shareblue--2020-07-29--GOP attacks on abortion just force women to have them later

Anti-abortion activists and conservative GOP legislators consistently work to undermine abortion rights .
In doing so , they push people to have abortions later in pregnancy .
Recently , they suffered a brief setback when a federal judge ruled that the Food and Drug Administration ca n't enforce its restriction requiring people to physically travel to a doctor to get pills for a medication abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic .
High-profile anti-abortion groups immediately attacked the ruling .
Lila Rose , the president of Live Action , said the medication abortion drug `` has killed more than 3.7 Million innocent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president Marjorie Dannenfelser released a statement saying abortion rights activists were `` exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to push their long-sought goal of expanding dangerous chemical abortion drugs . ''
These attacks on medication abortion — an incredibly safe procedure — are just one of the types of attacks and restrictions that force delays , inevitably forcing people to obtain abortions later in pregnancy .
Another is the Hyde Amendment .
First passed by Congress in 1977 as a response to Roe v. Wade , it prohibits government insurance programs , including Medicaid , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incomes who rely on Medicaid for their medical care — a group that consists disproportionately of women of color — must find other sources of money for an abortion .
Finding money takes time , and as the Later Abortion Initiative notes , `` the cost of an abortion increases with gestational age and is an important factor in abortion delay . ''
Thanks to anti-abortion conservatives , people seeking abortions also face mandatory waiting periods .
According to Guttmacher , 26 states have some type of waiting period of at least 24 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must make two separate trips to a clinic when a state imposes a waiting period between the initial appointment and the procedure .
Guttmacher 's 2014 Abortion Patient Survey found that people in states with a waiting period `` were more likely than those in states without such laws to have at least two weeks elapse between calling to schedule an appointment and receiving an abortion . ''
That delay arises in part because people must sometimes travel significant distances to get an abortion .
Studies in both Alabama and Utah found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people waited two weeks `` due to a combination of reasons , including limited appointment availability , conflicting work schedules , and travel arrangements ( e.g.
, finding transportation , coordinating child care ) . ''
The conservative campaign to implement early abortion bans — some at as early as six weeks — would also create delays , in large part by requiring people to travel much farther to obtain an abortion .
The Guttmacher Institute , which studies reproductive health laws , noted that there was an `` unprecedented '' wave of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kentucky , Louisiana , Mississippi , and Ohio passed early bans , all of which sparked immediate litigation and are still in court .
If someone misses the opportunity to have an abortion in their home state because of bans like these , they must travel elsewhere .
This requires dealing with a number of the same logistical issues as in the case of waiting periods , like making arrangements for transportation , child care , and days off work .
The Jacobs Institute of Women 's Health at George Washington University notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive abortion services found these logistical issues acted as barriers to obtaining an abortion .
Needing to make these arrangements and navigate these barriers can delay access to abortion services .
These barriers , alone or together ( several states have multiple restrictions ) , drive abortion later in pregnancy .
A study published in the journal Contraception found that the `` overwhelming majority of second-trimester patients would have preferred to have had their abortion earlier . ''
The study further found that Black people and those with less education would most benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Anti-choice activists and GOP legislators have created a thicket of restrictions that are difficult to navigate .
With that , they 're managing to make abortions much more difficult to obtain and pushing people into later abortions .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Anti-abortion activists and conservative GOP legislators consistently work to undermine abortion rights. In doing so, they push people to have abortions later in pregnancy.
Recently, they suffered a brief setback when a federal judge ruled that the Food and Drug Administration can’t enforce its restriction requiring people to physically travel to a doctor to get pills for a medication abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic.
High-profile anti-abortion groups immediately attacked the ruling. Lila Rose, the president of Live Action, said the medication abortion drug “has killed more than 3.7 Million innocent children.” Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser released a statement saying abortion rights activists were “exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to push their long-sought goal of expanding dangerous chemical abortion drugs.”
These attacks on medication abortion — an incredibly safe procedure — are just one of the types of attacks and restrictions that force delays, inevitably forcing people to obtain abortions later in pregnancy.
Another is the Hyde Amendment. First passed by Congress in 1977 as a response to Roe v. Wade, it prohibits government insurance programs, including Medicaid, from covering abortions. People with lower incomes who rely on Medicaid for their medical care — a group that consists disproportionately of women of color — must find other sources of money for an abortion. Finding money takes time, and as the Later Abortion Initiative notes, “the cost of an abortion increases with gestational age and is an important factor in abortion delay.”
Thanks to anti-abortion conservatives, people seeking abortions also face mandatory waiting periods. According to Guttmacher, 26 states have some type of waiting period of at least 24 hours, but sometimes more. People must make two separate trips to a clinic when a state imposes a waiting period between the initial appointment and the procedure.
Guttmacher’s 2014 Abortion Patient Survey found that people in states with a waiting period “were more likely than those in states without such laws to have at least two weeks elapse between calling to schedule an appointment and receiving an abortion.”
That delay arises in part because people must sometimes travel significant distances to get an abortion. Studies in both Alabama and Utah found that even when mandatory periods were short, people waited two weeks “due to a combination of reasons, including limited appointment availability, conflicting work schedules, and travel arrangements (e.g., finding transportation, coordinating child care).”
The conservative campaign to implement early abortion bans — some at as early as six weeks — would also create delays, in large part by requiring people to travel much farther to obtain an abortion. The Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health laws, noted that there was an “unprecedented” wave of such bans in 2019.
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Ohio passed early bans, all of which sparked immediate litigation and are still in court.
If someone misses the opportunity to have an abortion in their home state because of bans like these, they must travel elsewhere. This requires dealing with a number of the same logistical issues as in the case of waiting periods, like making arrangements for transportation, child care, and days off work.
The Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health at George Washington University notes that people who had to travel to receive abortion services found these logistical issues acted as barriers to obtaining an abortion. Needing to make these arrangements and navigate these barriers can delay access to abortion services.
These barriers, alone or together (several states have multiple restrictions), drive abortion later in pregnancy. A study published in the journal Contraception found that the “overwhelming majority of second-trimester patients would have preferred to have had their abortion earlier.” The study further found that Black people and those with less education would most benefit if access to early abortion was increased.
Anti-choice activists and GOP legislators have created a thicket of restrictions that are difficult to navigate. With that, they’re managing to make abortions much more difficult to obtain and pushing people into later abortions.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-07-29--Biden: Trump should 'stop tweeting' about virus and 'start doing something, damn it'

Republicans , led by Donald Trump , have been pushing for schools to reopen this fall , even as concerns about the ongoing coronavirus pandemic remain high .
More recently , Trump , along with several high-profile conservatives , began boosting the profile of a Houston-based pediatrician and minister who claimed , according to the Daily Beast , that she had `` successfully treated hundreds of patients with hydroxychloroquine , '' an unproven drug that Trump has repeatedly pushed as a cure for COVID-19 — an attempt to undermine health officials who say sending kids back to school so soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Vice President Joe Biden recommended that Americans listen to public health experts over Trump and the doctor he promoted , chastising Trump 's tweets , which frequently contain false or misleading information about the ongoing threat from the virus .
From a July 29 campaign stream with Janet Murguía , president of UnidosUS , a Latinx nonprofit advocacy organization : JOE BIDEN : The bottom line : We have to listen to the public health experts and follow the science , Janet .
Parents have to be able to trust their kids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to send them back .
And President Trump should stop tweeting and start doing something about it , damn it .
BIDEN : And stop going on and talking about this crazy woman that he talked about last night , who 's an absolute disgrace , saying things and tweeting at – anyway , it 's just— BIDEN : We just need some intelligence .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Republicans, led by Donald Trump, have been pushing for schools to reopen this fall, even as concerns about the ongoing coronavirus pandemic remain high.
More recently, Trump, along with several high-profile conservatives, began boosting the profile of a Houston-based pediatrician and minister who claimed, according to the Daily Beast, that she had “successfully treated hundreds of patients with hydroxychloroquine,” an unproven drug that Trump has repeatedly pushed as a cure for COVID-19 — an attempt to undermine health officials who say sending kids back to school so soon is unwise or dangerous.
On Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden recommended that Americans listen to public health experts over Trump and the doctor he promoted, chastising Trump’s tweets, which frequently contain false or misleading information about the ongoing threat from the virus.
From a July 29 campaign stream with Janet Murguía, president of UnidosUS, a Latinx nonprofit advocacy organization:
JOE BIDEN: The bottom line: We have to listen to the public health experts and follow the science, Janet. Parents have to be able to trust their kids are safe or they’re not going to send them back. And President Trump should stop tweeting and start doing something about it, damn it. JANET MURGUIA: Amen. BIDEN: And stop going on and talking about this crazy woman that he talked about last night, who’s an absolute disgrace, saying things and tweeting at – anyway, it’s just— MURGUIA: Right. Right. BIDEN: We just need some intelligence.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-07-29--Trump wants $377 million to remodel West Wing in new virus bill

The Trump administration wants $ 377 million in the next coronavirus relief bill for a long-delayed modernization of the West Wing , but the timetable for construction is yet to be determined .
The sum , included in the draft aid legislation from Senate Republicans , would also cover a new security screening facility for the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in the White House complex .
While lawmakers , including Republicans , have balked at the administration 's request for more than $ 1 billion in the bill for a new FBI headquarters in Washington , the West Wing plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration says the White House work would `` increase the White House campus 's ability to detect , mitigate and alleviate external security and pandemic threats . ''
The West Wing has not had a full modernization since 1933 , according to the General Services Administration , which maintains most of the White House complex and would handle the upgrades .
Renovations have been planned and delayed by previous administrations — most recently by President Barack Obama in 2013 — in part because no president has wanted to temporarily give up the Oval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the substantial work to be done .
Plans drawn up in 2013 envisioned Obama and West Wing staffers working from the historic EEOB , once the headquarters of the Departments of State , War , and Navy , for an extended period of time .
Donald Trump oversaw a relatively minor upgrade to the West Wing , which included cosmetic and furniture changes and air conditioning upgrades , over a two-week period in 2017 .
Officials said substantial work remains , including necessary work on electrical and information technology infrastructure and unspecified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not comment on the proposed security upgrades .
A temporary security screening facility for the EEOB was constructed in 2013 , in part in preparation for the anticipated West Wing overhaul that never came to pass .
GSA press secretary Pamela Pennington said that as a result of the delays , `` the building 's infrastructure has continued to deteriorate and the need for updating has only increased .
Further , this project is even more necessary given the current challenges as a result of COVID-19 and the need for modern HVAC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workspace . ''
Even if Congress approves the money , the fate of the project could hinge on the November election and whether the occupant of the Oval Office next year is willing to proceed with the work .
Pennington said that if the funding is approved , design and site work would begin almost immediately , `` but an actual project schedule is yet to be determined . ''

The Trump administration wants $377 million in the next coronavirus relief bill for a long-delayed modernization of the West Wing, but the timetable for construction is yet to be determined.
The sum, included in the draft aid legislation from Senate Republicans, would also cover a new security screening facility for the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in the White House complex.
While lawmakers, including Republicans, have balked at the administration’s request for more than $1 billion in the bill for a new FBI headquarters in Washington, the West Wing plan has drawn relatively little scrutiny. The administration says the White House work would “increase the White House campus’s ability to detect, mitigate and alleviate external security and pandemic threats.”
The West Wing has not had a full modernization since 1933, according to the General Services Administration, which maintains most of the White House complex and would handle the upgrades. Renovations have been planned and delayed by previous administrations — most recently by President Barack Obama in 2013 — in part because no president has wanted to temporarily give up the Oval Office for months or longer to allow for the substantial work to be done.
Plans drawn up in 2013 envisioned Obama and West Wing staffers working from the historic EEOB, once the headquarters of the Departments of State, War, and Navy, for an extended period of time.
Donald Trump oversaw a relatively minor upgrade to the West Wing, which included cosmetic and furniture changes and air conditioning upgrades, over a two-week period in 2017. Officials said substantial work remains, including necessary work on electrical and information technology infrastructure and unspecified security improvements.
The U.S. Secret Service did not comment on the proposed security upgrades.
A temporary security screening facility for the EEOB was constructed in 2013, in part in preparation for the anticipated West Wing overhaul that never came to pass.
GSA press secretary Pamela Pennington said that as a result of the delays, “the building’s infrastructure has continued to deteriorate and the need for updating has only increased. Further, this project is even more necessary given the current challenges as a result of COVID-19 and the need for modern HVAC systems to ensure proper circulation within the workspace.”
Even if Congress approves the money, the fate of the project could hinge on the November election and whether the occupant of the Oval Office next year is willing to proceed with the work.
Pennington said that if the funding is approved, design and site work would begin almost immediately, “but an actual project schedule is yet to be determined.”


shareblue--2020-07-29--Is your retirement fund invested in right-wing propaganda?

A media company under fire for spreading COVID-19 misinformation and right-wing propaganda may be part of your 401 ( k ) or investment account .
Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. is a massive American telecommunications conglomerate that owns and/or operates 191 television stations in 89 media markets .
Over the past week , Sinclair repeatedly made national news — first for posting a video online featuring a discredited conspiracy theorist baselessly arguing that Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation 's leading infectious disease expert and a member of Donald Trump 's coronavirus task force , was responsible for manufacturing the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air the segment on most of its television stations as it had planned to do .
The controversial segment was scheduled to air during the program `` America This Week , '' hosted by former Fox News personality Eric Bolling .
Bolling has also pushed false claims about the COVID-19 pandemic .
It was not the first time Sinclair has been in the spotlight for airing right-wing propaganda .
Back in 2004 , the company ordered most of its stations to pre-empt regular prime-time programming and instead show a news program framed around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Kerry , just days before the election .
In 2018 , Sinclair required local news reporters to read a script decrying `` fake '' news on non-Sinclair stations .
A Deadspin video , showing dozens of anchors reading identical statements went viral and drew attention to Sinclair 's pro-Trump efforts .
The company also has required its stations to air `` must-run '' propaganda segments supporting Trump during local news broadcasts .
Until last December , these included including pre-taped `` analysis '' from former Trump senior adviser Boris Epshteyn .
Sinclair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment for this story .
A public company , Sinclair trades on the NASDAQ as `` SBGI . ''
According to CNN Business , the top ten owners hold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of shares .
About one third of the shares are held in mutual funds and most of the rest are held by other institutional investors .
BlackRock Fund Advisors reportedly holds about a 5.39 % stake , valued at more than $ 55 million .
According to its website , BlackRock iShares including Core 10+ Year USD Bond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF , Morningstar Small-Cap ETF , Russell 2000 ETF , and U.S. Consumer Services ETF all include Sinclair stock .
BlackRock did not respond to a request for comment for this story .
Fidelity Management & Research Company reportedly holds about a 5.97 % stake , valued at more than $ 61 million .
According to its website , the Fidelity Advisor Communication Services Fund , AMG Managers LMCG Small Cap Growth Fund , Mid-Cap Stock Fund , and Select Communication Services Portfolio include Sinclair stock .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the last of those portfolios included a comment from its manager that stated `` untimely ownership of Sinclair Broadcast Group , which owns local television networks , dragged on the fund 's relative return . ''
A spokesperson told The American Independent Foundation that Fidelity does `` not comment on individual companies . ''
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC reportedly holds about a 7.28 % stake , valued at more than $ 74 million .
According to its website , the Goldman Sachs High Yield Fund , Income Builder Fund , Long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Non-Core Fixed Income Fund include Sinclair stock .
Goldman Sachs did not respond to a request for comment for this story .
JPMorgan Securities LLC reportedly holds about a 2.38 % stake , valued at more than $ 24 million .
According to its website , the JPMorgan Income Fund US , Short Duration Core Plus Fund , Strategic Income Opportunities Fund , and Total Return Fund include Sinclair stock .
JPMorgan declined to comment for this story .
The Vanguard Group reportedly holds the largest stake of the groups on this list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than $ 114 million .
According to its website , 18 Vanguard funds include Sinclair stock .
They include the Balanced Index , Communications Services Index , Extended Market Index , Growth and Income , High Dividend Yield Index , Market Neutral , Russell 1000 Index , Russell 1000 Value Index , Russell 3000 Index , Small-Cap Index , Tax-Managed Capital Appreciation , Total Stock Market Index , and US Value Factor ETF .
Vanguard did not respond to a request for comment for this story .
Published with permission of The @ @ @ @

A media company under fire for spreading COVID-19 misinformation and right-wing propaganda may be part of your 401(k) or investment account.
Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. is a massive American telecommunications conglomerate that owns and/or operates 191 television stations in 89 media markets.
Over the past week, Sinclair repeatedly made national news — first for posting a video online featuring a discredited conspiracy theorist baselessly arguing that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert and a member of Donald Trump’s coronavirus task force, was responsible for manufacturing the coronavirus and then for ultimately deciding not to air the segment on most of its television stations as it had planned to do.
The controversial segment was scheduled to air during the program “America This Week,” hosted by former Fox News personality Eric Bolling.
Bolling has also pushed false claims about the COVID-19 pandemic.
It was not the first time Sinclair has been in the spotlight for airing right-wing propaganda.
Back in 2004, the company ordered most of its stations to pre-empt regular prime-time programming and instead show a news program framed around a discredited documentary attacking then-Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, just days before the election.
In 2018, Sinclair required local news reporters to read a script decrying “fake” news on non-Sinclair stations. A Deadspin video, showing dozens of anchors reading identical statements went viral and drew attention to Sinclair’s pro-Trump efforts.
The company also has required its stations to air “must-run” propaganda segments supporting Trump during local news broadcasts. Until last December, these included including pre-taped “analysis” from former Trump senior adviser Boris Epshteyn.
Sinclair did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
A public company, Sinclair trades on the NASDAQ as “SBGI.” According to CNN Business, the top ten owners hold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of shares. About one third of the shares are held in mutual funds and most of the rest are held by other institutional investors.
These include:
BlackRock
BlackRock Fund Advisors reportedly holds about a 5.39% stake, valued at more than $55 million.
According to its website, BlackRock iShares including Core 10+ Year USD Bond ETF, Core Dividend Growth ETF, iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF, Morningstar Small-Cap ETF, Russell 2000 ETF, and U.S. Consumer Services ETF all include Sinclair stock.
BlackRock did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Fidelity
Fidelity Management & Research Company reportedly holds about a 5.97% stake, valued at more than $61 million.
According to its website, the Fidelity Advisor Communication Services Fund, AMG Managers LMCG Small Cap Growth Fund, Mid-Cap Stock Fund, and Select Communication Services Portfolio include Sinclair stock.
The February 29, 2020 annual report for the last of those portfolios included a comment from its manager that stated “untimely ownership of Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns local television networks, dragged on the fund’s relative return.”
A spokesperson told The American Independent Foundation that Fidelity does “not comment on individual companies.”
Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC reportedly holds about a 7.28% stake, valued at more than $74 million.
According to its website, the Goldman Sachs High Yield Fund, Income Builder Fund, Long Short Credit Strategies Fund, and Multi-Manager Non-Core Fixed Income Fund include Sinclair stock.
Goldman Sachs did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
JPMorgan
JPMorgan Securities LLC reportedly holds about a 2.38% stake, valued at more than $24 million.
According to its website, the JPMorgan Income Fund US, Short Duration Core Plus Fund, Strategic Income Opportunities Fund, and Total Return Fund include Sinclair stock.
JPMorgan declined to comment for this story.
Vanguard
The Vanguard Group reportedly holds the largest stake of the groups on this list — about 11.23% — valued at more than $114 million.
According to its website, 18 Vanguard funds include Sinclair stock. They include the Balanced Index, Communications Services Index, Extended Market Index, Growth and Income, High Dividend Yield Index, Market Neutral, Russell 1000 Index, Russell 1000 Value Index, Russell 3000 Index, Small-Cap Index, Tax-Managed Capital Appreciation, Total Stock Market Index, and US Value Factor ETF.
Vanguard did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-07-29--Louie Gohmert: Wearing a mask 'most likely' gave me coronavirus

Rep. Louie Gohmert ( R-TX ) on Wednesday blamed his positive COVID-19 test on wearing a mask .
Gohmert claimed that `` moving the mask around '' was `` bound to have put some virus on the mask that I soaked in . ''
Gohmert tested positive during a pre-screening procedure at the White House .
He reportedly did not inform staffers and other representatives on Capitol Hill of his diagnosis as he moved through the Capitol building .
CYNTHIA McLAUGHLIN , KETK : So you 're questioning the importance of wearing a mask once you are actually confirmed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts are saying you should wear it even if you do not .
Do you agree with that then , to protect yourself ?
REP. LOUIE GOHMERT ( R-TX ) : There are an awful lot of people that think it 's the great thing to do all the time , but I ca n't help but think that if I had n't been wearing a mask so much in the last 10 days or so , I really wonder if I would have gotten it .
But I know , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it just right , I 'm bound to put some virus on the mask that I soaked in .
That 's most likely what happened .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on Wednesday blamed his positive COVID-19 test on wearing a mask.
Gohmert claimed that “moving the mask around” was “bound to have put some virus on the mask that I soaked in.”
Gohmert tested positive during a pre-screening procedure at the White House. He reportedly did not inform staffers and other representatives on Capitol Hill of his diagnosis as he moved through the Capitol building.
From a July 29 interview on KETK:
CYNTHIA McLAUGHLIN, KETK: So you’re questioning the importance of wearing a mask once you are actually confirmed to have coronavirus, but it seems health experts are saying you should wear it even if you do not. Do you agree with that then, to protect yourself? REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): There are an awful lot of people that think it’s the great thing to do all the time, but I can’t help but think that if I hadn’t been wearing a mask so much in the last 10 days or so, I really wonder if I would have gotten it. But I know, you know, moving the mask around, getting it just right, I’m bound to put some virus on the mask that I soaked in. That’s most likely what happened.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-07-29--GOP says it's Democrats' fault they had to cancel convention in virus hotspot

The chair of the Republican National Committee contradicted Donald Trump 's explanation of why he scrapped his plan to accept his party 's nomination for reelection in Jacksonville , Florida .
While Trump had claimed the cancellation was due to the coronavirus surge in the state , Ronna McDaniel said that the real blame lay with Democratic governors .
In an interview published Wednesday by Real Clear Politics , Ronna McDaniel said she `` was n't that surprised '' Trump canceled his plans to hold the ceremonial portions of the Republican National Convention in person in Florida , given `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' `` And the concern we had [ was ] with Democratic governors , which we 're starting to see now , that would refuse to let our delegates return to their states or [ require ] them to quarantine for 14 days , '' she said .
`` It was just not looking like something that could be tenable .
We 've continually seen Democratic governors who use coronavirus to expand their powers . ''
But last week , when Trump announced his decision , he framed it as entirely about protecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus during a pandemic .
`` I looked at my team , and I said , 'The timing for this event is not right .
It 's just not right with what 's happened recently — the flare-up in Florida — to have a big convention .
It 's not the right time , ' '' Trump said on Thursday .
`` It 's really something that , for me — I have to protect the American people .
That 's what I 've always done .
That 's what I always will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about . ''
`` I care deeply about the people of Florida and everywhere else , frankly , in this country — and even in the world — who would be coming into the state , and I do n't want to do anything to upset it , '' he said .
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the apparent contradiction .
Contrary to McDaniel 's claim , it is unlikely that any GOP delegates would have been trapped in Florida .
The states that have implemented quarantines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Florida are merely requiring that they isolate themselves for two weeks to avoid further spreading the virus , not that they stay out of the state entirely .
And contrary to her assertion that it is only Democratic governors who have implemented quarantine periods , states with Republican governors , such as Massachusetts , New Hampshire , Ohio , and Vermont , have instituted restrictions on people arriving from areas with high levels of community spread .
Indeed , the first governor to institute such a requirement was Florida 's Republican governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He required quarantine for anyone coming to the state from New York and its surrounding areas .
`` I quarantined them in March .
And everyone in New York media was blowing a gasket [ asking ] 'How could you do this ? '
'' DeSantis said at a press conference in May .
`` That was the right decision .
... Had we not done the quarantine , you would have had way more cases , hospitalizations , the whole nine yards .
I have no doubt that that quarantine saved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The American Independent Foundation .

The chair of the Republican National Committee contradicted Donald Trump’s explanation of why he scrapped his plan to accept his party’s nomination for reelection in Jacksonville, Florida.
While Trump had claimed the cancellation was due to the coronavirus surge in the state, Ronna McDaniel said that the real blame lay with Democratic governors.
In an interview published Wednesday by Real Clear Politics, Ronna McDaniel said she “wasn’t that surprised” Trump canceled his plans to hold the ceremonial portions of the Republican National Convention in person in Florida, given “the spike in coronavirus cases there.”
“And the concern we had [was] with Democratic governors, which we’re starting to see now, that would refuse to let our delegates return to their states or [require] them to quarantine for 14 days,” she said. “It was just not looking like something that could be tenable. We’ve continually seen Democratic governors who use coronavirus to expand their powers.”
But last week, when Trump announced his decision, he framed it as entirely about protecting the American people from further spreading the coronavirus during a pandemic.
“I looked at my team, and I said, ‘The timing for this event is not right. It’s just not right with what’s happened recently — the flare-up in Florida — to have a big convention. It’s not the right time,'” Trump said on Thursday. “It’s really something that, for me — I have to protect the American people. That’s what I’ve always done. That’s what I always will do. That’s what I’m about.”
“I care deeply about the people of Florida and everywhere else, frankly, in this country — and even in the world — who would be coming into the state, and I don’t want to do anything to upset it,” he said.
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the apparent contradiction.
Contrary to McDaniel’s claim, it is unlikely that any GOP delegates would have been trapped in Florida. The states that have implemented quarantines for people traveling from COVID-19 hotspots such as Florida are merely requiring that they isolate themselves for two weeks to avoid further spreading the virus, not that they stay out of the state entirely.
And contrary to her assertion that it is only Democratic governors who have implemented quarantine periods, states with Republican governors, such as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Vermont, have instituted restrictions on people arriving from areas with high levels of community spread.
Indeed, the first governor to institute such a requirement was Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, back in March. He required quarantine for anyone coming to the state from New York and its surrounding areas.
“I quarantined them in March. And everyone in New York media was blowing a gasket [asking] ‘How could you do this?'” DeSantis said at a press conference in May. “That was the right decision. … Had we not done the quarantine, you would have had way more cases, hospitalizations, the whole nine yards. I have no doubt that that quarantine saved lives.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-07-29--Louie Gohmert knowingly endangers staff and colleagues before going into quarantine

Rep. Louie Gohmert ( R-TX ) came under fire on Wednesday for traversing the U.S. Capitol after learning he tested positive for the coronavirus .
According to Politico , Gohmert went back to his office on Capitol Hill to tell his staff in person that he had the virus , potentially exposing his aides further .
Before testing positive , Gohmert had been all over the Capitol without a mask — endangering his fellow members , congressional staff , and even Attorney General William Barr , who was spotted alongside Gohmert at a hearing on Tuesday .
Barr is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact with the Texas lawmaker .
Gohmert has since said he will self-isolate for 10 days , in accordance with the congressional physician 's advice , stating so during an interview with Texas-based Fox affiliate KFXK-TV , which he gave from his office on Capitol Hill .
In a statement to Politico on Wednesday afternoon , an aide from Gohmert 's office appeared to thank the outlet for informing them of the lawmaker 's positive test .
`` [ ... ] THANK YOU for letting our office know Louie tested positive for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` When you write your story , can you include the fact that Louie requires full staff to be in the office , including three interns , so that 'we could be an example to America on how to open up safely . '
When probing the office , you might want to ask how often were people berated for wearing masks . ''
Gohmert 's congressional colleagues have since condemned him for his decision to flout established safety measures and expose others to the virus .
`` Too many Republicans have continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gohmert , '' House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters on Wednesday .
Public health experts say that even those who test positive for the virus but are asymptomatic can infect others .
Those same experts say wearing a mask — which Gohmert has refused to do — can help prevent that spread .
Gohmert 's fellow members of Congress pilloried him for his behavior , saying he had endangered others .
Rep. Norma Torres ( D-CA ) said she was `` angry '' at Gohmert for his actions , calling him `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` [ Y ] our political stunt could cost us our lives , '' Torres tweeted .
Rep. Pramila Jayapal ( D-WA ) , a member of the House Judiciary Committee along with Gohmert , was also up in arms at the news of Gohmert 's positive test after he had refused to wear a mask .
`` Wear a damn mask ! ''
Jayapal tweeted .
`` It 's not a joke , not a conspiracy theory , not a game .
It 's serious — it 's public health & science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask , Rep. Gohmert & other Republican colleagues have not only put us in harm 's way but our staff , families , Capitol workers too . ''
Other Democratic lawmakers called on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to police GOP members like Gohmert , who are refusing to wear a mask .
`` I wish @ replouiegohmert well , but by refusing to wear a mask during yesterday 's hearing and elsewhere , he has put the lives of his colleagues and others others at risk , '' Rep. Bobby Rush ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what are you going to do to better protect your coworkers and their staff ? ''
McCarthy has not yet spoken publicly on the matter .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) came under fire on Wednesday for traversing the U.S. Capitol after learning he tested positive for the coronavirus.
According to Politico, Gohmert went back to his office on Capitol Hill to tell his staff in person that he had the virus, potentially exposing his aides further.
Before testing positive, Gohmert had been all over the Capitol without a mask — endangering his fellow members, congressional staff, and even Attorney General William Barr, who was spotted alongside Gohmert at a hearing on Tuesday. Barr is now being tested for the virus following his contact with the Texas lawmaker.
Gohmert has since said he will self-isolate for 10 days, in accordance with the congressional physician’s advice, stating so during an interview with Texas-based Fox affiliate KFXK-TV, which he gave from his office on Capitol Hill.
In a statement to Politico on Wednesday afternoon, an aide from Gohmert’s office appeared to thank the outlet for informing them of the lawmaker’s positive test.
“[…] THANK YOU for letting our office know Louie tested positive for the Coronavirus,” the aide wrote. “When you write your story, can you include the fact that Louie requires full staff to be in the office, including three interns, so that ‘we could be an example to America on how to open up safely.’ When probing the office, you might want to ask how often were people berated for wearing masks.”
Gohmert’s congressional colleagues have since condemned him for his decision to flout established safety measures and expose others to the virus.
“Too many Republicans have continued to act extraordinarily irresponsibly, including Louie Gohmert,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters on Wednesday.
Public health experts say that even those who test positive for the virus but are asymptomatic can infect others. Those same experts say wearing a mask — which Gohmert has refused to do — can help prevent that spread.
Gohmert’s fellow members of Congress pilloried him for his behavior, saying he had endangered others.
Rep. Norma Torres (D-CA) said she was “angry” at Gohmert for his actions, calling him “selfish” and “irresponsible.”
“[Y]our political stunt could cost us our lives,” Torres tweeted.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), a member of the House Judiciary Committee along with Gohmert, was also up in arms at the news of Gohmert’s positive test after he had refused to wear a mask.
“Wear a damn mask!” Jayapal tweeted. “It’s not a joke, not a conspiracy theory, not a game. It’s serious — it’s public health & science. By refusing to consistently wear a mask, Rep. Gohmert & other Republican colleagues have not only put us in harm’s way but our staff, families, Capitol workers too.”
Other Democratic lawmakers called on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to police GOP members like Gohmert, who are refusing to wear a mask.
“I wish @replouiegohmert well, but by refusing to wear a mask during yesterday’s hearing and elsewhere, he has put the lives of his colleagues and others others at risk,” Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) tweeted. “@GOPLeader, what are you going to do to better protect your coworkers and their staff?”
McCarthy has not yet spoken publicly on the matter.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-07-29--Oregon governor announces feds will withdraw hours after Trump said 'we're not leaving'

Federal agents will withdraw from Portland , Oregon , starting Thursday , following demands from state and local officials who said their presence was causing violence and tension in the city .
`` After my discussions with VP Pence and others , the federal government has agreed to withdraw federal officers from Portland , '' Gov .
Kate Brown , a Democrat , tweeted .
`` They have acted as an occupying force & brought violence .
Starting tomorrow , all Customs and Border Protection & ICE officers will leave downtown Portland . ''
Brown 's announcement that the agents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just two hours after Donald Trump vowed that the federal presence was n't going away .
`` We 're not leaving until they secure their city , '' Trump said Wednesday morning , before he left the White House to travel to Texas to fundraise and tour an oil rig .
`` We told the governor , we told the mayor , secure your city .
If they do n't secure their city soon , we have no choice — we 're gon na have to go in and clean it out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ two weeks ago , after Trump signed an executive order in late June to protect federal properties .
The Department of Homeland Security issued a memo justifying their presence in Portland that included mostly graffiti incidents .
Attorney General William Barr testified before Congress on Tuesday about the presence of the federal officers , who have caused an uproar across the country as images of agents tear-gassing and firing projectiles at mothers gathering for peaceful protests emerged .
Barr claimed the federal courthouse would n't be `` standing '' if agents had n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After video surfaced of unmarked agents abducting peaceful protesters off the streets of the city , a `` wall of moms '' took to the streets .
Brown accused the Trump administration of using the officers as a political tool to gin up GOP votes in other areas of the country .
`` Trump is looking for a confrontation in Oregon in the hopes of winning political points in Ohio or Iowa , '' Brown tweeted on July 16 , adding that , `` Trump is looking for a confrontation in Oregon in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio or Iowa . ''
But Trump 's effort to paint himself as the `` law and order '' candidate and attack presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden as weak on crime does n't seem to be working .
A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that voters actually trust Biden over Trump on the issue of `` crime and safety . ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Federal agents will withdraw from Portland, Oregon, starting Thursday, following demands from state and local officials who said their presence was causing violence and tension in the city.
“After my discussions with VP Pence and others, the federal government has agreed to withdraw federal officers from Portland,” Gov. Kate Brown, a Democrat, tweeted. “They have acted as an occupying force & brought violence. Starting tomorrow, all Customs and Border Protection & ICE officers will leave downtown Portland.”
Brown’s announcement that the agents were packing up and going home came just two hours after Donald Trump vowed that the federal presence wasn’t going away.
“We’re not leaving until they secure their city,” Trump said Wednesday morning, before he left the White House to travel to Texas to fundraise and tour an oil rig. “We told the governor, we told the mayor, secure your city. If they don’t secure their city soon, we have no choice — we’re gonna have to go in and clean it out.”
Trump sent federal agents to Portland two weeks ago, after Trump signed an executive order in late June to protect federal properties. The Department of Homeland Security issued a memo justifying their presence in Portland that included mostly graffiti incidents.
Attorney General William Barr testified before Congress on Tuesday about the presence of the federal officers, who have caused an uproar across the country as images of agents tear-gassing and firing projectiles at mothers gathering for peaceful protests emerged.
Barr claimed the federal courthouse wouldn’t be “standing” if agents hadn’t gone in and stopped the graffiti.
After video surfaced of unmarked agents abducting peaceful protesters off the streets of the city, a “wall of moms” took to the streets.
Brown accused the Trump administration of using the officers as a political tool to gin up GOP votes in other areas of the country.
“Trump is looking for a confrontation in Oregon in the hopes of winning political points in Ohio or Iowa,” Brown tweeted on July 16, adding that, “Trump is looking for a confrontation in Oregon in the hopes of winning political points in Ohio or Iowa.”
But Trump’s effort to paint himself as the “law and order” candidate and attack presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden as weak on crime doesn’t seem to be working.
A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that voters actually trust Biden over Trump on the issue of “crime and safety.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-07-29--GOP fights to cut unemployment payments as swing-state voters say keep them

A survey of swing-state voters finds the vast majority disagree with a Republican push to reduce emergency unemployment payments during the COVID-19 pandemic .
But that does not appear to have swayed Donald Trump or Republicans in the Senate .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced a proposal on Monday , negotiated by the Republican caucus and the White House , that would replace the current $ 600-a-week federal unemployment insurance subsidy with a temporary $ 200-a-week payment .
The $ 600 amount had been designed to replace 100 % of the average worker 's salary .
Under the GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new system , workers would get a total of 70 % of what they made before becoming unemployed .
House Democrats passed a bill in May to extend the $ 600 payments , which expire July 31 .
McConnell ( R-KY ) has refused to bring the legislation up for a vote in the Senate , mocking it as `` dead on arrival . ''
A CNBC/Change Research poll , released Wednesday , found that voters in six swing states strongly support keeping the current level of support for those who lost jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 62 % of likely voters in Arizona , Florida , Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin supported the extension ; about 36 % opposed it .
Another poll earlier this month of voters in presidential and Senate battleground states found 76 % of voters supported the House-passed legislation , compared to just 16 % opposed .
And a national poll in June found about 75 % of Americans said the $ 600 supplement should either be kept ( 35 % ) or increased ( 40 % ) .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eliminate the benefit since it became law in late March .
Days after Trump signed it into law , Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) —who had opposed the provision to begin with — vowed the subsidy would be reauthorized only `` over our dead bodies . ''
Soon after signing the legislation , Trump complained , `` We 're paying people to stay home .
Think of it , we 're paying people not to go to work .
How about that ?
How does that play ? ''
In May , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not want to extend them past July .
McConnell said in late June that , unlike the House bill , the next relief legislation the Senate passed would not include the full unemployment subsidy , suggesting it served as an incentive for people to not return to work .
`` Unemployment is extremely important .
And we need to make sure , for those who are not able to recover their jobs , unemployment is adequate , '' he told reporters .
`` That is a different issue from whether we ought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to work .
And so I think that was a mistake ... And we 're hearing it all over the country that it 's made it harder actually to get people back to work . ''
On July 1 , Trump again objected to the system , saying , `` You 'd make more money if you do n't go to work , '' he said .
`` We do n't want to have that .
We want to have people get out , and we want to create a tremendous incentive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work . ''
On Sunday , Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin opposed renewal , telling Fox News , `` It just wouldn ’ t be fair to use taxpayer dollars to pay more people to sit home than they would working and get a job . ''
But experts say ending or cutting the emergency payments will hurt American families , especially poorer ones .
`` That $ 600 allows unemployed people to go about their regular lives and to spend money and buy goods and services , '' economist Heidi Shierholz of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Independent Foundation earlier this month .
`` And if those $ 600 are taken way , those unemployed people wo n't be able to buy those goods , and the people who produce those goods and services will lose their jobs . ''
`` The $ 600 a week disproportionately benefits poor people and that is really a feature , not a bug , '' Martha Gimbel , manager of economic research at Schmidt Futures , told Yahoo !
Money on Tuesday .
She warned that cutting the benefits would hurt both those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I see very little argument to pull consumer spending out of the economy at this time , which is what cutting unemployment insurance benefits would be , '' she added .
`` The United States is a consumer-driven economy and if consumers can not spend , we are in a lot of trouble . ''
In June , a report by Congress ' Joint Economic Committee predicted that if the benefits are not extended another 2.8 million Americans could lose their jobs .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

A survey of swing-state voters finds the vast majority disagree with a Republican push to reduce emergency unemployment payments during the COVID-19 pandemic. But that does not appear to have swayed Donald Trump or Republicans in the Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced a proposal on Monday, negotiated by the Republican caucus and the White House, that would replace the current $600-a-week federal unemployment insurance subsidy with a temporary $200-a-week payment.
The $600 amount had been designed to replace 100% of the average worker’s salary. Under the GOP proposal, once states switched to a new system, workers would get a total of 70% of what they made before becoming unemployed.
House Democrats passed a bill in May to extend the $600 payments, which expire July 31. McConnell (R-KY) has refused to bring the legislation up for a vote in the Senate, mocking it as “dead on arrival.”
A CNBC/Change Research poll, released Wednesday, found that voters in six swing states strongly support keeping the current level of support for those who lost jobs due to the pandemic. A total of 62% of likely voters in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin supported the extension; about 36% opposed it.
Another poll earlier this month of voters in presidential and Senate battleground states found 76% of voters supported the House-passed legislation, compared to just 16% opposed. And a national poll in June found about 75% of Americans said the $600 supplement should either be kept (35%) or increased (40%).
But Republicans have been aiming to reduce or eliminate the benefit since it became law in late March.
Days after Trump signed it into law, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) —who had opposed the provision to begin with — vowed the subsidy would be reauthorized only “over our dead bodies.”
Soon after signing the legislation, Trump complained, “We’re paying people to stay home. Think of it, we’re paying people not to go to work. How about that? How does that play?”
In May, Trump reportedly told Senate Republicans he did not want to extend them past July.
McConnell said in late June that, unlike the House bill, the next relief legislation the Senate passed would not include the full unemployment subsidy, suggesting it served as an incentive for people to not return to work.
“Unemployment is extremely important. And we need to make sure, for those who are not able to recover their jobs, unemployment is adequate,” he told reporters. “That is a different issue from whether we ought to pay people a bonus not to go back to work. And so I think that was a mistake… And we’re hearing it all over the country that it’s made it harder actually to get people back to work.”
On July 1, Trump again objected to the system, saying, “You’d make more money if you don’t go to work,” he said. “We don’t want to have that. We want to have people get out, and we want to create a tremendous incentive for people to want to go back to work.”
On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin opposed renewal, telling Fox News, “It just wouldn’t be fair to use taxpayer dollars to pay more people to sit home than they would working and get a job.”
But experts say ending or cutting the emergency payments will hurt American families, especially poorer ones.
“That $600 allows unemployed people to go about their regular lives and to spend money and buy goods and services,” economist Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute told the American Independent Foundation earlier this month. “And if those $600 are taken way, those unemployed people won’t be able to buy those goods, and the people who produce those goods and services will lose their jobs.”
“The $600 a week disproportionately benefits poor people and that is really a feature, not a bug,” Martha Gimbel, manager of economic research at Schmidt Futures, told Yahoo! Money on Tuesday.
She warned that cutting the benefits would hurt both those people and the economy overall. “I see very little argument to pull consumer spending out of the economy at this time, which is what cutting unemployment insurance benefits would be,” she added. “The United States is a consumer-driven economy and if consumers cannot spend, we are in a lot of trouble.”
In June, a report by Congress’ Joint Economic Committee predicted that if the benefits are not extended another 2.8 million Americans could lose their jobs.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-07-29--Trump blames Democrats for cutting jobless benefits — but it's GOP demanding cuts

Donald Trump on Wednesday attacked Democrats for not making relief payments to Americans impacted by the coronavirus high enough — even though it 's Republicans who have proposed massive cuts to unemployment insurance payments .
Senate Republicans have refused to take up a relief bill Democrats in the House passed in May .
`` The Democrats are n't taking care of the people .
The payments are n't enough .
The payments are n't enough , you understand that ? ''
Trump said Wednesday morning as he left the White House en route to Texas , where he 's scheduled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil rig .
`` They 're not making the payments , they 're not making them high enough .
The Democrats are not taking care of the people . ''
Trump said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi `` takes care of herself , but she does n't take care of anyone else , '' and alluded vaguely to `` what 's going on with '' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer .
`` In the meantime , '' he said , `` we oughta stop evictions , because that expires very soon . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 that would send out another round of $ 1,200 economic stimulus payments to Americans after the first such payments were made in March .
In the bill , Democrats also extended a $ 600 weekly unemployment insurance boost to help laid-off workers .
Democrats voted to extend the payments , which expire on July 31 , through the rest of 2020 .
And Democrats also included an extension of a moratorium on evictions and of housing assistance to help ensure people are able to keep a roof over their heads amid the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since Democrats in the House passed that bill , Republicans have continually said no more coronavirus relief was needed .
Senate Republicans refused to take up the House bill , instead waiting until a week before the $ 600 weekly payments expire to release their own legislation .
The delay resulted in the payments expiring .
In their own bill , Republicans propose slashing the $ 600 weekly unemployment payments to $ 200 , which economists say could lead to 3.4 million more jobs lost .
The GOP bill fails to extend the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` oughta be stopped . ''
The Republican bill does , however , include billions in military spending , along with funding for a new FBI headquarters to be located directly across the street from Donald Trump 's Washington , D.C. , hotel .
The GOP bill also includes additional tax breaks that businesses can use to write off corporate meals , which experts said will not help the struggling economy .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump on Wednesday attacked Democrats for not making relief payments to Americans impacted by the coronavirus high enough — even though it’s Republicans who have proposed massive cuts to unemployment insurance payments.
Senate Republicans have refused to take up a relief bill Democrats in the House passed in May.
“The Democrats aren’t taking care of the people. The payments aren’t enough. The payments aren’t enough, you understand that?” Trump said Wednesday morning as he left the White House en route to Texas, where he’s scheduled to host a fundraiser and tour an oil rig. “They’re not making the payments, they’re not making them high enough. The Democrats are not taking care of the people.”
Trump said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “takes care of herself, but she doesn’t take care of anyone else,” and alluded vaguely to “what’s going on with” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “In the meantime,” he said, “we oughta stop evictions, because that expires very soon.”
House Democrats passed a bill on May 15 that would send out another round of $1,200 economic stimulus payments to Americans after the first such payments were made in March.
In the bill, Democrats also extended a $600 weekly unemployment insurance boost to help laid-off workers. Democrats voted to extend the payments, which expire on July 31, through the rest of 2020.
And Democrats also included an extension of a moratorium on evictions and of housing assistance to help ensure people are able to keep a roof over their heads amid the economic recession caused by the coronavirus.
Since Democrats in the House passed that bill, Republicans have continually said no more coronavirus relief was needed.
Senate Republicans refused to take up the House bill, instead waiting until a week before the $600 weekly payments expire to release their own legislation. The delay resulted in the payments expiring.
In their own bill, Republicans propose slashing the $600 weekly unemployment payments to $200, which economists say could lead to 3.4 million more jobs lost.
The GOP bill fails to extend the moratorium on the evictions that Trump says “oughta be stopped.”
The Republican bill does, however, include billions in military spending, along with funding for a new FBI headquarters to be located directly across the street from Donald Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel.
The GOP bill also includes additional tax breaks that businesses can use to write off corporate meals, which experts said will not help the struggling economy.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-07-30--McConnell's proposed ban on virus lawsuits will hurt Black and Latinx workers most

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his close ally , Sen. John Cornyn ( R-TX ) , introduced legislation on Monday that would broadly shield employers from liability if workers contract the coronavirus on the job , making it near impossible for those workers to sue , employment law experts say .
Such a move would also disproportionately impact workers of color — who , according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics , are more likely to be in essential jobs that require them to work in-person rather than remotely .
`` Black , Latinx , and workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the corporate immunity bill , '' Hugh Baran , a staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project who focuses on workers in low-wage industries , said in an interview .
ABC News reported that Black people make up 13 % of the United States population , but account for 15 % of essential workers in the country .
Similarly , though Latinx people make up 18 % of the population , they make up 21 % of essential workers .
Black and Latinx communities have already been hit harder by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities dying in greater numbers from the virus than their white counterparts , according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
According to the Economic Policy Institute , both communities face higher death rates thanks to deep-rooted racial inequalities that often leave them without access to proper health care .
Legal experts say the liability protections — which McConnell says must be included in any coronavirus relief bill in order for him to bring it up for a vote — would hurt these communities even further , creating a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuits if they get sick or die on the job from the virus .
According to the text of the bill , workers may only sue an `` individual or entity '' who is `` not making reasonable efforts ... to comply with the applicable government standards and guidance , '' who `` engaged in gross negligence or willful misconduct that caused an actual exposure to coronavirus , '' and prove that `` the actual exposure to coronavirus caused ... personal injury . ''
Baran said that standard is so strict almost no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negligence is already as a general manner an extremely difficult thing to prove , '' Baran said .
`` You virtually have to prove intent — that you wanted your workers to get hurt or sick .
This [ bill ] actually raises the bar so high that no worker or consumer will ever be able to '' meet the standard .
Baran added that the bill also makes it easy for employers and businesses to say they made an effort to prevent against the coronavirus .
`` Under McConnell 's bill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can show reasonable efforts to comply with any applicable government standards or guidance .
But the problem is that the federal guidance , the OSHA guidance or CDC guidance , does n't require them to do anything , '' Baran said .
He added that guidance from those entities is merely recommendations that do n't require employers to do anything , noting that they include caveats like `` if feasible '' or `` if possible . ''
Take , for example , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance for employers on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidelines says employers should , `` Consider posting signs in parking areas and entrances that ask guests and visitors to wear cloth face coverings if possible , to not enter the building if they are sick , and to stay 6 feet away from employees , if possible . ''
Baran said those kind of caveats make it so that `` employers are able to escape any liability or accountability for getting sick with COVID-19 so long as they can show reasonable efforts — which means literally doing nothing at all . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ liability will impact the coronavirus relief package .
Democratic lawmakers are against such sweeping immunity , arguing that workers need more protections , rather than businesses .
McConnell has claimed that `` there ’ s no chance of the country getting back to normal without '' a liability shield .
However the data does n't back that up , as very few lawsuits related to the coronavirus have been filed by plaintiffs suing who contracted it , according to data from Hunton Andrew Kurth , a law firm tracking coronavirus-related lawsuits .
Published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his close ally, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), introduced legislation on Monday that would broadly shield employers from liability if workers contract the coronavirus on the job, making it near impossible for those workers to sue, employment law experts say.
Such a move would also disproportionately impact workers of color — who, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, are more likely to be in essential jobs that require them to work in-person rather than remotely.
“Black, Latinx, and workers of color will be most directly impacted by the corporate immunity bill,” Hugh Baran, a staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project who focuses on workers in low-wage industries, said in an interview.
ABC News reported that Black people make up 13% of the United States population, but account for 15% of essential workers in the country. Similarly, though Latinx people make up 18% of the population, they make up 21% of essential workers.
Black and Latinx communities have already been hit harder by the COVID-19 pandemic, with individuals in those communities dying in greater numbers from the virus than their white counterparts, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, both communities face higher death rates thanks to deep-rooted racial inequalities that often leave them without access to proper health care.
Legal experts say the liability protections — which McConnell says must be included in any coronavirus relief bill in order for him to bring it up for a vote — would hurt these communities even further, creating a stricter standard of proof to file civil lawsuits if they get sick or die on the job from the virus.
According to the text of the bill, workers may only sue an “individual or entity” who is “not making reasonable efforts … to comply with the applicable government standards and guidance,” who “engaged in gross negligence or willful misconduct that caused an actual exposure to coronavirus,” and prove that “the actual exposure to coronavirus caused … personal injury.”
Baran said that standard is so strict almost no one could meet it.
“Gross negligence is already as a general manner an extremely difficult thing to prove,” Baran said. “You virtually have to prove intent — that you wanted your workers to get hurt or sick. This [bill] actually raises the bar so high that no worker or consumer will ever be able to” meet the standard.
Baran added that the bill also makes it easy for employers and businesses to say they made an effort to prevent against the coronavirus.
“Under McConnell’s bill, employers are immune from liability if they can show reasonable efforts to comply with any applicable government standards or guidance. But the problem is that the federal guidance, the OSHA guidance or CDC guidance, doesn’t require them to do anything,” Baran said.
He added that guidance from those entities is merely recommendations that don’t require employers to do anything, noting that they include caveats like “if feasible” or “if possible.”
Take, for example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance for employers on reopening office buildings. One of the guidelines says employers should, “Consider posting signs in parking areas and entrances that ask guests and visitors to wear cloth face coverings if possible, to not enter the building if they are sick, and to stay 6 feet away from employees, if possible.”
Baran said those kind of caveats make it so that “employers are able to escape any liability or accountability for getting sick with COVID-19 so long as they can show reasonable efforts — which means literally doing nothing at all.”
It’s unclear how the fight over liability will impact the coronavirus relief package.
Democratic lawmakers are against such sweeping immunity, arguing that workers need more protections, rather than businesses.
McConnell has claimed that “there’s no chance of the country getting back to normal without” a liability shield.
However the data doesn’t back that up, as very few lawsuits related to the coronavirus have been filed by plaintiffs suing who contracted it, according to data from Hunton Andrew Kurth, a law firm tracking coronavirus-related lawsuits.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-07-30--GOP congressman admits to 11 ethics violations he denied just last year

A report issued by the House Committee on Ethics on Thursday contains the announcement that Rep. David Schweikert ( R-AZ ) has admitted that he misused campaign and congressional funds and illegally pressured his office staff to do campaign work .
The report notes that he will receive a reprimand and will be fined $ 50,000 .
The committee , a bipartisan panel of five Democrats and five Republicans , launched an investigation in 2018 , after the independent Office of Congressional Ethics referred a series of allegations against Schweikert .
Months later , it added expanded the investigation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Schweikert included that he `` misused campaign funds for personal purposes by accepting personal items from staff that were reimbursed by campaign funds '' ; that he used his congressional office 's resources , `` including official funds , staff time , and congressional office space , '' improperly `` for unofficial and campaign purposes '' ; and that his congressional staff was `` pressured to perform campaign work . ''
The subcommittee charged with investigating the allegations detailed the 11 violations of House ethics rules in June ; Schweikert agreed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fine , the Ethics Committee 's report says .
But just last year , Schweikert claimed that the allegations against him were false and that he would soon be exonerated .
`` I think we 're almost there .
The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a few months away , at least I hope , '' he told a local news outlet in April 2019 .
`` So far , they 've read through a million some emails .
And I believe we 've come out clean .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things look pretty good . ''
He predicted the issue would be `` long gone '' by November 2020 , when he is up for reelection .
Despite the allegations and ongoing investigation , Schweikert 's Republican colleagues have stood by him and donated to his reelection race .
This campaign cycle alone , he received donations from Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , Minority Whip Steve Scalise , Rep. Kevin Brady , Rep. Jim Jordan , White House chief of staff Mark Meadows , and the conservative House Freedom Caucus .
Schweikert first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touting his `` scrupulous ethics '' on his campaign website .
After taking office , he claimed he was going to help restore transparency and integrity to Congress .
`` Our Congress was going to be the most open and the most ethical and it did n't work out that way , '' he told Congressional Quarterly in August 2011 , and he intended to use `` a freshman 's opportunity to try to help . ''
In an email on Thursday , a Schweikert spokesperson said , `` We are pleased the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can move forward from this chapter .
As noted in the review , all issues have been resolved and Congressman Schweikert will continue working hard for Arizona 's 6th District . ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

A report issued by the House Committee on Ethics on Thursday contains the announcement that Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) has admitted that he misused campaign and congressional funds and illegally pressured his office staff to do campaign work. The report notes that he will receive a reprimand and will be fined $50,000.
The committee, a bipartisan panel of five Democrats and five Republicans, launched an investigation in 2018, after the independent Office of Congressional Ethics referred a series of allegations against Schweikert. Months later, it added expanded the investigation to examine additional allegations.
The 11 charges against Schweikert included that he “misused campaign funds for personal purposes by accepting personal items from staff that were reimbursed by campaign funds”; that he used his congressional office’s resources, “including official funds, staff time, and congressional office space,” improperly “for unofficial and campaign purposes”; and that his congressional staff was “pressured to perform campaign work.”
The subcommittee charged with investigating the allegations detailed the 11 violations of House ethics rules in June; Schweikert agreed to admit to all of them and the fine, the Ethics Committee’s report says.
But just last year, Schweikert claimed that the allegations against him were false and that he would soon be exonerated.
“I think we’re almost there. The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a few months away, at least I hope,” he told a local news outlet in April 2019. “So far, they’ve read through a million some emails. And I believe we’ve come out clean. At least what we know so far is things look pretty good.” He predicted the issue would be “long gone” by November 2020, when he is up for reelection.
Despite the allegations and ongoing investigation, Schweikert’s Republican colleagues have stood by him and donated to his reelection race.
This campaign cycle alone, he received donations from Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Minority Whip Steve Scalise, Rep. Kevin Brady, Rep. Jim Jordan, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
Schweikert first won his House seat in 2010 after touting his “scrupulous ethics” on his campaign website.
After taking office, he claimed he was going to help restore transparency and integrity to Congress. “Our Congress was going to be the most open and the most ethical and it didn’t work out that way,” he told Congressional Quarterly in August 2011, and he intended to use “a freshman’s opportunity to try to help.”
In an email on Thursday, a Schweikert spokesperson said, “We are pleased the Committee has issued their report and we can move forward from this chapter. As noted in the review, all issues have been resolved and Congressman Schweikert will continue working hard for Arizona’s 6th District.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-07-30--Obama eulogizes John Lewis with call for voting reforms he fought for

Former President Barack Obama spent the latter part of his eulogy for the late civil rights icon and Democratic Rep. John Lewis by advocating for policies Lewis himself fought for , such as expanding the right to vote .
Obama ticked off his list of policies members of Congress should pass to honor Lewis ' legacy of fighting for voting rights after delivering a fiery condemnation of Donald Trump and his administration .
Without saying Trump 's name , he condemned Trump 's actions of using the same brutal police tactics against racial justice protesters today as Lewis faced as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black equality .
`` I 'm so grateful for the legacy and work of all the congressional leaders who are here , but there 's a better way than a statement calling him a hero , '' Obama said .
`` You want to honor John ?
Let 's honor him by revitalizing the law that he was willing to die for . ''
Here are the the policies Obama said Congress should pass to honor John Lewis : In 2013 , the Supreme Court gutted a key enforcement mechanism of the Voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lewis ' activism helped create back in 1965 .
The Court 's decision invalidated Section 5 of the law , which prevented nine states that had a history of discriminating against Black Americans from creating laws that would hamper minorities from voting .
By invalidating that provision , those states could once again create laws that made it harder for minorities to vote — and they immediately did , with Texas creating a strict voter ID law .
The day of that decision , Lewis said the Supreme Court `` put a dagger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act of 1965 . ''
Obama said Congress should restore and revamp the Voting Rights Act — which Lewis had been fighting for ever since the court invalidated it — and name it after Lewis .
Obama said that reforms to honor Lewis do n't end with the Voting Rights Amendment .
`` John would n't want us to stop there , '' Obama said .
He went on to call for the passage of automatic voter registration — a growing movement among voting rights advocates that would make it so every American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote .
The policy would make it so that voters would have to opt out of being registered to vote , rather than opting in .
Currently , 16 states and the District of Columbia have approved the policy , according to the Brennan Center for Justice .
The Brennan Center writes , `` The benefits of AVR extend beyond increasing the number of people registering .
The policy keeps voter rolls more accurate by creating a constant stream of updates between registration agencies and election officials and by reducing the odds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by hand .
Cleaner rolls reduce errors that cause delays on Election Day and prevent eligible voters from casting regular ballots . ''
Another growing movement in the voting rights community is pushing to give former inmates who completed their prison sentences the right to vote again .
Currently , 10 states permanently disenfranchise people with criminal convictions , according to the Brennan Center .
One state , Iowa , permanently disenfranchises anyone who has a felony conviction .
Florida voters overwhelmingly voted to re-enfranchise more than a million residents in their state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law that would force those who had completed their prison sentences to pay back all fines before their rights could be restored — something critics have called a poll tax and is currently being challenged in court .
Obama called for Congress to make Election Day a federal holiday , `` so if you are somebody who is working in a factory or you 're a single mom who 's got to go to her job and does n't get time off , you can still cast your ballot . ''
Democrats have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Puerto Rico new states , allowing the millions of residents there — who pay federal taxes and are governed by federal laws — to have congressional representation .
The House in June passed a historic bill to make the District of Columbia a state .
Republicans , however , have vowed to never make D.C. or Puerto Rico states , as both would receive two senators each as well as House members who would almost certainly be Democrats .
Some GOP lawmakers even openly used racist reasoning for not allowing D.C. and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minority — to become states .
Partisan gerrymandering has allowed Republicans to draw House districts in a way that dilutes Democratic voters and keep Republicans in power .
A report by the Center for American Progress from October 2019 found that `` unfairly drawn congressional districts shifted , on average , a whopping 59 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives during the 2012 , 2014 , and 2016 elections . ''
Since leaving office , Obama has fought to end the practice of partisan gerrymandering .
Obama called the filibuster — which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to block legislation — a `` Jim Crow relic . ''
Ending the filibuster has gained considerable support over the years , as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used the filibuster to block Obama 's judicial nominees when Obama was president .
McConnell ( R-KY ) later eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees , allowing Trump to appoint two Supreme Court justices , neither of whom would have been confirmed if the filibuster stood .
Justice Neil Gorsuch received 55 cloture votes , while Brett Kavanaugh received just 51 — both far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filibuster existed .
A lot of these reforms were included in H.R .
1 — the first bill House Democrats passed when they retook the majority in 2019 , but which Senate Republicans have refused to take up .
Below is the full transcript of the segment of Obama 's eulogy calling on Congress to honor Lewis by passing reforms .
You want to honor John ?
Let 's honor him by revitalizing the law that he was willing to die for .
And by the way , naming it the John Lewis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fine tribute , but John would n't want us to stop there .
Just trying to get back to where we already were .
Once we pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act , we should keep marching to make it even better .
By making sure every American is automatically registered to vote , including former inmates who have earned their second chance .
By adding polling places and expanding early voting and making Election Day a national holiday so if you are somebody who is working in a factory or you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go to her job and does n't get time off , you can still cast your ballot .
By guaranteeing that every American citizen has equal representation in our government , including the American citizens who live in Washington , D.C. and in Puerto Rico .
They 're Americans .
By ending some of the partisan gerrymandering so that all voters have the power to choose their politicians , not the other way around .
And if all this takes eliminating the filibuster , another Jim Crow relic , in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then that 's what we should do .
Even if we do all this , even if every bogus voter suppression law is struck off the books today , we have to be honest with ourselves that too many of us choose not to exercise the franchise .
Too many of our citizens believe their vote wo n't make a difference or they buy into the cynicism that , by the way , is the central strategy of voter suppression — to make you discouraged , to stop believing in your own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have to remember what John said : If you do n't do everything you can do to change things , then they will remain the same .
You only pass this way once .
You have to give it all you have .
As long as young people are protesting in the streets , hoping real change takes hold , I ’ m hopeful but we can ’ t casually abandon them at the ballot box .
Not when few elections have been as urgent on so many levels as this one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an errand to run if we have some time .
We have to treat it as the most important action we can take on behalf of democracy .
Like John , we have to give it all we have .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Former President Barack Obama spent the latter part of his eulogy for the late civil rights icon and Democratic Rep. John Lewis by advocating for policies Lewis himself fought for, such as expanding the right to vote.
Obama ticked off his list of policies members of Congress should pass to honor Lewis’ legacy of fighting for voting rights after delivering a fiery condemnation of Donald Trump and his administration.
Without saying Trump’s name, he condemned Trump’s actions of using the same brutal police tactics against racial justice protesters today as Lewis faced as a young civil rights leader fighting for Black equality.
“I’m so grateful for the legacy and work of all the congressional leaders who are here, but there’s a better way than a statement calling him a hero,” Obama said. “You want to honor John? Let’s honor him by revitalizing the law that he was willing to die for.”
Here are the the policies Obama said Congress should pass to honor John Lewis:
Restoring and revamping the Voting Rights Act
In 2013, the Supreme Court gutted a key enforcement mechanism of the Voting Rights Act — the landmark law that Lewis’ activism helped create back in 1965.
The Court’s decision invalidated Section 5 of the law, which prevented nine states that had a history of discriminating against Black Americans from creating laws that would hamper minorities from voting. By invalidating that provision, those states could once again create laws that made it harder for minorities to vote — and they immediately did, with Texas creating a strict voter ID law.
The day of that decision, Lewis said the Supreme Court “put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”
Obama said Congress should restore and revamp the Voting Rights Act — which Lewis had been fighting for ever since the court invalidated it — and name it after Lewis.
Automatic voter registration
Obama said that reforms to honor Lewis don’t end with the Voting Rights Amendment.
“John wouldn’t want us to stop there,” Obama said.
He went on to call for the passage of automatic voter registration — a growing movement among voting rights advocates that would make it so every American citizen is automatically granted the right to vote.
The policy would make it so that voters would have to opt out of being registered to vote, rather than opting in. Currently, 16 states and the District of Columbia have approved the policy, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
The Brennan Center writes, “The benefits of AVR extend beyond increasing the number of people registering. The policy keeps voter rolls more accurate by creating a constant stream of updates between registration agencies and election officials and by reducing the odds of mistakes caused by processing paper registration forms by hand. Cleaner rolls reduce errors that cause delays on Election Day and prevent eligible voters from casting regular ballots.”
Re-enfranchisement
Another growing movement in the voting rights community is pushing to give former inmates who completed their prison sentences the right to vote again.
Currently, 10 states permanently disenfranchise people with criminal convictions, according to the Brennan Center. One state, Iowa, permanently disenfranchises anyone who has a felony conviction.
Florida voters overwhelmingly voted to re-enfranchise more than a million residents in their state. But the Republican legislature passed a law that would force those who had completed their prison sentences to pay back all fines before their rights could be restored — something critics have called a poll tax and is currently being challenged in court.
Expanding voter access
Obama called for Congress to make Election Day a federal holiday, “so if you are somebody who is working in a factory or you’re a single mom who’s got to go to her job and doesn’t get time off, you can still cast your ballot.”
D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood
Democrats have been fighting to make District of Columbia and Puerto Rico new states, allowing the millions of residents there — who pay federal taxes and are governed by federal laws — to have congressional representation.
The House in June passed a historic bill to make the District of Columbia a state.
Republicans, however, have vowed to never make D.C. or Puerto Rico states, as both would receive two senators each as well as House members who would almost certainly be Democrats.
Some GOP lawmakers even openly used racist reasoning for not allowing D.C. and Puerto Rico — which are both majority minority — to become states.
Ending partisan gerrymandering
Partisan gerrymandering has allowed Republicans to draw House districts in a way that dilutes Democratic voters and keep Republicans in power.
A report by the Center for American Progress from October 2019 found that “unfairly drawn congressional districts shifted, on average, a whopping 59 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives during the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections.”
Since leaving office, Obama has fought to end the practice of partisan gerrymandering.
Ending the filibuster
Obama called the filibuster — which allows the minority party in the Senate to block legislation — a “Jim Crow relic.”
Ending the filibuster has gained considerable support over the years, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used the filibuster to block Obama’s judicial nominees when Obama was president.
McConnell (R-KY) later eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, allowing Trump to appoint two Supreme Court justices, neither of whom would have been confirmed if the filibuster stood. Justice Neil Gorsuch received 55 cloture votes, while Brett Kavanaugh received just 51 — both far short of the 60 needed had the filibuster existed.
A lot of these reforms were included in H.R. 1 — the first bill House Democrats passed when they retook the majority in 2019, but which Senate Republicans have refused to take up.
Below is the full transcript of the segment of Obama’s eulogy calling on Congress to honor Lewis by passing reforms.
You want to honor John? Let’s honor him by revitalizing the law that he was willing to die for. And by the way, naming it the John Lewis Voting Rights Act — that is a fine tribute, but John wouldn’t want us to stop there. Just trying to get back to where we already were. Once we pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, we should keep marching to make it even better. By making sure every American is automatically registered to vote, including former inmates who have earned their second chance. By adding polling places and expanding early voting and making Election Day a national holiday so if you are somebody who is working in a factory or you’re a single mom who’s got to go to her job and doesn’t get time off, you can still cast your ballot. By guaranteeing that every American citizen has equal representation in our government, including the American citizens who live in Washington, D.C. and in Puerto Rico. They’re Americans. By ending some of the partisan gerrymandering so that all voters have the power to choose their politicians, not the other way around. And if all this takes eliminating the filibuster, another Jim Crow relic, in order to secure the God-given rights of every American, then that’s what we should do. Even if we do all this, even if every bogus voter suppression law is struck off the books today, we have to be honest with ourselves that too many of us choose not to exercise the franchise. Too many of our citizens believe their vote won’t make a difference or they buy into the cynicism that, by the way, is the central strategy of voter suppression — to make you discouraged, to stop believing in your own power. So we’re also going to have to remember what John said: If you don’t do everything you can do to change things, then they will remain the same. You only pass this way once. You have to give it all you have. As long as young people are protesting in the streets, hoping real change takes hold, I’m hopeful but we can’t casually abandon them at the ballot box. Not when few elections have been as urgent on so many levels as this one. We can’t treat voting as an errand to run if we have some time. We have to treat it as the most important action we can take on behalf of democracy. Like John, we have to give it all we have.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.