deaths from opioid overdoses. But Vox reported that the credit should go largely toward policies implemented in the Obama administration.
Trump also championed the GOP-backed repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which health experts said would have worsed the opioid epidemic. The bill passed the House of Representatives in 2017, but failed in the Senate.
In January, the Trump administration failed to renew the declaration that the opioid epidemic was a “public health emergency” for more than a week, blaming the lapse on a “clerical error.”
“For years Donald Trump has failed to take the opioid epidemic seriously and now it looks like he’s just given up,” Kyle Morse, spokesperson for American Bridge, said in a statement.
“Thousands are dying due to this crisis every year,” he added, asking if Trump will “ever put the country’s interests ahead of his campaign’s?”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-03-04--GOP hails Trump's 'win' in Minnesota even though he was the only one on the ballot

The Republican National Committee this week bragged about Donald Trump 's victory in Minnesota 's GOP primary Tuesday night — ignoring the fact that Trump was the only candidate on the ballot .
`` Fueled by momentum for @ realDonaldTrump 's agenda , our party saw historic turnout last night in several key battleground states , '' the party tweeted Wednesday .
It noted specifically that Trump had received `` 150 % more votes than he did in 2016 '' in North Carolina and `` at least 4x the numbers of votes as he did in the 2016 caucus '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout in Minnesota 's new primary was significantly higher than for the 2016 caucuses .
Primaries , by design , are far more accessible and attracted much higher turnout in each of the states that switched to them for the current election .
It is also hardly shocking that Trump 's numbers in 2020 would be higher than his 2016 results in the state : Unlike last time , he had the advantage of having no GOP opponents on the ballot .
In 2016 , Trump placed third in Minnesota 's Republican caucuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marco Rubio ( 41,184 votes ) and Ted Cruz ( 33,142 votes ) .
The 2020 field is far less competitive .
Three well-known Republicans announced primary challenges to Trump this cycle — former Massachusetts Gov .
Bill Weld , former South Carolina Gov .
Mark Sanford , and former Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh — but only Weld remains in the race and has received no support from the larger GOP .
Under Minnesota 's new primary law , the state party chair also gets to determine which candidates appear on their party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carnahan kept all of Trump 's challengers off the ballot .
Republican voters thus saw only one name on their ballots Tuesday : Trump .
With 99.95 % of precincts reporting as of Wednesday afternoon , Trump received 137,225 votes in Tuesday 's primary .
Another 3,302 Republican voters wrote in a different candidate 's name .
While Trump 's total is indeed higher than his 2016 number , it notably falls well below the top two finishers in the Tuesday 's Minnesota Democratic primary .
First-place finisher Joe Biden garnered 287,455 votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and runner-up Bernie Sanders received 222,533 .
Democrats also bested Republicans in terms of overall turnout .
Some 744,470 Minnesotans voted in Tuesday 's Democratic primary .
Just 140,516 participated in the GOP primary .
Republican leaders have claimed that the lower turnout in the state 's GOP primary was not indicative of low enthusiasm for Trump 's reelection .
`` We know that there ’ s a lot of energy and enthusiasm for him from our entire state , '' Carnahan told the Star Tribune .
Published with permission of The @ @ @ @

The Republican National Committee this week bragged about Donald Trump’s victory in Minnesota’s GOP primary Tuesday night — ignoring the fact that Trump was the only candidate on the ballot.
“Fueled by momentum for @realDonaldTrump’s agenda, our party saw historic turnout last night in several key battleground states,” the party tweeted Wednesday.
It noted specifically that Trump had received “150% more votes than he did in 2016” in North Carolina and “at least 4x the numbers of votes as he did in the 2016 caucus” in Minnesota.
It is unsurprising that turnout in Minnesota’s new primary was significantly higher than for the 2016 caucuses. Primaries, by design, are far more accessible and attracted much higher turnout in each of the states that switched to them for the current election.
It is also hardly shocking that Trump’s numbers in 2020 would be higher than his 2016 results in the state: Unlike last time, he had the advantage of having no GOP opponents on the ballot.
In 2016, Trump placed third in Minnesota’s Republican caucuses with 24,433 votes — well behind both Marco Rubio (41,184 votes) and Ted Cruz (33,142 votes).
The 2020 field is far less competitive. Three well-known Republicans announced primary challenges to Trump this cycle — former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, and former Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh — but only Weld remains in the race and has received no support from the larger GOP.
Under Minnesota’s new primary law, the state party chair also gets to determine which candidates appear on their party’s ballots. Minnesota GOP chair Jennifer Carnahan kept all of Trump’s challengers off the ballot.
Republican voters thus saw only one name on their ballots Tuesday: Trump.
With 99.95% of precincts reporting as of Wednesday afternoon, Trump received 137,225 votes in Tuesday’s primary. Another 3,302 Republican voters wrote in a different candidate’s name.
While Trump’s total is indeed higher than his 2016 number, it notably falls well below the top two finishers in the Tuesday’s Minnesota Democratic primary. First-place finisher Joe Biden garnered 287,455 votes — more than twice Trump’s total — and runner-up Bernie Sanders received 222,533.
Democrats also bested Republicans in terms of overall turnout. Some 744,470 Minnesotans voted in Tuesday’s Democratic primary. Just 140,516 participated in the GOP primary.
Republican leaders have claimed that the lower turnout in the state’s GOP primary was not indicative of low enthusiasm for Trump’s reelection.
“We know that there’s a lot of energy and enthusiasm for him from our entire state,” Carnahan told the Star Tribune.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-03-04--Florida governor to sign anti-abortion bill that will put teens in danger

In late February , the Florida Legislature passed a bill that forces minors seeking an abortion in the state to obtain parental consent .
The bill has already passed the state 's Senate and goes next to conservative Republican Gov .
Ron DeSantis , who signaled that he would sign it in his recent State of the State address .
Under current law , parents are already required to be notified .
The new bill will require a physician to obtain written consent from a parent or legal guardian before they perform an abortion on a minor and makes failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to up to 5 years in prison .
One of the sponsors of the bill , Republican Rep. Erin Grall , argued , `` By including parents in this decision we empower the family .
It is the critical backbone of our civilized society . ''
But some experts disagree .
In 2017 , the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence released an official statement condemning mandatory parental consent laws , citing evidence that such laws `` may have an adverse impact on some families '' and that this type of legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ psychological harm '' to the minor .
Most teenagers voluntarily consult a parent about their choice to have an abortion .
One study , published in the journal Family Planning Perspectives , showed that in states where parental consent is not required , 61 % of teens told one or both parents about their plan to obtain an abortion .
That number goes up dramatically the younger the minor : Fully 90 % of those under 14 told a parent .
When teenagers decide not to tell a parent about their intent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for good reasons .
The same study showed that 8 % of teenagers who did not tell a parent about their abortion did n't do so because they had previously been beaten by their parents .
Similarly , 22 % of teens who got an abortion did n't tell their parents because they were afraid they 'd be kicked out of their home .
Grall acknowledged , `` We hear the stories about the bad parent , the human trafficking , the intolerant parent , the abusive parent , the parent who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said , `` I refuse to accept that we should diminish the rights of all parents in the raising of their children because of the acts of a few . ''
In other words , Grall is unconcerned about children being harmed by abusive parents .
Beyond concerns about family , another effect of parental consent laws , the American Academy of Pediatrics notes , is that they `` can delay and obstruct pregnant adolescents ' access to timely professional advice and medical care . ''
The organization calls this scenario `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think they 're pregnant later than adults do , according to the journal Contraception , so they often do n't seek early care to begin with .
But they also frequently do n't have a sound understanding of their rights to medical care , and a fear of a lack of confidentiality causes some to avoid seeking help , according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association .
And when you add parental consent laws in the mix , further delaying access to care , the rates of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When Texas passed a parental consent law , later abortion rates for 17-year-olds increased by 21 % .
Missouri saw a 17 % leap .
The result for teenagers is added stress and costs — as later procedures tend to be more expensive and more difficult to arrange .
The Florida law does contain a judicial bypass provision , allowing a minor to petition a judge for a waiver .
Those provisions are n't generally helpful , however .
The American Academy of Pediatrics notes that such provisions may still delay access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the expedited nature of the law 's judicial waiver hearing can take up to 6 days — longer if there is a weekend involved .
A waiver process also requires minors to navigate a complex judicial system .
In Florida , the teenager would have to figure out which circuit court jurisdiction they reside in and file a formal petition .
The court could delay acting on the petition , which would require the minor to petition for a hearing .
Meanwhile , the clock is ticking and access to care is delayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teens to go out of state to receive abortion care or even seek illegal procedures .
`` We are codifying into law that someone else can force a girl to have a child she does not want to have , '' Democratic Rep. Susan Valdes said during the 5-hour-long debate over the measure .
`` I worry that many girls will , when deprived access to a safe termination of pregnancy , take the risks of finding an unsafe , dangerous and untested method of terminating their pregnancies , '' Valdes said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is n't limited to one person or organization .
Every major medical association — the American Medical Association , the Society for Adolescent Medicine , the American Public Health Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — opposes parental consent laws .
They do n't strengthen the family and they do n't decrease abortion rates , but they do put adolescents at greater risk .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

In late February, the Florida Legislature passed a bill that forces minors seeking an abortion in the state to obtain parental consent.
The bill has already passed the state’s Senate and goes next to conservative Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who signaled that he would sign it in his recent State of the State address.
Under current law, parents are already required to be notified. The new bill will require a physician to obtain written consent from a parent or legal guardian before they perform an abortion on a minor and makes failing to do so a third-degree felony leading to up to 5 years in prison.
One of the sponsors of the bill, Republican Rep. Erin Grall, argued, “By including parents in this decision we empower the family. It is the critical backbone of our civilized society.”
But some experts disagree. In 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence released an official statement condemning mandatory parental consent laws, citing evidence that such laws “may have an adverse impact on some families” and that this type of legislation “increases the risk of medical and psychological harm” to the minor.
Most teenagers voluntarily consult a parent about their choice to have an abortion. One study, published in the journal Family Planning Perspectives, showed that in states where parental consent is not required, 61% of teens told one or both parents about their plan to obtain an abortion. That number goes up dramatically the younger the minor: Fully 90% of those under 14 told a parent.
When teenagers decide not to tell a parent about their intent to have an abortion, it’s often for good reasons. The same study showed that 8% of teenagers who did not tell a parent about their abortion didn’t do so because they had previously been beaten by their parents. Similarly, 22% of teens who got an abortion didn’t tell their parents because they were afraid they’d be kicked out of their home.
In Florida, Grall dismissed those concerns.
Grall acknowledged, “We hear the stories about the bad parent, the human trafficking, the intolerant parent, the abusive parent, the parent who will kill their child.”
However, she said, “I refuse to accept that we should diminish the rights of all parents in the raising of their children because of the acts of a few.”
In other words, Grall is unconcerned about children being harmed by abusive parents.
Beyond concerns about family, another effect of parental consent laws, the American Academy of Pediatrics notes, is that they “can delay and obstruct pregnant adolescents’ access to timely professional advice and medical care.” The organization calls this scenario “the most damaging.”
Minors generally think they’re pregnant later than adults do, according to the journal Contraception, so they often don’t seek early care to begin with.
But they also frequently don’t have a sound understanding of their rights to medical care, and a fear of a lack of confidentiality causes some to avoid seeking help, according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
And when you add parental consent laws in the mix, further delaying access to care, the rates of teens having abortions later in pregnancy skyrocket.
When Texas passed a parental consent law, later abortion rates for 17-year-olds increased by 21%. Missouri saw a 17% leap.
The result for teenagers is added stress and costs — as later procedures tend to be more expensive and more difficult to arrange.
The Florida law does contain a judicial bypass provision, allowing a minor to petition a judge for a waiver. Those provisions aren’t generally helpful, however.
The American Academy of Pediatrics notes that such provisions may still delay access to care. In Florida, even the expedited nature of the law’s judicial waiver hearing can take up to 6 days — longer if there is a weekend involved.
A waiver process also requires minors to navigate a complex judicial system. In Florida, the teenager would have to figure out which circuit court jurisdiction they reside in and file a formal petition. The court could delay acting on the petition, which would require the minor to petition for a hearing.
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking and access to care is delayed. This can also lead to force teens to go out of state to receive abortion care or even seek illegal procedures.
“We are codifying into law that someone else can force a girl to have a child she does not want to have,” Democratic Rep. Susan Valdes said during the 5-hour-long debate over the measure.
“I worry that many girls will, when deprived access to a safe termination of pregnancy, take the risks of finding an unsafe, dangerous and untested method of terminating their pregnancies,” Valdes said.
The concern about these sorts of laws isn’t limited to one person or organization. Every major medical association — the American Medical Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American Public Health Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — opposes parental consent laws.
They don’t strengthen the family and they don’t decrease abortion rates, but they do put adolescents at greater risk.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-03-04--Trump keeps contradicting health officials on coronavirus threat

Whom to believe on the coronavirus threat — Donald Trump saying one thing or the public health officials standing beside him and saying something a little different ?
Trump ’ s breezy talk Tuesday of a virus that 's “ got the world aflutter ” contrasts with the gravity and caution conveyed by federal scientists as Americans look to the government not just for reassurance , but for realism .
Public-health leaders are walking a fine line in laying out the facts without angering Trump , who speaks in rosier tones than they do about a contagion that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to coast .
No , the scientists say , a vaccine is not just around the corner , although Trump has repeatedly suggested it is .
Yes , they say , the U.S. appears to be more prepared than some other countries afflicted or threatened by the virus , but it 's too early to know how the plans will hold up .
No , a “ cure ” is not in the offing for an infectious disease for which there is no treatment .
For days , Trump has talked up prospects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short order .
He has reserved some of his strongest words of concern for the economy as the stock market — the principal talking point for his reelection effort — has zigzagged like a fever chart .
He has said a vaccine may be available “ relatively soon , ” a treatment sooner and even a cure may be possible .
Intent on calming the waters , Trump last week spoke of virus cases in the U.S. “ going very substantially down , not up , ” as health officials tracked the numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all initially identified victims were recovering , when at least four were seriously ill .
Since then , the disconnect has continued between Trump 's aggressive optimism and the measured words of the federal health bureaucracy in sizing up the coronavirus risk .
`` It 's got the world aflutter but it 'll work out , ” Trump told a meeting of the National Association of Counties on Tuesday .
En route to the National Institutes of Health in suburban Maryland , Trump held to his view that the spread of the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all , ” a stance at odds with that of government scientists .
Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander , chair of the Senate health committee , agreed with many Democrats in asserting that the nonpolitical public-health officials are the ones who should be listened to .
“ My advice to the president and the vice president is let the professionals do the talking , ” he said .
Democrats in Congress say Trump , with his talk about an imminent vaccine and even a cure , is sugar-coating a pill that does n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we have to have our medicine and health professionals counter-messaging the president ... that they have to correct the record.
” Sen. Chris Murphy ( D-CT ) told a hearing Tuesday .
Dr. Tom Frieden , who led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2009 through 2017 , said some of the difference in the messaging between Trump , who has no background in science , and the government ’ s medical experts “ has been in the emphasis or shading.
” “ You want the experts giving the expert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview .
He said that despite Trump and Mike Pence turning themselves into the public face of the outbreak , Trump had the experts speak from the podium both times he held briefings about the virus .
“ That ’ s really important . ''
Testifying before the Senate on Tuesday , Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health made it clear that neither a coronavirus treatment nor a vaccine can be ready quickly .
Fauci indicated potential treatments may come before a vaccine .
“ The timelines are fundamentally different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gilead is testing a potential treatment and Fauci said , “ We ’ ll know in a few months if it works.
” Based on data from China , Fauci said about 80 % of people who get infected “ do really quite well ” and recover without any medical treatment .
But about 10 % to 15 % get seriously ill , particularly those in high-risk groups such as the elderly or patients with other medical problems .
While a treatment may be identified in a matter of months , Fauci said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year to a year-and-a-half .
Testing for a vaccine has to proceed in stages , to make sure it ’ s safe to use on people and that it works .
“ We ’ d be giving this to normal people to prevent infection , so you must be sure , ” said Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases .
Pence ’ s visit on Capitol Hill with Fauci and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on Tuesday did little to quell concerns from senators of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ we ’ re on top of it , ” said Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana .
But Kennedy said he ’ s been told conflicting information in various administration briefings , though this one was “ much improved.
” Democrats said there were more questions than answers in the latest one .
Senators told Pence the administration must provide accurate information to head off “ confusion and panic , ” said Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii .
Said Alexander , the Republican chairman : “ The more we listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the better .
Because if the administration talks too much people think that it ’ s taking credit .
But if the Democrats talk too much they ’ ll think they ’ re playing politics.
” The new virus , first detected in China , has infected more than 90,000 people globally and caused over 3,100 deaths .
Officials have found more than 100 cases and six deaths in the U.S .

Whom to believe on the coronavirus threat — Donald Trump saying one thing or the public health officials standing beside him and saying something a little different?
Trump’s breezy talk Tuesday of a virus that’s “got the world aflutter” contrasts with the gravity and caution conveyed by federal scientists as Americans look to the government not just for reassurance, but for realism.
Public-health leaders are walking a fine line in laying out the facts without angering Trump, who speaks in rosier tones than they do about a contagion that’s infected more than 100 people from coast to coast.
No, the scientists say, a vaccine is not just around the corner, although Trump has repeatedly suggested it is. Yes, they say, the U.S. appears to be more prepared than some other countries afflicted or threatened by the virus, but it’s too early to know how the plans will hold up. No, a “cure” is not in the offing for an infectious disease for which there is no treatment.
For days, Trump has talked up prospects for driving the new coronavirus away in short order. He has reserved some of his strongest words of concern for the economy as the stock market — the principal talking point for his reelection effort — has zigzagged like a fever chart. He has said a vaccine may be available “relatively soon,” a treatment sooner and even a cure may be possible.
Intent on calming the waters, Trump last week spoke of virus cases in the U.S. “going very substantially down, not up,” as health officials tracked the numbers actually going up. And he said all initially identified victims were recovering, when at least four were seriously ill.
Since then, the disconnect has continued between Trump’s aggressive optimism and the measured words of the federal health bureaucracy in sizing up the coronavirus risk.
“It’s got the world aflutter but it’ll work out,” Trump told a meeting of the National Association of Counties on Tuesday.
En route to the National Institutes of Health in suburban Maryland, Trump held to his view that the spread of the virus across the U.S. isn’t “inevitable at all,” a stance at odds with that of government scientists.
Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, chair of the Senate health committee, agreed with many Democrats in asserting that the nonpolitical public-health officials are the ones who should be listened to.
“My advice to the president and the vice president is let the professionals do the talking,” he said.
Democrats in Congress say Trump, with his talk about an imminent vaccine and even a cure, is sugar-coating a pill that doesn’t exist.
“It is pretty extraordinary that we have to have our medicine and health professionals counter-messaging the president … that they have to correct the record.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told a hearing Tuesday.
Dr. Tom Frieden, who led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2009 through 2017, said some of the difference in the messaging between Trump, who has no background in science, and the government’s medical experts “has been in the emphasis or shading.”
“You want the experts giving the expert information,” Frieden said in an interview. He said that despite Trump and Mike Pence turning themselves into the public face of the outbreak, Trump had the experts speak from the podium both times he held briefings about the virus. “That’s really important.”
Testifying before the Senate on Tuesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health made it clear that neither a coronavirus treatment nor a vaccine can be ready quickly. Fauci indicated potential treatments may come before a vaccine. “The timelines are fundamentally different,” he said.
Pharmaceutical company Gilead is testing a potential treatment and Fauci said, “We’ll know in a few months if it works.”
Based on data from China, Fauci said about 80% of people who get infected “do really quite well” and recover without any medical treatment. But about 10% to 15% get seriously ill, particularly those in high-risk groups such as the elderly or patients with other medical problems.
While a treatment may be identified in a matter of months, Fauci said a vaccine would take at least a year to a year-and-a-half.
Testing for a vaccine has to proceed in stages, to make sure it’s safe to use on people and that it works. “We’d be giving this to normal people to prevent infection, so you must be sure,” said Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Pence’s visit on Capitol Hill with Fauci and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on Tuesday did little to quell concerns from senators of both parties.
Pence’s message was “we’re on top of it,” said Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana. But Kennedy said he’s been told conflicting information in various administration briefings, though this one was “much improved.”
Democrats said there were more questions than answers in the latest one. Senators told Pence the administration must provide accurate information to head off “confusion and panic,” said Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.
Said Alexander, the Republican chairman: “The more we listen to the head of those agencies, I think the better. Because if the administration talks too much people think that it’s taking credit. But if the Democrats talk too much they’ll think they’re playing politics.”
The new virus, first detected in China, has infected more than 90,000 people globally and caused over 3,100 deaths. Officials have found more than 100 cases and six deaths in the U.S.


shareblue--2020-03-04--Biden won big on Super Tuesday — even in 5 states where he didn't campaign

Tuesday was truly a super night for former Vice President Joe Biden , who walked away with victories in nine of the 13 nominating contests .
Biden won five of those states without even holding a single campaign event .
According to CNN , Biden did not campaign in Arkansas , Massachusetts , Minnesota , Oklahoma , or Tennessee , but he will still walk away with victories in those states .
Biden is `` winning states that he did not actually attempt to win , '' Jake Tapper said Tuesday night .
In Arkansas , Biden won 40.5 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) with 22.4 % , according to the New York Times .
Biden carried Massachusetts with 33.5 % of the vote , followed Sanders with 26.7 % .
In Minnesota , Biden got with 38.6 % of the vote , which may have been aided by Sen. Amy Klobuchar 's Monday endorsement of Biden .
Sanders received 29.9 % of the vote in Minnesota .
In Oklahoma , Biden won 38.7 % of the vote , followed by Sanders with 25.4 % .
And in Tennessee , Biden won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Sanders with 24.9 % .
According to the Associated Press , Biden also won Alabama , North Carolina , Texas , and Virginia .
Sanders won California , Colorado , Utah , and his home state of Vermont .
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg won the caucus in American Samoa .
Maine remained too close to call on Wednesday morning .
As in previous contests , candidates earn delegates by winning at least 15 % of the vote either statewide or in congressional districts .
The final results of Super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or weeks , due to the time it takes California to collect and count ballots .
Sanders went into Tuesday with a small delegate lead , but the Times projects Biden will overtake him following his string of victories .
On Wednesday morning , the Times estimated Biden will have a total of 670 delegates from all contests thus far , followed by Sanders with 589 , Bloomberg with 104 , and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) with 94 .
A candidate needs 1,991 delegates in order to win the Democratic nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be Idaho , Michigan , Mississippi , Missouri , North Dakota , and Washington on Tuesday , March 10 .
Democrats living abroad will vote between March 3 and 10 .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Tuesday was truly a super night for former Vice President Joe Biden, who walked away with victories in nine of the 13 nominating contests. Biden won five of those states without even holding a single campaign event.
According to CNN, Biden did not campaign in Arkansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, or Tennessee, but he will still walk away with victories in those states.
Biden is “winning states that he did not actually attempt to win,” Jake Tapper said Tuesday night.
In Arkansas, Biden won 40.5% of the vote, followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) with 22.4%, according to the New York Times.
Biden carried Massachusetts with 33.5% of the vote, followed Sanders with 26.7%.
In Minnesota, Biden got with 38.6% of the vote, which may have been aided by Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s Monday endorsement of Biden. Sanders received 29.9% of the vote in Minnesota.
In Oklahoma, Biden won 38.7% of the vote, followed by Sanders with 25.4%.
And in Tennessee, Biden won 41.7% of the vote, followed by Sanders with 24.9%.
According to the Associated Press, Biden also won Alabama, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Sanders won California, Colorado, Utah, and his home state of Vermont.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg won the caucus in American Samoa.
Maine remained too close to call on Wednesday morning.
As in previous contests, candidates earn delegates by winning at least 15% of the vote either statewide or in congressional districts. The final results of Super Tuesday may not be known for days or weeks, due to the time it takes California to collect and count ballots.
Sanders went into Tuesday with a small delegate lead, but the Times projects Biden will overtake him following his string of victories.
On Wednesday morning, the Times estimated Biden will have a total of 670 delegates from all contests thus far, followed by Sanders with 589, Bloomberg with 104, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) with 94.
A candidate needs 1,991 delegates in order to win the Democratic nomination.
The next states to vote will be Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, and Washington on Tuesday, March 10.
Democrats living abroad will vote between March 3 and 10.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-03-04--States that ditched caucuses see massive increase in voter turnout

A trio of Super Tuesday states saw massive increases in voter turnout after switching from a caucus in 2016 to a primary in 2020 — dealing yet another blow to the future of caucuses in Democratic presidential primaries .
Colorado , Minnesota , and Utah all held primaries Tuesday night , after holding caucuses in 2016 .
And all three states saw voter turnout more than double , according to election results .
Colorado saw the largest increase after abandoning its caucus and opting for a primary , with at least a 500 % jump in turnout .
In 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state 's caucus .
In 2020 , at least 756,904 people cast ballots in the state 's primary — a number that 's poised to grow , as just 82 % of Colorado 's precincts were reporting results as of the time this article published .
Minnesota also saw a 289 % turnout jump after forgoing a caucus for a primary .
In 2016 , 191,647 people turned out for Minnesota 's Democratic caucuses .
Meanwhile , in 2020 , 745,072 people cast ballots in the Democratic primary , with 99 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout more than double after opting to hold a primary rather than a caucus .
At least 175,109 people voted in Utah 's primary in 2020 , a number that will certainly grow as just 28 % of precincts were reporting .
In 2016 , just 77,344 voters turnout out for Utah 's caucuses .
That means Utah saw at least a 126 % increase in 2020 .
Voter turnout increases were first reported by Democratic strategist Matt Ortega .
Caucuses have long faced criticism for excluding people including workers who can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and caregivers who can not leave children or other family members alone , and ill or disabled people who can not leave their homes to spend hours at a caucus .
And after Iowa 's 2020 caucuses were marred by chaos , the system faced even more criticism .
New rules adding multiple alignments and how delegates were awarded already made the caucuses more complicated .
But that complicated process was made worse by a faulty results reporting system , in which a new app malfunctioned and led to chaos .
The problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which also held a caucus instead of a primary — to scramble to prevent a similar scenario .
While Nevada 's caucus turnout broke records , it was still a fraction of the eligible voting population in the state .
After the Nevada caucus , Harry Reid , the former Senate Democratic leader from that state , said `` all caucuses should be a thing of the past . ''
`` I believe it ’ s time for the Democratic Party to move to primaries everywhere , '' Reid told the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called for the end of caucuses , including Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez , who said that Democrats should abandon caucuses in the next presidential election .
Ultimately , Super Tuesday 's turnout increases among states that abandoned caucuses will give Perez and other opponents of caucuses even more ammunition to fight for such a change for 2024 .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

A trio of Super Tuesday states saw massive increases in voter turnout after switching from a caucus in 2016 to a primary in 2020 — dealing yet another blow to the future of caucuses in Democratic presidential primaries.
Colorado, Minnesota, and Utah all held primaries Tuesday night, after holding caucuses in 2016. And all three states saw voter turnout more than double, according to election results.
Colorado saw the largest increase after abandoning its caucus and opting for a primary, with at least a 500% jump in turnout.
In 2016, 122,296 voters turned out for the state’s caucus. In 2020, at least 756,904 people cast ballots in the state’s primary — a number that’s poised to grow, as just 82% of Colorado’s precincts were reporting results as of the time this article published.
Minnesota also saw a 289% turnout jump after forgoing a caucus for a primary.
In 2016, 191,647 people turned out for Minnesota’s Democratic caucuses. Meanwhile, in 2020, 745,072 people cast ballots in the Democratic primary, with 99% of precincts reporting.
Utah also saw its turnout more than double after opting to hold a primary rather than a caucus.
At least 175,109 people voted in Utah’s primary in 2020, a number that will certainly grow as just 28% of precincts were reporting. In 2016, just 77,344 voters turnout out for Utah’s caucuses. That means Utah saw at least a 126% increase in 2020.
Voter turnout increases were first reported by Democratic strategist Matt Ortega.
Caucuses have long faced criticism for excluding people including workers who cannot get time off to attend, parents and caregivers who cannot leave children or other family members alone, and ill or disabled people who cannot leave their homes to spend hours at a caucus.
And after Iowa’s 2020 caucuses were marred by chaos, the system faced even more criticism.
New rules adding multiple alignments and how delegates were awarded already made the caucuses more complicated.
But that complicated process was made worse by a faulty results reporting system, in which a new app malfunctioned and led to chaos.
The problems with Iowa’s caucuses led Nevada — which also held a caucus instead of a primary — to scramble to prevent a similar scenario. While Nevada’s caucus turnout broke records, it was still a fraction of the eligible voting population in the state.
After the Nevada caucus, Harry Reid, the former Senate Democratic leader from that state, said “all caucuses should be a thing of the past.”
“I believe it’s time for the Democratic Party to move to primaries everywhere,” Reid told the New York Times.
Other top Democratic figures have called for the end of caucuses, including Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez, who said that Democrats should abandon caucuses in the next presidential election.
Ultimately, Super Tuesday’s turnout increases among states that abandoned caucuses will give Perez and other opponents of caucuses even more ammunition to fight for such a change for 2024.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-03-04--GOP effort to interfere in North Carolina Democratic primary fails

Republicans spent millions backing a progressive Senate candidate in North Carolina over the past five weeks , but on Tuesday , Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly rejected her and nominated former state Sen. Cal Cunningham instead .
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee endorsed Cunningham in October , believing him to be the strongest candidate to challenge first-term Republican Sen. Thom Tillis in November .
North Carolina Democrats concurred , voting for him over state Sen. Erica Smith by a margin of 57 % to 35 % .
Smith had been the apparent beneficiary of nearly $ 3 million in advertisements funded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — a group whose sole goal is a large Republican majority in the U.S. Senate .
The Senate Leadership Fund bankrolled pro-Smith ads by funneling money into the `` progressive '' Faith and Power PAC .
Faith and Power PAC 's spots praised Smith 's support for Medicare for All , the Green New Deal , Donald Trump 's impeachment , and gun control — each things the Senate Leadership Fund has vocally opposed .
The ads dishonestly called Smith `` one of us , '' though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Power PAC financially , and presented Cunningham as a moderate .
The stated aim of the Senate Leadership Fund 's intervention in the race was to force Democrats to spend money in the primary on the primary race .
`` We thought that with a relatively small investment we could force them to spend a lot , '' Stephen Law , Senate Leadership Fund president and CEO , told The Hill last month .
`` The goal was less to change the ultimate outcome in the Democrat [ ic ] primary than to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
On Wednesday , the group claimed in a press release that the effort had been a success .
`` Cal 's complete lack of principles is the reason Chuck Schumer was forced to burn $ 15 million to save Cal from his own primary voters , and it 's the reason Thom Tillis is in a strong position to defeat him in November . ''
The organization did not immediately respond to an request for comment about its spending .
Cunningham 's campaign dismissed this argument on Tuesday night , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` spin this major strategic error as a 'success ' '' were `` laughable . ''
`` McConnell 's super PAC failed to stop Cal 's momentum , and just weeks after Republicans were wondering whether the primary would go to a runoff , Cal won decisively , with public polling leading up to tonight 's results showing Cal winning across geographies and demographic groups , '' his campaign manager wrote .
And even if the Senate Leadership Fund 's efforts did force extra primary spending , they may come at another cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mainstream candidate than Smith , the group 's ads could making him more palatable to some voters in the general election and make it harder for Tillis to now frame Cunningham as a far-left candidate .
Recent polling suggests that Cunningham could be a real contender in November .
A recent East Carolina University poll showed Tillis leading by a narrow 44 % to 42 % margin .
A Marist poll released this week actually showed Cunningham 5 points ahead of Tillis , 48 % to 43 % .
In a memo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Tillis now is `` limping into the general election as 'one of the most vulnerable senators ' in the country , defined by his own weakness and still facing fractured support within his own base , dismal approval numbers , and recent Democratic successes and a changing electorate in North Carolina . ''
`` Bottom Line : Senator Tillis enters the general election as one of the most vulnerable senators in the country facing a toss-up race because he ’ s a weak , self-serving politician who puts his reelection before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
`` Voters don ’ t trust him , he still has to repair the damage he caused within his own party , he has the lowest approval rating of any incumbent Senator , and he is facing a different electorate than 2014 — all signs that point to North Carolina electing a new Democratic Senator in November . ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Republicans spent millions backing a progressive Senate candidate in North Carolina over the past five weeks, but on Tuesday, Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly rejected her and nominated former state Sen. Cal Cunningham instead.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee endorsed Cunningham in October, believing him to be the strongest candidate to challenge first-term Republican Sen. Thom Tillis in November. North Carolina Democrats concurred, voting for him over state Sen. Erica Smith by a margin of 57% to 35%.
Smith had been the apparent beneficiary of nearly $3 million in advertisements funded by a Republican super PAC with ties to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — a group whose sole goal is a large Republican majority in the U.S. Senate.
The Senate Leadership Fund bankrolled pro-Smith ads by funneling money into the “progressive” Faith and Power PAC.
Faith and Power PAC’s spots praised Smith’s support for Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, Donald Trump’s impeachment, and gun control — each things the Senate Leadership Fund has vocally opposed. The ads dishonestly called Smith “one of us,” though no actual progressives supported the Faith and Power PAC financially, and presented Cunningham as a moderate.
The stated aim of the Senate Leadership Fund’s intervention in the race was to force Democrats to spend money in the primary on the primary race.
“We thought that with a relatively small investment we could force them to spend a lot,” Stephen Law, Senate Leadership Fund president and CEO, told The Hill last month. “The goal was less to change the ultimate outcome in the Democrat[ic] primary than to force the Democrats into a high-spending situation.”
On Wednesday, the group claimed in a press release that the effort had been a success. “Cal’s complete lack of principles is the reason Chuck Schumer was forced to burn $15 million to save Cal from his own primary voters, and it’s the reason Thom Tillis is in a strong position to defeat him in November.” The organization did not immediately respond to an request for comment about its spending.
Cunningham’s campaign dismissed this argument on Tuesday night, saying in a memo that any attempts to “spin this major strategic error as a ‘success'” were “laughable.”
“McConnell’s super PAC failed to stop Cal’s momentum, and just weeks after Republicans were wondering whether the primary would go to a runoff, Cal won decisively, with public polling leading up to tonight’s results showing Cal winning across geographies and demographic groups,” his campaign manager wrote.
And even if the Senate Leadership Fund’s efforts did force extra primary spending, they may come at another cost. By presenting Cunningham as more of a mainstream candidate than Smith, the group’s ads could making him more palatable to some voters in the general election and make it harder for Tillis to now frame Cunningham as a far-left candidate.
Recent polling suggests that Cunningham could be a real contender in November. A recent East Carolina University poll showed Tillis leading by a narrow 44% to 42% margin. A Marist poll released this week actually showed Cunningham 5 points ahead of Tillis, 48% to 43%.
In a memo Wednesday, the North Carolina Democratic Party said Tillis now is “limping into the general election as ‘one of the most vulnerable senators’ in the country, defined by his own weakness and still facing fractured support within his own base, dismal approval numbers, and recent Democratic successes and a changing electorate in North Carolina.”
“Bottom Line: Senator Tillis enters the general election as one of the most vulnerable senators in the country facing a toss-up race because he’s a weak, self-serving politician who puts his reelection before the needs of his constituents,” it wrote. “Voters don’t trust him, he still has to repair the damage he caused within his own party, he has the lowest approval rating of any incumbent Senator, and he is facing a different electorate than 2014 — all signs that point to North Carolina electing a new Democratic Senator in November.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-03-04--Trump hails 'positive impact' of coronavirus

More than 3,100 people around the world have died in the outbreak so far .
DONALD TRUMP : We 're @ @ @ @ @ the virus on the air travel and what they see .
In a certain way @ @ @ @ @ borders are automatically shut down , without having to say shut down , and they @ @ @ @ @ automatically shut down .
But it 's affecting the airline business as it would and @ @ @ @ @ staying in our country and they 're shopping and they 're using our hotels in @ @ @ @ @ that same point I think probably there 's a positive impact .
But there 's @ @ @ @ @ travel which will be fairly substantial .

From a March 4 White House briefing:
DONALD TRUMP: We’re talking about the effects of the virus on the air travel and what they see. In a certain way you could say that the borders are automatically shut down, without having to say shut down, and they’re to a certain extent automatically shut down.
But it’s affecting the airline business as it would and a lot of people are staying in our country and they’re shopping and they’re using our hotels in this country, so from that same point I think probably there’s a positive impact.
But there’s also an impact on overseas travel which will be fairly substantial.


shareblue--2020-03-04--Taliban launch attacks as Trump brags 'there's no violence'

Taliban fighters launched 43 attacks on Afghan National Defense and Security Forces checkpoints on Tuesday , the same day Donald Trump bragged to reporters about a `` very good '' phone call he had with the Taliban 's deputy leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar .
The United States responded to the attacks with an airstrike Wednesday conducted by drones .
`` This was a defensive strike to disrupt the attack .
This was our 1st strike against the Taliban in 11 days . ''
Col. Sonny Leggett , a spokesperson for the U.S. military , tweeted .
`` Taliban leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would reduce violence and not increase attacks .
We call on the Taliban to stop needless attacks and uphold their commitments , '' Leggett said .
`` As we have demonstrated , we will defend our partners when required . ''
After a Tuesday phone call with the Taliban amid reports of violence , Trump spoke to reporters and touted what he characterized as a `` very good talk . ''
`` We had a good conversation , we have agreed there 's no violence , we do n't want violence , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes after the United States and the Taliban signed an agreement on Saturday designed to lead to a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan .
The agreement stipulates that the Taliban will `` not allow any of its members , other individuals or groups , including Al Qaeda , to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies . ''
In exchange for that condition , NBC reports the United States has agreed to reduce forces in Afghanistan from the current number of 13,000 down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be withdrawn in 14 months depending on conditions being met by the Taliban to prevent violence .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the agreement was key to `` seizing the best opportunity for peace in a generation . ''
American service members have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001 in the longest military conflict in American history .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Taliban fighters launched 43 attacks on Afghan National Defense and Security Forces checkpoints on Tuesday, the same day Donald Trump bragged to reporters about a “very good” phone call he had with the Taliban’s deputy leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.
The United States responded to the attacks with an airstrike Wednesday conducted by drones.
“This was a defensive strike to disrupt the attack. This was our 1st strike against the Taliban in 11 days.” Col. Sonny Leggett, a spokesperson for the U.S. military, tweeted.
“Taliban leadership promised the int’l community they would reduce violence and not increase attacks. We call on the Taliban to stop needless attacks and uphold their commitments,” Leggett said. “As we have demonstrated, we will defend our partners when required.”
After a Tuesday phone call with the Taliban amid reports of violence, Trump spoke to reporters and touted what he characterized as a “very good talk.”
“We had a good conversation, we have agreed there’s no violence, we don’t want violence,” Trump said.
The eruption of violence comes after the United States and the Taliban signed an agreement on Saturday designed to lead to a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.
The agreement stipulates that the Taliban will “not allow any of its members, other individuals or groups, including Al Qaeda, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.”
In exchange for that condition, NBC reports the United States has agreed to reduce forces in Afghanistan from the current number of 13,000 down to 8,600, with the remaining troops to be withdrawn in 14 months depending on conditions being met by the Taliban to prevent violence.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the agreement was key to “seizing the best opportunity for peace in a generation.”
American service members have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001 in the longest military conflict in American history.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-03-04--Melania Trump praises elected women as her husband slurs Elizabeth Warren

Trump is continuing his social media attacks as his wife tries to promote her 'Be Best ' anti-bullying campaign .
@ @ @ @ @ Department International Women of Courage Award ceremony : MELANIA TRUMP : This Sunday , we @ @ @ @ @ Day , another opportunity to recognize the work of women throughout history and the world @ @ @ @ @ , women are playing vital roles in society .
They 're mothers , wives , @ @ @ @ @ elected officials to name just a few .
In a tweet the same morning , @ @ @ @ @ candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) as `` Pocahontas '' while attacking her record @ @ @ @ @ has employed the slur repeatedly despite calls from Native Americans for him to stop .
@ @ @ @ @ American Independent Foundation .

From the March 4 State Department International Women of Courage Award ceremony:
MELANIA TRUMP: This Sunday, we will celebrate International Women’s Day, another opportunity to recognize the work of women throughout history and the world. In the United States, women are playing vital roles in society. They’re mothers, wives, doctors, CEOs, and elected officials to name just a few.
In a tweet the same morning, Donald Trump slurred Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) as “Pocahontas” while attacking her record of political accomplishments. Trump has employed the slur repeatedly despite calls from Native Americans for him to stop.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-03-05--Court blocks Trump from banning asylum-seekers coming to US

In the latest twist on a key Trump administration immigration policy , a federal appeals court said it will prevent the government from making asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for U.S. court hearings starting next week unless the Supreme Court steps in sooner .
The 9th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Wednesday that it would only block the `` Remain in Mexico '' policy in Arizona and California , the two border states under its authority .
Donald Trump 's administration says it is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and had asked that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to give the high court time to decide .
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in the administration 's favor on questions of immigration and border enforcement .
The latest turn in the case comes after the 9th Circuit halted the policy along the entire southern border on Friday but suspended its own order later that day after the government warned of dire consequences .
`` Remain in Mexico '' is a crucial part of the Trump administration 's response to large numbers of asylum-seekers appearing at the border .
On Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer be in effect on Mexico 's border with California and Arizona starting March 12 unless the Supreme Court wades in sooner .
It declined to extend its order to federal courts in the two other southern border states — New Mexico and Texas .
Judges William Fletcher and Richard Paez , both appointed by President Bill Clinton , said they acknowledged that nationwide orders applied to places outside a court 's jurisdiction are `` a matter of intense and active controversy . ''
They reaffirmed their view that the policy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' is illegal under U.S. law to prevent sending people to countries where their lives or freedom would be threatened because of their race , religion , nationality , political beliefs , or membership in a particular social group .
There is no question about `` the extreme danger to asylum seekers who are returned to Mexico , '' they wrote .
Judge Ferdinand Fernandez , an appointee of President George H.W .
Bush , disagreed with blocking the policy at all .
Judy Rabinovitz , an attorney for the American Civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the policy , emphasized the majority 's opinion that it 's illegal .
`` If the administration had any respect for the law or any sense of decency , it would end this program immediately , '' she said .
`` We will continue working to permanently end this illegal and inhumane policy . ''
The Justice Department declined to comment .
In a court filing Tuesday , it warned of `` massive disruption to the government ’ s immigration operations and sudden confusion for thousands of migrants about their ability to enter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asylum-seekers have been returned to Mexico to wait for their cases to wind through clogged U.S. immigration courts since the policy was introduced in January 2019 in San Diego and later expanded across the border .
Human Rights First , an advocacy group that opposes the policy , said it found more than 1,000 public reports of kidnappings , torture , rape , and assaults of asylum-seekers returned to Mexico .

In the latest twist on a key Trump administration immigration policy, a federal appeals court said it will prevent the government from making asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for U.S. court hearings starting next week unless the Supreme Court steps in sooner.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Wednesday that it would only block the “Remain in Mexico” policy in Arizona and California, the two border states under its authority.
Donald Trump’s administration says it is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and had asked that the policy remain in effect until next week to give the high court time to decide. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in the administration’s favor on questions of immigration and border enforcement.
The latest turn in the case comes after the 9th Circuit halted the policy along the entire southern border on Friday but suspended its own order later that day after the government warned of dire consequences. “Remain in Mexico” is a crucial part of the Trump administration’s response to large numbers of asylum-seekers appearing at the border.
On Wednesday, the court ruled that the policy will no longer be in effect on Mexico’s border with California and Arizona starting March 12 unless the Supreme Court wades in sooner. It declined to extend its order to federal courts in the two other southern border states — New Mexico and Texas.
Judges William Fletcher and Richard Paez, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, said they acknowledged that nationwide orders applied to places outside a court’s jurisdiction are “a matter of intense and active controversy.”
They reaffirmed their view that the policy, known officially as “Migrant Protection Protocols,” is illegal under U.S. law to prevent sending people to countries where their lives or freedom would be threatened because of their race, religion, nationality, political beliefs, or membership in a particular social group.
There is no question about “the extreme danger to asylum seekers who are returned to Mexico,” they wrote.
Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, disagreed with blocking the policy at all.
Judy Rabinovitz, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to end the policy, emphasized the majority’s opinion that it’s illegal.
“If the administration had any respect for the law or any sense of decency, it would end this program immediately,” she said. “We will continue working to permanently end this illegal and inhumane policy.”
The Justice Department declined to comment. In a court filing Tuesday, it warned of “massive disruption to the government’s immigration operations and sudden confusion for thousands of migrants about their ability to enter the United States.”
About 60,000 asylum-seekers have been returned to Mexico to wait for their cases to wind through clogged U.S. immigration courts since the policy was introduced in January 2019 in San Diego and later expanded across the border.
Human Rights First, an advocacy group that opposes the policy, said it found more than 1,000 public reports of kidnappings, torture, rape, and assaults of asylum-seekers returned to Mexico.


shareblue--2020-03-05--GOP's bigoted efforts to stall Washington sex ed bill fail

The Democratic controlled Washington state House of Representatives passed a bill on Thursday to require comprehensive sexual health education in all public schools .
The 56-40 party line vote came after almost six hours of debate , during which more than 200 Republican-proposed amendments were filed .
The amendments included several sexist and anti-LGBTQ proposals .
The bill requires that all school districts offer K-12 students comprehensive sex education , beginning in the 2022-2023 school year .
Courtney Normand , executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest & Hawaii , called the Republican proposals `` an effort to obstruct the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponents filed hundreds of amendments and forced votes on more than two dozen of them .
Every one of the more than 200 floor amendments were defeated or withdrawn .
Some of the proposed changes were bizarre , others downright bigoted .
One , by Republican state Rep. Vicki Kraft , would have mandated that discussions of transgender identities ( `` gender confusion , '' she called them ) include mention of studies that found `` those who question their gender are up to 40 times more likely to commit suicide or have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question their gender . ''
Research has shown that transgender and non-binary kids who receive affirming treatment and medical care experience significantly lower suicidal ideation .
State Rep. Jim Walsh tried to prohibit any mention of the existence of flavored and colored condoms and to require schools to teach that boys and men are `` bigger '' and `` stronger . ''
State Rep. Jenny Graham proposed a ban on curricula that mentioned BDSM or `` inserting vegetables into the anus . ''
State Rep. Robert Sutherland even offered an amendment to exempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property taxes that go to public education if they take their kids out of school to avoid sex ed .
He withdrew the amendment and the House adopted a different committee-backed amendment allowing parents to simply `` opt-out '' their kids from the lessons .
The bill , which passed the state Senate previously in a slightly different form , now goes back there for final approval .
Gov .
Jay Inslee ( D ) is expected to sign the bill .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

The Democratic controlled Washington state House of Representatives passed a bill on Thursday to require comprehensive sexual health education in all public schools.
The 56-40 party line vote came after almost six hours of debate, during which more than 200 Republican-proposed amendments were filed. The amendments included several sexist and anti-LGBTQ proposals.
The bill requires that all school districts offer K-12 students comprehensive sex education, beginning in the 2022-2023 school year.
Courtney Normand, executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest & Hawaii, called the Republican proposals “an effort to obstruct the passage of this bill,” noting opponents filed hundreds of amendments and forced votes on more than two dozen of them. Every one of the more than 200 floor amendments were defeated or withdrawn.
Some of the proposed changes were bizarre, others downright bigoted.
One, by Republican state Rep. Vicki Kraft, would have mandated that discussions of transgender identities (“gender confusion,” she called them) include mention of studies that found “those who question their gender are up to 40 times more likely to commit suicide or have suicidal thoughts than peers who do not question their gender.”
Research has shown that transgender and non-binary kids who receive affirming treatment and medical care experience significantly lower suicidal ideation.
State Rep. Jim Walsh tried to prohibit any mention of the existence of flavored and colored condoms and to require schools to teach that boys and men are “bigger” and “stronger.” State Rep. Jenny Graham proposed a ban on curricula that mentioned BDSM or “inserting vegetables into the anus.”
State Rep. Robert Sutherland even offered an amendment to exempt parents from paying the portion of their property taxes that go to public education if they take their kids out of school to avoid sex ed. He withdrew the amendment and the House adopted a different committee-backed amendment allowing parents to simply “opt-out” their kids from the lessons.
The bill, which passed the state Senate previously in a slightly different form, now goes back there for final approval.
Gov. Jay Inslee (D) is expected to sign the bill.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-03-05--Kamala Harris: Election raises 'legitimate questions' about challenges women face

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS ( D-CA ) : This election cycle , in particular , has also presented very legitimate questions @ @ @ @ @ running for president of the United States .
HARRIS : Look at what 's happened @ @ @ @ @ currently in this race .
And , we can have a longer discussion about it @ @ @ @ @ that there 's still a lot of work to be done to make it very @ @ @ @ @ qualified and capable of being the commander-in-chief of the United States of America .

From a March 5 press availability:
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA): This election cycle, in particular, has also presented very legitimate questions about the challenges of women running for president of the United States.
…
HARRIS: Look at what’s happened, there are no women currently in this race. And, we can have a longer discussion about it, but the reality is that there’s still a lot of work to be done to make it very clear that women are exceptionally qualified and capable of being the commander-in-chief of the United States of America.


shareblue--2020-03-05--Trump staffer responds to Warren dropping out with racist 'Trail of Tears' joke

A staffer on Donald Trump 's reelection campaign tweeted a racist joke about Native American genocide on Thursday after Sen. Elizabeth Warren dropped out of the Democratic presidential primary .
Mike Hahn , who identifies as a Trump digital aide , shared a New York Times tweet about Warren 's decision to exit the race , writing , `` Campaign Trail of Tears . ''
Hahn eventually deleted the tweet , which makes light of the forced removal of Native Americans from their land in the 1800s , leading to thousands of deaths .
American Bridge , a progressive opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday afternoon .
Trump and his supporters have long made Native American jokes when referring to Warren — who was forced to apologize after she identified as Native American when she applied for a job at Harvard University .
Warren said identified as such thanks to stories her parents told her , but since admitted that she was wrong for claiming Native American ancestry and apologized to tribal groups she offended .
The Trump campaign did not immediately return request for comment on whether it thought Hahn 's joke was appropriate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tears '' joke , he did leave up a racist slur referring to Warren as `` Pocahontas '' — referring to Trump 's inappropriate nickname for Warren .
`` Going to miss the Pocahontas jokes tbh , '' Hahn tweeted .
Native American leaders have said Trump 's use of the Pocahontas nickname as a slur is offensive .
`` The reference is using a historic American Indian figure as a derogatory insult and that ’ s insulting to all American Indians , ” John Norwood , general secretary of the Alliance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2017 .
Norwood also told Trump to , `` stop using our historical people of significance as a racial slur against one of his opponents '' — a plea Trump ignored .
Trump again used the racist `` Pocahontas '' quip after Warren dropped out , while at the same time trying to gin up animosity between Warren and supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders — a campaign strategy meant to sow discord in the Democratic Party to help his own reelection chances .
`` Elizabeth 'Pocahontas ' Warren , who was going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head , just dropped out of the Democrat Primary ... THREE DAYS TOO LATE , '' Trump tweeted .
`` She cost Crazy Bernie , at least , Massachusetts , Minnesota and Texas .
Probably cost him the nomination !
Came in third in Mass . ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

A staffer on Donald Trump’s reelection campaign tweeted a racist joke about Native American genocide on Thursday after Sen. Elizabeth Warren dropped out of the Democratic presidential primary.
Mike Hahn, who identifies as a Trump digital aide, shared a New York Times tweet about Warren’s decision to exit the race, writing, “Campaign Trail of Tears.”
Hahn eventually deleted the tweet, which makes light of the forced removal of Native Americans from their land in the 1800s, leading to thousands of deaths.
American Bridge, a progressive opposition research organization, first flagged the tweet on Thursday afternoon.
Trump and his supporters have long made Native American jokes when referring to Warren — who was forced to apologize after she identified as Native American when she applied for a job at Harvard University.
Warren said identified as such thanks to stories her parents told her, but since admitted that she was wrong for claiming Native American ancestry and apologized to tribal groups she offended.
The Trump campaign did not immediately return request for comment on whether it thought Hahn’s joke was appropriate.
While Hahn deleted his “Trail of Tears” joke, he did leave up a racist slur referring to Warren as “Pocahontas” — referring to Trump’s inappropriate nickname for Warren.
“Going to miss the Pocahontas jokes tbh,” Hahn tweeted.
Native American leaders have said Trump’s use of the Pocahontas nickname as a slur is offensive.
“The reference is using a historic American Indian figure as a derogatory insult and that’s insulting to all American Indians,” John Norwood, general secretary of the Alliance of Colonial Era Tribes, told NBC News in 2017.
Norwood also told Trump to, “stop using our historical people of significance as a racial slur against one of his opponents” — a plea Trump ignored.
Trump again used the racist “Pocahontas” quip after Warren dropped out, while at the same time trying to gin up animosity between Warren and supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders — a campaign strategy meant to sow discord in the Democratic Party to help his own reelection chances.
“Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren, who was going nowhere except into Mini Mike’s head, just dropped out of the Democrat Primary…THREE DAYS TOO LATE,” Trump tweeted. “She cost Crazy Bernie, at least, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas. Probably cost him the nomination! Came in third in Mass.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-03-05--DOJ attorney can't explain to Supreme Court how abortion restriction helps anyone

On Wednesday , the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo , over whether Louisiana can require physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at hospitals .
Just five years ago , the Supreme Court decided a nearly identical case , Whole Woman 's Health v. Hellerstedt , and found that admitting privileges laws were unconstitutional because they placed a `` substantial obstacle '' in the way of someone seeking an abortion .
So what changed in the last five years ?
Nothing but the composition of the Supreme Court .
Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-abortion members , Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , to the court .
The June Medical Services case represented an opportunity for a solidly conservative majority to undermine abortion rights .
A physician admitting privileges requirement has long been proven to be unnecessary and without valid medical justification , but they remain popular among abortion opponents as a way to restrict access to the procedure .
The laws generally require an abortion provider , most of whom perform services in standalone clinics , to have privileges to admit patients to a local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Louisiana 's law prohibits physicians from performing abortions unless they have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic .
In the June Medical Services case , Louisiana 's attorney argued at the court that abortion providers in the state showed `` abundant evidence of life-threatening health and safety violations '' — but that 's demonstrably untrue .
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out correctly during arguments Wednesday , as a general rule , abortion is among the safest medical procedures there is and is `` far safer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in Louisiana , a hospital transfer — where a patient receiving an abortion at a clinic has reason to be admitted to a hospital — was required `` far less than once a year or less than one per several thousand patients . ''
Justice Sonia Sotomayor expanded on this , noting that Hope Clinic , one of the plaintiffs in the case , had served roughly 3,000 patients per year for 23 years , or roughly 70,000 people .
In all that time , Hope Clinic transferred only four patients to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know of a medical procedure where it 's lower than that of any kind , '' Sotomayor said .
Far from being an abundance of `` life-threatening health and safety violations , '' the data shows that Louisiana abortion clinics are instead incredibly safe .
A look at how admitting privileges work in that state shows how the admitting privileges law was designed not to increase safety but to prevent abortion providers from doing their jobs .
As Ginsburg noted during oral argument , at most hospitals in the state , you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get those privileges .
Hospitals wo n't credential doctors who are n't going to see patients at the facility , but given how rare it is for an abortion provider to ever need to see patients at a hospital , `` if they 're not also doing obstetrics and gynecology , they will never qualify , '' Ginsburg said .
The Guttmacher Institute , an organization that conducts research on abortion laws in the United States , points out that requiring admitting privileges also `` effectively hand [ s ] hospitals veto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue offering care in the area . ''
Catholic hospitals , for example , may refuse to credential any abortion provider .
Right now , Louisiana has only five doctors who perform abortions at only three licensed clinics , even though 10,000 women in the state get abortions each year .
Were the court to uphold the admitting privileges law , Louisiana would be left with only one clinic .
Even without the admitting privileges law going into effect , Louisiana already has enacted more abortion restrictions than any other state .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so everyone who wants an abortion must make two round trips to a clinic or make arrangements to stay near the clinic for the duration .
Louisiana also forces doctors to include abortion `` counseling '' materials that are medically misleading .
The state bars the use of telemedicine for medication abortions , which means people who live far from the limited amount of clinics in the state must travel long distances , even for a medication abortion in the early stages of pregnancy .
And all abortion after 22 weeks is entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can result in delaying abortion until later and later in pregnancy .
In states with waiting periods , abortion is delayed several days past the actual waiting period .
Imposing admitting privileges is designed to reduce the availability of clinics in a state , reducing access to `` the safest and most appropriate '' care . ''
At oral argument , both Louisiana and the Department of Justice , which filed an amicus brief in the case , seemed unable to explain how Louisiana 's law is different from the law struck down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or how the law would benefit people who need abortions .
The DOJ 's attorney , Jeffrey Wall , admitted they had no idea how often the alleged medical emergencies related to abortion would arise and he was `` prepared to concede '' Justice Elena Kagan 's point that `` it may not happen all that often . ''
But requiring admitting privileges would result in some people needing to make a 320-mile trip to get to the lone clinic that would remain .
Clinic closures delay access to abortion care .
Combined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22 weeks , dropping to one clinic in the state virtually guarantees that some people will not be able to get access to a procedure when they want one — if they are able to obtain one at all .
If Louisiana prevails at the court , abortion laws will be utterly upended and states will be free to pass exactly the type of law the Supreme Court ruled against five years ago , further delaying and restricting access across the country .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, over whether Louisiana can require physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at hospitals.
Just five years ago, the Supreme Court decided a nearly identical case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and found that admitting privileges laws were unconstitutional because they placed a “substantial obstacle” in the way of someone seeking an abortion.
So what changed in the last five years? Nothing but the composition of the Supreme Court. Donald Trump has been able to add two staunchly anti-abortion members, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, to the court. The June Medical Services case represented an opportunity for a solidly conservative majority to undermine abortion rights.
A physician admitting privileges requirement has long been proven to be unnecessary and without valid medical justification, but they remain popular among abortion opponents as a way to restrict access to the procedure.
The laws generally require an abortion provider, most of whom perform services in standalone clinics, to have privileges to admit patients to a local hospital where they can personally provide services. Louisiana’s law prohibits physicians from performing abortions unless they have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic.
In the June Medical Services case, Louisiana’s attorney argued at the court that abortion providers in the state showed “abundant evidence of life-threatening health and safety violations” — but that’s demonstrably untrue.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out correctly during arguments Wednesday, as a general rule, abortion is among the safest medical procedures there is and is “far safer than childbirth.”
Ginsburg also noted that in Louisiana, a hospital transfer — where a patient receiving an abortion at a clinic has reason to be admitted to a hospital — was required “far less than once a year or less than one per several thousand patients.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor expanded on this, noting that Hope Clinic, one of the plaintiffs in the case, had served roughly 3,000 patients per year for 23 years, or roughly 70,000 people.
In all that time, Hope Clinic transferred only four patients to a hospital.
“I don’t know of a medical procedure where it’s lower than that of any kind,” Sotomayor said.
Far from being an abundance of “life-threatening health and safety violations,” the data shows that Louisiana abortion clinics are instead incredibly safe.
A look at how admitting privileges work in that state shows how the admitting privileges law was designed not to increase safety but to prevent abortion providers from doing their jobs.
As Ginsburg noted during oral argument, at most hospitals in the state, you have to admit a certain number of patients to get those privileges.
Hospitals won’t credential doctors who aren’t going to see patients at the facility, but given how rare it is for an abortion provider to ever need to see patients at a hospital, “if they’re not also doing obstetrics and gynecology, they will never qualify,” Ginsburg said.
The Guttmacher Institute, an organization that conducts research on abortion laws in the United States, points out that requiring admitting privileges also “effectively hand[s] hospitals veto power over whether an abortion provider can continue offering care in the area.” Catholic hospitals, for example, may refuse to credential any abortion provider.
Right now, Louisiana has only five doctors who perform abortions at only three licensed clinics, even though 10,000 women in the state get abortions each year. Were the court to uphold the admitting privileges law, Louisiana would be left with only one clinic.
Even without the admitting privileges law going into effect, Louisiana already has enacted more abortion restrictions than any other state. The state has a 24-hour waiting period, so everyone who wants an abortion must make two round trips to a clinic or make arrangements to stay near the clinic for the duration.
Louisiana also forces doctors to include abortion “counseling” materials that are medically misleading.
The state bars the use of telemedicine for medication abortions, which means people who live far from the limited amount of clinics in the state must travel long distances, even for a medication abortion in the early stages of pregnancy.
And all abortion after 22 weeks is entirely banned.
This collection of laws already can result in delaying abortion until later and later in pregnancy. In states with waiting periods, abortion is delayed several days past the actual waiting period. Imposing admitting privileges is designed to reduce the availability of clinics in a state, reducing access to “the safest and most appropriate” care.”
At oral argument, both Louisiana and the Department of Justice, which filed an amicus brief in the case, seemed unable to explain how Louisiana’s law is different from the law struck down in the Whole Women’s Health case or how the law would benefit people who need abortions.
The DOJ’s attorney, Jeffrey Wall, admitted they had no idea how often the alleged medical emergencies related to abortion would arise and he was “prepared to concede” Justice Elena Kagan’s point that “it may not happen all that often.”
But requiring admitting privileges would result in some people needing to make a 320-mile trip to get to the lone clinic that would remain.
Clinic closures delay access to abortion care. Combined with Louisiana’s ban on abortions after 22 weeks, dropping to one clinic in the state virtually guarantees that some people will not be able to get access to a procedure when they want one — if they are able to obtain one at all.
If Louisiana prevails at the court, abortion laws will be utterly upended and states will be free to pass exactly the type of law the Supreme Court ruled against five years ago, further delaying and restricting access across the country.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-03-05--Bernie Sanders to Warren supporters: 'We are opening the door to you'

Bernie Sanders praised Elizabeth Warren as 'very focused , very disciplined , very hard-working ' after she announced she was dropping out of the presidential race .
BERNIE SANDERS : Sen. Warren obviously has been very strong on the issue of women 's rights .
And right now we know that throughout this country women are under political assault .
We 're seeing that at the Supreme Court level .
We 're seeing it at the stage legislative level .
We 're seeing it in Congress , where you have politicians who want to take away — among many other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control her own body .
And Sen. Warren has been a leader in fighting to protect women 's rights .
Today is a difficult day for Sen. Warren .
I have known Sen. Warren for some 20 years .
And she is very focused , very disciplined , very hard-working .
Today I would simply say to her supporters out there , of whom there are millions : We are opening the door to you .
We love you to come onboard .
Together , I think we can win this primary process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most dangerous president in the modern history of America .
So to all of Sen. Warren 's supporters , we would welcome them to be onboard .

From a March 5 press conference in Burlington, Vermont:
BERNIE SANDERS: Sen. Warren obviously has been very strong on the issue of women’s rights. And right now we know that throughout this country women are under political assault. We’re seeing that at the Supreme Court level. We’re seeing it at the stage legislative level. We’re seeing it in Congress, where you have politicians who want to take away — among many other things — a woman’s right to control her own body. And Sen. Warren has been a leader in fighting to protect women’s rights.
Today is a difficult day for Sen. Warren. I have known Sen. Warren for some 20 years. And she is very focused, very disciplined, very hard-working.
Today I would simply say to her supporters out there, of whom there are millions: We are opening the door to you. We love you to come onboard. Together, I think we can win this primary process. Together, we can defeat the most dangerous president in the modern history of America.
So to all of Sen. Warren’s supporters, we would welcome them to be onboard.


shareblue--2020-03-05--Pelosi on women in politics: 'This is a marble ceiling, it's not a glass ceiling'

' I do think there 's a certain element of misogyny that is there , ' Pelosi said after Elizabeth Warren dropped out of the Democratic primary .
Nancy Pelosi spoke about Sen. Elizabeth Warren 's departure from the Democratic presidential primary during her weekly briefing on March 6 : REPORTER : What does Elizabeth Warren 's withdrawal from this race say about the willingness of Americans and the Democratic Party to put a woman at the top of the ticket and see her be president ?
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI : I so wish , every time I get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I almost cry because I think , ' I wish that were not true . '
I so wish that we had a woman president of the United States .
And we came very close to doing that , a woman who was better qualified than so many people who have sought that office and even won it .
But I do , I think that the American people are ready .
I never thought we would have a woman speaker of the House before a woman president , because if you want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is , this is a marble ceiling , it 's not a glass ceiling .
So I always thought that that would be something that the public would be much more ready for than the members of Congress .
Well , we won , so .
But I think we had great candidates that represented different points of view : Amy , more moderate and middle America , heartland of America , articulate spokesperson for her point of view .
We 're so proud of her .
Also Elizabeth to get down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the race .
Elizabeth , so knowledgeable and the rest .
It 's just ...
I do n't know whether men think about being president from the day they 're born and start running then , but I do n't know that women do that , and maybe we should , somebody should .
But I think the American people are ready for it .
It 's a competition .
You run and you make your pitch , and people respond to it .
I do think there is — well that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , but you and I do not have time for right now because I have to go to Georgetown and talk about women in power , and how important that is — but I do think there 's a certain element of misogyny that is there .
And some of it is n't really mean spirited , it just is n't their experience .
Many of them will tell you they had a strong mom , they had strong sisters , they had strong daughters , but they had their own insecurities @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Nancy Pelosi spoke about Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s departure from the Democratic presidential primary during her weekly briefing on March 6:
REPORTER: What does Elizabeth Warren’s withdrawal from this race say about the willingness of Americans and the Democratic Party to put a woman at the top of the ticket and see her be president?
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: I so wish, every time I get introduced as the most powerful woman, I almost cry because I think, ‘I wish that were not true.’
I so wish that we had a woman president of the United States. And we came very close to doing that, a woman who was better qualified than so many people who have sought that office and even won it.
But I do, I think that the American people are ready. I never thought we would have a woman speaker of the House before a woman president, because if you want to talk about tradition, or whatever that is, this is a marble ceiling, it’s not a glass ceiling.
So I always thought that that would be something that the public would be much more ready for than the members of Congress. Well, we won, so.
But I think we had great candidates that represented different points of view: Amy, more moderate and middle America, heartland of America, articulate spokesperson for her point of view. We’re so proud of her.
Also Elizabeth to get down to the final two who were still in the race. Elizabeth, so knowledgeable and the rest.
It’s just … I don’t know whether men think about being president from the day they’re born and start running then, but I don’t know that women do that, and maybe we should, somebody should.
But I think the American people are ready for it.
It’s a competition. You run and you make your pitch, and people respond to it.
I do think there is — well that’s a whole other subject for another day, but you and I do not have time for right now because I have to go to Georgetown and talk about women in power, and how important that is — but I do think there’s a certain element of misogyny that is there.
And some of it isn’t really mean spirited, it just isn’t their experience. Many of them will tell you they had a strong mom, they had strong sisters, they had strong daughters, but they had their own insecurities I guess you would say.”