npr--2020-12-11--Supreme Court Shuts Door On Trump Election Prospects

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night rejected an eleventh hour challenge to Joe Biden 's election as president .
The court 's action came in a one-page order , which said the complaint was denied `` for lack of standing . ''
Texas , supported by President Trump , tried to sue Pennsylvania , Georgia , Wisconsin , and Michigan , claiming fraud , without evidence .
But in order for a state to bring a case in court , especially the Supreme Court , a state must show it has been injured .
In essence , the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was injured by the way other states conducted their elections .
`` Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections , '' the court wrote .
Justice Samuel Alito , joined by Justice Clarence Thomas , wrote that in their view the court does `` not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction . ''
But the two said that while they would have allowed the filing of the complaint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Texas , any of the relief they sought .
Kevin McCarthy , the top ranking Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives , had earlier in the day attached his name to 125 fellow House Republicans who supported Trump 's longshot bid .
McCarthy was the most notable congressman to back the suit .
On Tuesday , Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued four states where Biden had been certified the winner : Georgia , Pennsylvania , Michigan and Wisconsin .
The suit , filed directly in the Supreme Court , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pitting one state against another .
Paxton claimed that the targeted states made changes to election procedures due to the pandemic that violated federal law .
He alleged the changes enabled voter fraud .
And he asked the Supreme Court to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for the Electoral College electors to cast ballots in those four states , contending more time was needed to allow investigations of the election results .
Paxton 's suit came in the face of repeated findings by state officials , including Republican state officeholders , certifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by U.S. Attorney General William Barr that the Justice Department did not find evidence of widespread fraud in this year 's election .
The Texas suit set in motion a cascade of legal motions at the high court .
Not only did President Trump seek to join the Texas suit , so did 17 other states — all overwhelmingly won by Trump .
More support would follow , including the brief filed by a majority of the GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives .
Late Thursday the four targeted states struck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court .
`` Texas invites this court to overthrow the votes of the American people and choose the next president of the United States , '' wrote Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr , chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association .
`` That Faustian invitation must be firmly rejected , '' he said .
`` Georgia did what the Constitution empowered it to do , '' the state 's brief said .
It `` implemented processes for the election , administered the election in the face of logistical challenges brought on by Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results — again and again and again .
Yet Texas has sued Georgia anyway . ''
Pennsylvania was equally acerbic .
`` The court should not abide this seditious abuse of judicial process , and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that that abuse must never be replicated , '' it said in its brief .
And Wisconsin said the Texas bid `` to nullify [ Wisconsin 's ] choice [ for president ] is devoid of a legal foundation or factual basis . ''
It was unclear how or why Paxton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to carry Trump 's water in the case .
Especially since all four targeted states have Republican-controlled legislatures , and to date , both state and federal courts at lower levels , including Trump-appointed judges , have found the fraud allegations baseless .
The unprecedented nature of the Paxton suit , plus the fact that the state 's chief appellate lawyer , Kyle Hawkins , did not sign the Texas brief as he usually would do , has spurred speculation that Paxton is seeking a pardon .
He is currently under indictment over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the FBI on bribery and abuse of power allegations .
Although the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over disputes between states , such cases are rare , and are almost exclusively confined to disputes that ca n't be handled by other courts , such as those over borders or water rights .
Earlier this week , the Supreme Court rejected an effort to block Pennsylvania from certifying its election results in favor of Biden .
Trump distanced himself from the legal blow and hitched his wagon instead to the Texas lawsuit , calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been waiting for . ''
Trump reportedly had conversations with some of the Republican attorneys general who were meeting this week in Washington , urging them to support the Texas lawsuit .
And several news organizations reported that Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , had agreed to represent Trump in the event the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case .
Initial reaction to the Texas suit , however , has been dismissive at best .
Sen. John Cornyn , R- Texas , told CNN that he `` frankly struggle [ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the suit , noting that election disputes in our system are `` decided at the state and local level and not at the national level . ''
The Texas suit had other problems .
First was the question of legal standing .
Essentially , how do Texas , or the states joining it , have legal standing to complain about the procedures for voting and counting votes in other states ?
Next , the Texas lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to delay the vote in four targeted states , but as professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law observed , the date for electors to cast their votes is set by federal law under the Constitution , which requires that the day `` shall be the same throughout the United States . ''
The date chosen by Congress this year is Dec. 14 .
Rick Hasen , an election law expert at the University of California , Irvine called Paxton 's lawsuit `` dangerous garbage . ''
`` This is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit , '' he wrote .
`` It 's too late for the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the claims were meritorious ( they are not ) , '' he wrote .
On Friday evening after the decision , Hasen wrote that the fact that `` courts across the nation , with both Democratic and Republican judges , held the line for the rule of law '' is `` something really to celebrate . ''
Benjamin Ginsburg , a longtime election law guru for the Republican Party , told CNN on Wednesday that he did n't think `` for an instant '' that the Supreme Court would consider taking up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump appointees on the court , and a newly strengthened 6-3 majority of conservative Republican-appointed justices , the president apparently believed that the Supreme Court would view the case differently than did `` election experts . ''
He was wrong .
Barring unforeseen events , the result of the court 's action is that on Monday , the Electoral College delegates in each state will cast their ballots , and Joe Biden will formally become the president-elect , with only one more step , in the House of Representatives where the Electoral College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sworn in on January 20th .

Supreme Court Shuts Door On Texas Suit Seeking To Overturn Election
Enlarge this image toggle caption Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images
Updated at 4:53 a.m. ET Saturday
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night rejected an eleventh hour challenge to Joe Biden's election as president.
The court's action came in a one-page order, which said the complaint was denied "for lack of standing."
Texas, supported by President Trump, tried to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, claiming fraud, without evidence. But in order for a state to bring a case in court, especially the Supreme Court, a state must show it has been injured. In essence, the court said Texas could not show that it was injured by the way other states conducted their elections.
"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections," the court wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that in their view the court does "not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction."
But the two said that while they would have allowed the filing of the complaint, they would not have granted Trump or Texas any of the relief they sought.
Kevin McCarthy, the top ranking Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, had earlier in the day attached his name to 125 fellow House Republicans who supported Trump's longshot bid. McCarthy was the most notable member of Congress to back the suit.
On Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued four states where Biden had been certified the winner: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The suit, filed directly in the Supreme Court, was styled as "an original" case, pitting one state against another.
Paxton claimed that the targeted states made changes to election procedures due to the pandemic that violated federal law. He alleged the changes enabled voter fraud. And he asked the Supreme Court to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for the Electoral College electors to cast ballots in those four states, contending more time was needed to allow investigations of the election results.
Paxton's suit came in the face of repeated findings by state officials, including Republican state officeholders, certifying the results, as well as statements by U.S. Attorney General William Barr that the Justice Department did not find evidence of widespread fraud in this year's election.
The Texas suit set in motion a cascade of legal motions at the high court. Not only did President Trump seek to join the Texas suit, so did 17 other states — all overwhelmingly won by Trump. More support would follow, including the brief filed by a majority of the GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Late Thursday the four targeted states struck back in briefs filed in the Supreme Court.
"Texas invites this court to overthrow the votes of the American people and choose the next president of the United States," wrote Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr, chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association. "That Faustian invitation must be firmly rejected," he said.
"Georgia did what the Constitution empowered it to do," the state's brief said. It "implemented processes for the election, administered the election in the face of logistical challenges brought on by Covid-19, and confirmed and certified the election results — again and again and again. Yet Texas has sued Georgia anyway."
Pennsylvania was equally acerbic. "The court should not abide this seditious abuse of judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that that abuse must never be replicated," it said in its brief. And Wisconsin said the Texas bid "to nullify [Wisconsin's] choice [for president] is devoid of a legal foundation or factual basis."
It was unclear how or why Paxton, the Texas attorney general, decided to carry Trump's water in the case. Especially since all four targeted states have Republican-controlled legislatures, and to date, both state and federal courts at lower levels, including Trump-appointed judges, have found the fraud allegations baseless.
The unprecedented nature of the Paxton suit, plus the fact that the state's chief appellate lawyer, Kyle Hawkins, did not sign the Texas brief as he usually would do, has spurred speculation that Paxton is seeking a pardon. He is currently under indictment over securities fraud, and is being investigated by the FBI on bribery and abuse of power allegations.
Although the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over disputes between states, such cases are rare, and are almost exclusively confined to disputes that can't be handled by other courts, such as those over borders or water rights.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court rejected an effort to block Pennsylvania from certifying its election results in favor of Biden. Trump distanced himself from the legal blow and hitched his wagon instead to the Texas lawsuit, calling it "the case that everyone has been waiting for."
Trump reportedly had conversations with some of the Republican attorneys general who were meeting this week in Washington, urging them to support the Texas lawsuit. And several news organizations reported that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, had agreed to represent Trump in the event the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case.
Initial reaction to the Texas suit, however, has been dismissive at best. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told CNN that he "frankly struggle[d] to understand the legal theory" of the suit, noting that election disputes in our system are "decided at the state and local level and not at the national level."
The Texas suit had other problems. First was the question of legal standing. Essentially, how do Texas, or the states joining it, have legal standing to complain about the procedures for voting and counting votes in other states?
Next, the Texas lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to delay the vote in four targeted states, but as professor Edward Foley of the Moritz College of Law observed, the date for electors to cast their votes is set by federal law under the Constitution, which requires that the day "shall be the same throughout the United States."
The date chosen by Congress this year is Dec. 14.
Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, called Paxton's lawsuit "dangerous garbage."
"This is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit," he wrote.
"It's too late for the Supreme Court to grant a remedy even if the claims were meritorious (they are not)," he wrote.
On Friday evening after the decision, Hasen wrote that the fact that "courts across the nation, with both Democratic and Republican judges, held the line for the rule of law" is "something really to celebrate."
Benjamin Ginsburg, a longtime election law guru for the Republican Party, told CNN on Wednesday that he didn't think "for an instant" that the Supreme Court would consider taking up the case.
That said, with three Trump appointees on the court, and a newly strengthened 6-3 majority of conservative Republican-appointed justices, the president apparently believed that the Supreme Court would view the case differently than did "election experts." He was wrong.
Trump later weighed in on the decision on Twitter. "The Supreme Court really let us down," he wrote. "No Wisdom, No Courage!"
Barring unforeseen events, the result of the court's action is that on Monday, the Electoral College delegates in each state will cast their ballots, and Biden will formally become the president-elect, with only one more step, in the House of Representatives where the Electoral College votes are certified, before he is sworn in on Jan. 20.


npr--2020-12-11--Wisconsin Hospital Leader On Getting Ready For Vaccinations

Wisconsin Hospital Leader On Getting Ready For Vaccinations The Food and Drug Administration looks set to allow emergency authorization of Pfizer 's COVID-19 vaccine shortly .
With that , vaccinations will likely begin soon for health care workers and people in nursing homes .
States will play a large part in distributing the doses that are available .
In Wisconsin , state officials said the first batch of nearly 50,000 doses could be available this month .
Dr. Jeff Bahr , who oversees medical group operations in the Advocate Aurora Health system , says his hospitals in the state `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we get that crucial green light . ''
Wisconsin has about 450,000 health care workers .
Bahr tells Ari Shapiro on NPR 's All Things Considered that his hospitals have prioritized `` front-line critical care givers '' who work with COVID-19 patients .
`` We 're fairly confident that anyone who wants the vaccine , who is categorized as one of those front-line clinical care team members , will be able to get the vaccine when we have it available to distribute , '' Bahr says .
`` If those people happen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physicians , nurses , technicians and therapists who themselves have risk factors and who are braving this pandemic , they will be eligible for that vaccine as well . ''
Bahr does n't expect the hospitals ' staff to be able to relax once vaccinated .
It 's unclear if a vaccine would prevent a vaccinated person from spreading the coronavirus to others , so `` we ca n't let our guard down , '' he says .
Administering the vaccine will take trained staff .
Hospitals around the country are already strained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is taking `` an all-hands-on-deck mentality and approach '' to staffing up , Bahr says .
`` That includes everyone from our existing staff to maybe recently retired medical professionals , nurses , doctors .
Our student learners and trainees , who are more than capable of administering a vaccine , they will be engaged as well . ''
Bahr says he does n't think people should be nervous about receiving a vaccine from a trainee .
Students and trainees have been doing it `` on some level '' already , he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We have appropriate supervision .
And again , I would n't say that it is a zero-risk procedure , as it were , but it is certainly not the most complicated thing that we do .
And it is something that we can observe and teach and correct on the fly if needed . ''
Another hurdle in getting the vaccine out is the storage .
Pfizer 's vaccine needs to be stored in special , ultra-cold freezers .
Once removed from cold storage , doses need to be used in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're confident that we do or will '' have the necessary equipment , Bahr says , and adds that Advocate Aurora Health is `` more than up to the task '' of delivering vaccines in the short time window .
The current situation — creating a vaccine in record time , adjusting massive logistics operations on the fly — is `` almost like building an airplane while you 're flying it , '' Bahr says .
`` You 're accumulating data on people real time and getting it to the people in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get to work .
Never before in human history have we seen a turnaround time like this . ''
Dave Blanchard and Jan Johnson produced and edited the audio interview .

Wisconsin Hospital Leader On Getting Ready For Vaccinations
Enlarge this image toggle caption Justin Tallis/Pool/Getty Images Justin Tallis/Pool/Getty Images
The Food and Drug Administration looks set to allow emergency authorization of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine shortly. With that, vaccinations will likely begin soon for health care workers and people in nursing homes.
States will play a large part in distributing the doses that are available. In Wisconsin, state officials said the first batch of nearly 50,000 doses could be available this month.
Dr. Jeff Bahr, who oversees medical group operations in the Advocate Aurora Health system, says his hospitals in the state "are ready to go as soon as we get that crucial green light."
Wisconsin has about 450,000 health care workers. Bahr tells Ari Shapiro on NPR's All Things Considered that his hospitals have prioritized "front-line critical care givers" who work with COVID-19 patients.
"We're fairly confident that anyone who wants the vaccine, who is categorized as one of those front-line clinical care team members, will be able to get the vaccine when we have it available to distribute," Bahr says.
"If those people happen to overlap categories, because we do have physicians, nurses, technicians and therapists who themselves have risk factors and who are braving this pandemic, they will be eligible for that vaccine as well."
Bahr doesn't expect the hospitals' staff to be able to relax once vaccinated. It's unclear if a vaccine would prevent a vaccinated person from spreading the coronavirus to others, so "we can't let our guard down," he says.
Administering the vaccine will take trained staff. Hospitals around the country are already strained by staff shortages. Advocate Aurora Health is taking "an all-hands-on-deck mentality and approach" to staffing up, Bahr says.
"That includes everyone from our existing staff to maybe recently retired medical professionals, nurses, doctors. Our student learners and trainees, who are more than capable of administering a vaccine, they will be engaged as well."
Bahr says he doesn't think people should be nervous about receiving a vaccine from a trainee. Students and trainees have been doing it "on some level" already, he says.
"We have checks and balances. We have appropriate supervision. And again, I wouldn't say that it is a zero-risk procedure, as it were, but it is certainly not the most complicated thing that we do. And it is something that we can observe and teach and correct on the fly if needed."
Another hurdle in getting the vaccine out is the storage. Pfizer's vaccine needs to be stored in special, ultra-cold freezers. Once removed from cold storage, doses need to be used in a certain amount of time.
"We're confident that we do or will" have the necessary equipment, Bahr says, and adds that Advocate Aurora Health is "more than up to the task" of delivering vaccines in the short time window.
The current situation — creating a vaccine in record time, adjusting massive logistics operations on the fly — is "almost like building an airplane while you're flying it," Bahr says. "You're accumulating data on people real time and getting it to the people in the labs real time so that they can get to work. Never before in human history have we seen a turnaround time like this."
Dave Blanchard and Jan Johnson produced and edited the audio interview.


npr--2020-12-11--'Hold Their Feet To the Fire': Getting A COVID-19 Vaccine To Hard-Hit Indian Country

'Hold Their Feet To the Fire ' : Getting A COVID-19 Vaccine To Hard-Hit Indian Country These last few days have been chaotic at the Nimiipuu Health Clinic on the Nez Perce Reservation in Idaho .
The director , Dr. R. Kim Hartwig , is trying to manage testing and treating patients for COVID- 19 and other diseases , while also racing to get a plan in place to distribute a vaccine .
`` It 's not something that we have a timeline [ for ] , it 's like , I got a call and was told , 'You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two weeks , get a plan together , ' `` she says .
Only a handful of Hartwig 's frontline workers are expected to get the initial Pfizer vaccine because the tribe does n't have the special refrigeration and storage it requires .
But she 's OK with waiting a few more weeks for the expected second Moderna vaccine that wo n't need that .
It 's a feat in and of itself to be getting a vaccine this fast to rural Lapwai , Idaho , population 1,000 .
`` I 'm thankful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` If I have to scramble some to make sure my community is safe , that 's what I 've committed my life to . ''
The federal government has designated an allocation of the first coronavirus vaccines to hard-hit Indian Country .
Native Americans have long endured health care inequities , and they 're four times as likely to be hospitalized by COVID-19 .
Still , reaching everyone who needs it will be a monumental challenge , and there is plenty of skepticism about the federal government 's ability to deliver , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treaties and failures to meet government to government obligations with sovereign tribes .
`` We 're treating this as any other challenges we 're faced with , '' says Commander Andrea Klimo of the Indian Health Service .
Tribes had the option of getting the vaccine shipments from their state or the IHS .
More than half of the 574 federally recognized tribes are doing what the Nez Perce are , and opting for the IHS , says Klimo .
Klimo , an enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge of distributing the vaccines to tribes .
`` We 're tackling it head-on and working through things such as hesitancy or any sort of perceived trust issue , as they come along , '' Klimo says .
There will be a lot of scrutiny on the IHS as the first vaccines are expected to begin being distributed in the next couple of days .
Congress has long underfunded tribal health care , and consequently , Native people are n't always confident in the IHS 's ability to deliver .
`` We 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire because it 's their trust responsibility , their treaty obligation , '' says Rodney Bordeaux , president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe .
At the IHS hospital in Rosebud , S.D.
, only 10 of the 30 beds are even being used right now because of staff shortages .
The tribe has had some of the highest COVID-19 rates of infection in the region .
Curfews , mask mandates and other lockdowns have been enforced , Bordeaux says , unlike in the surrounding state .
If the IHS fails to distribute the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopefully , Congress will provide another round of stimulus as a backup .
`` It 's very bad , we 've tried working with Congress to get more funding , but we have not [ yet ] been able to do that , '' he says .
Already CARES Act funds helped pay for mobile units that his tribe will use to deliver the vaccine to communities across its 2,000-square-mile reservation .

'Hold Their Feet To the Fire': Getting A COVID-19 Vaccine To Hard-Hit Indian Country
Enlarge this image toggle caption Kirk Siegler/NPR Kirk Siegler/NPR
These last few days have been chaotic at the Nimiipuu Health Clinic on the Nez Perce Reservation in Idaho.
The director, Dr. R. Kim Hartwig, is trying to manage testing and treating patients for COVID- 19 and other diseases, while also racing to get a plan in place to distribute a vaccine.
"It's not something that we have a timeline [for], it's like, I got a call and was told, 'You're gonna get a vaccine in two weeks, get a plan together,' " she says.
Only a handful of Hartwig's frontline workers are expected to get the initial Pfizer vaccine because the tribe doesn't have the special refrigeration and storage it requires. But she's OK with waiting a few more weeks for the expected second Moderna vaccine that won't need that. It's a feat in and of itself to be getting a vaccine this fast to rural Lapwai, Idaho, population 1,000.
"I'm thankful for that," Hartwig says. "If I have to scramble some to make sure my community is safe, that's what I've committed my life to."
Enlarge this image toggle caption R. Kim Hartwig R. Kim Hartwig
The federal government has designated an allocation of the first coronavirus vaccines to hard-hit Indian Country. Native Americans have long endured health care inequities, and they're four times as likely to be hospitalized by COVID-19.
Still, reaching everyone who needs it will be a monumental challenge, and there is plenty of skepticism about the federal government's ability to deliver, after a century's worth of broken treaties and failures to meet government to government obligations with sovereign tribes.
"We're treating this as any other challenges we're faced with," says Commander Andrea Klimo of the Indian Health Service.
Tribes had the option of getting the vaccine shipments from their state or the IHS. More than half of the 574 federally recognized tribes are doing what the Nez Perce are, and opting for the IHS, says Klimo.
Klimo, an enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma, is leading the government's task force in charge of distributing the vaccines to tribes.
"We're tackling it head-on and working through things such as hesitancy or any sort of perceived trust issue, as they come along," Klimo says.
There will be a lot of scrutiny on the IHS as the first vaccines are expected to begin being distributed in the next couple of days. Congress has long underfunded tribal health care, and consequently, Native people aren't always confident in the IHS's ability to deliver.
"We're going to hold their feet to the fire because it's their trust responsibility, their treaty obligation," says Rodney Bordeaux, president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe.
At the IHS hospital in Rosebud, S.D., only 10 of the 30 beds are even being used right now because of staff shortages. The tribe has had some of the highest COVID-19 rates of infection in the region. Curfews, mask mandates and other lockdowns have been enforced, Bordeaux says, unlike in the surrounding state.
If the IHS fails to distribute the vaccine as planned, Bordeaux says that hopefully, Congress will provide another round of stimulus as a backup.
"It's very bad, we've tried working with Congress to get more funding, but we have not [yet] been able to do that," he says.
Already CARES Act funds helped pay for mobile units that his tribe will use to deliver the vaccine to communities across its 2,000-square-mile reservation.


npr--2020-12-11--Pregnant People Haven't Been Part Of Vaccine Trials. Should They Get The Vaccine?

Pregnant People Have n't Been Part Of Vaccine Trials .
Should They Get The Vaccine ?
The Food and Drug Administration is likely soon to authorize distribution of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine .
But the vaccine trials have so far excluded pregnant people .
Among those first in line to get the vaccine , this is a significant exclusion .
Three-quarters of health care workers are women , including more than 85 % of nurses .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 330,000 health care personnel could be pregnant or recently postpartum at the time of vaccine implementation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19 .
As NPR 's Richard Harris reported , vaccine researchers do n't expect that the shots will put mothers or newborns at risk — but unfortunately , pregnancy-specific data do not yet exist .
Studies involving pregnant people are not expected to begin enrollment until the first quarter of 2021 .
Denise Jamieson is chair of the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine , and is part of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ' working group on COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excluded from most clinical trials in the U.S. because it makes running the trials simpler : `` There are actually very few medications , for example , that are approved in pregnancy because it 's easier , basically .
It 's easier to exclude pregnant women because when you include pregnant women , you have to be concerned about both the woman 's health as well as the development of the fetus and baby . ''
Pregnant women have been given vaccines for decades , she says , with few issues .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines in pregnancy because there 's theoretical risk that the live virus could be passed and it infects the fetus , '' Jamieson says .
`` But with the exception of smallpox vaccines , there really have been very few problems with vaccines . ''
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines both rely on brand-new messenger RNA technology – but Jamieson does n't see any scientific cause for concern there .
With these vaccines , she says , the mRNA basically goes into the muscle cells , provides information to the cells about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SARS-CoV-2 virus , and then the mRNA is rapidly degraded .
`` So I ca n't think of any potential reason or theoretical reason to be concerned about mRNA vaccines in pregnancy , with the one exception of when you give a vaccine and you mount an immune response , you can get a fever .
And fever is something that we try and avoid in pregnancy , '' she says .
`` So it may be important that if women get a fever , that they treat [ it ] with acetaminophen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fevers in pregnancy . ''
`` Knowing what I know about the [ mRNA vaccine 's ] mechanism of action , I would anticipate that this vaccine should be very safe in pregnancy , '' Jamieson says .
Ruth Faden , founder of Johns Hopkins University 's bioethics institute , says it 's not an ideal situation – rolling out a vaccine that has n't been tested on pregnant people .
`` We 're in a situation right now where we have to go forward with the information that we absolutely do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do n't have data from pregnant women yet , but it would be nicer if we did , '' she told NPR 's Weekend Edition .
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , or ACOG , has urged the CDC 's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices not to exclude pregnant and lactating people from the high-priority populations for COVID-19 vaccine allocation .
The group notes that pregnant people are at high risk from the coronavirus for multiple reasons : `` In addition to being an identified at-risk group by themselves , upwards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into another priority category , including frontline workers and those with underlying conditions . ''
In Britain , regulators have advised against offering the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to pregnant people or those who are breastfeeding .
They also warn that `` women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose . ''
Jamieson says that Canada 's approach is better than the United Kingdom 's .
`` The Pfizer instructions in Canada specify that pregnant women should talk to their health care provider , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listed under one of the things that 'if you have this condition , discuss with your health care provider , ' but they do not list it as a contraindication , and pregnant women are being vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine in Canada . ''
In the U.S. , the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine has stated that `` there is no biological plausibility for the exclusion of lactating women from these trials . ''
`` For some reason that does not make any sense to me , lactating and pregnant women are always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
`` They 're actually two very different groups , and there 's even less theoretical reason to be concerned about lactating women .
We give live viral vaccines — measles , mumps and rubella vaccine — routinely to lactating women .
And that 's a live viral vaccine . ''
Dr. Laura Riley , chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine and chair of ACOG 's immunization committee , agrees .
`` The thought that this mRNA vaccine is going to get into breast milk — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from dying , and get the vaccine .
I would hate to see a woman who is breastfeeding stop so that they could get the vaccine , '' Riley says .
Considerations for getting the vaccine while pregnant Jamieson is hopeful , based on the public comments of the FDA , that the agency will do what ACOG has advocated : If a pregnant woman would otherwise be offered the opportunity to be vaccinated , she should talk to her health care provider and potentially be vaccinated .
The FDA could decide that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But more likely , Faden says , it will be up to them and their doctors to decide what 's best .
So assuming they get the option , how should pregnant people decide whether to get vaccinated for the coronavirus ?
Faden recommends they assess their individual risk : their risk of becoming infected in the first place , and the risk of becoming seriously ill if infected with the virus .
`` A disproportionate amount of burden of disease in pregnancy seems to be hitting women who are low-income , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , women who are otherwise disadvantaged , '' she says .
`` There 's nothing about pregnancy that is protective . ''
In consultation with a health care provider , Jamieson says , the pregnant person can then put that risk assessment together with what 's known about mRNA vaccines , what 's known about other vaccines during pregnancy and decide what makes sense .
Riley says she is getting flooded with calls from pregnant health care workers , asking what they should do : `` I work in an ICU , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I get the vaccine ? ''
they ask her .
`` It 's easy to say it 's hand-wringing , but they 're the front-line workers – whether they 're a nurse , or a doc , or sitting at the front desk , '' Riley says .
`` I worry about the ladies at the grocery store every single day .
At least if you 're in a hospital , you 've got PPE .
But if you work in a grocery store , and you 're riding the train to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pregnant or thinking of getting pregnant . ''
In the absence of vaccine trial data on pregnant people , the call on whether to get vaccinated will likely come down to that conversation between the pregnant person and the health care provider .
`` People who are pregnant have a lot to worry about , and we do n't need to add to people 's stress , '' Faden says .
`` Unfortunately , this is a stressful circumstance .
Take a deep breath , and if you 're given the choice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this vaccine .
It may not . ''

Pregnant People Haven't Been Part Of Vaccine Trials. Should They Get The Vaccine?
Enlarge this image toggle caption Justin Tallis/Pool/Getty Images Justin Tallis/Pool/Getty Images
The Food and Drug Administration is likely soon to authorize distribution of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. But the vaccine trials have so far excluded pregnant people.
Among those first in line to get the vaccine, this is a significant exclusion. Three-quarters of health care workers are women, including more than 85% of nurses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 330,000 health care personnel could be pregnant or recently postpartum at the time of vaccine implementation.
Studies have found that pregnant people are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19. As NPR's Richard Harris reported, vaccine researchers don't expect that the shots will put mothers or newborns at risk — but unfortunately, pregnancy-specific data do not yet exist. Studies involving pregnant people are not expected to begin enrollment until the first quarter of 2021.
Why aren't pregnant women part of vaccine trials?
Denise Jamieson is chair of the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine, and is part of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' working group on COVID-19.
She says pregnant women are systematically excluded from most clinical trials in the U.S. because it makes running the trials simpler: "There are actually very few medications, for example, that are approved in pregnancy because it's easier, basically. It's easier to exclude pregnant women because when you include pregnant women, you have to be concerned about both the woman's health as well as the development of the fetus and baby."
Pregnant women have been given vaccines for decades, she says, with few issues. "We don't generally give live viral vaccines in pregnancy because there's theoretical risk that the live virus could be passed and it infects the fetus," Jamieson says. "But with the exception of smallpox vaccines, there really have been very few problems with vaccines."
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines both rely on brand-new messenger RNA technology – but Jamieson doesn't see any scientific cause for concern there. With these vaccines, she says, the mRNA basically goes into the muscle cells, provides information to the cells about how to manufacture the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and then the mRNA is rapidly degraded.
"So I can't think of any potential reason or theoretical reason to be concerned about mRNA vaccines in pregnancy, with the one exception of when you give a vaccine and you mount an immune response, you can get a fever. And fever is something that we try and avoid in pregnancy," she says. "So it may be important that if women get a fever, that they treat [it] with acetaminophen, which is what we recommend for fevers in pregnancy."
"Knowing what I know about the [mRNA vaccine's] mechanism of action, I would anticipate that this vaccine should be very safe in pregnancy," Jamieson says.
Ruth Faden, founder of Johns Hopkins University's bioethics institute, says it's not an ideal situation – rolling out a vaccine that hasn't been tested on pregnant people. "We're in a situation right now where we have to go forward with the information that we absolutely do not have. It's understandable that we don't have data from pregnant women yet, but it would be nicer if we did," she told NPR's Weekend Edition.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or ACOG, has urged the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices not to exclude pregnant and lactating people from the high-priority populations for COVID-19 vaccine allocation. The group notes that pregnant people are at high risk from the coronavirus for multiple reasons: "In addition to being an identified at-risk group by themselves, upwards of half of pregnant women also fall into another priority category, including frontline workers and those with underlying conditions."
In Britain, regulators have advised against offering the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to pregnant people or those who are breastfeeding. They also warn that "women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose."
Jamieson says that Canada's approach is better than the United Kingdom's. "The Pfizer instructions in Canada specify that pregnant women should talk to their health care provider," she says. "It's listed under one of the things that 'if you have this condition, discuss with your health care provider,' but they do not list it as a contraindication, and pregnant women are being vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine in Canada."
What about breastfeeding?
In the U.S., the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine has stated that "there is no biological plausibility for the exclusion of lactating women from these trials."
"For some reason that does not make any sense to me, lactating and pregnant women are always lumped into one group," Jamieson says. "They're actually two very different groups, and there's even less theoretical reason to be concerned about lactating women. We give live viral vaccines — measles, mumps and rubella vaccine — routinely to lactating women. And that's a live viral vaccine."
Dr. Laura Riley, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine and chair of ACOG's immunization committee, agrees.
"The thought that this mRNA vaccine is going to get into breast milk — really? We want to stop people from dying, and get the vaccine. I would hate to see a woman who is breastfeeding stop so that they could get the vaccine," Riley says.
Considerations for getting the vaccine while pregnant
Jamieson is hopeful, based on the public comments of the FDA, that the agency will do what ACOG has advocated: If a pregnant woman would otherwise be offered the opportunity to be vaccinated, she should talk to her health care provider and potentially be vaccinated.
The FDA could decide that pregnant people should not take the vaccine. But more likely, Faden says, it will be up to them and their doctors to decide what's best.
So assuming they get the option, how should pregnant people decide whether to get vaccinated for the coronavirus?
Faden recommends they assess their individual risk: their risk of becoming infected in the first place, and the risk of becoming seriously ill if infected with the virus.
"A disproportionate amount of burden of disease in pregnancy seems to be hitting women who are low-income, women who are from communities of color, women who are otherwise disadvantaged," she says. "There's nothing about pregnancy that is protective."
In consultation with a health care provider, Jamieson says, the pregnant person can then put that risk assessment together with what's known about mRNA vaccines, what's known about other vaccines during pregnancy and decide what makes sense.
Riley says she is getting flooded with calls from pregnant health care workers, asking what they should do: "I work in an ICU, I work in a COVID unit – should I get the vaccine?" they ask her.
"It's easy to say it's hand-wringing, but they're the front-line workers – whether they're a nurse, or a doc, or sitting at the front desk," Riley says. "I worry about the ladies at the grocery store every single day. At least if you're in a hospital, you've got PPE. But if you work in a grocery store, and you're riding the train to work — a lot of those people are pregnant or thinking of getting pregnant."
In the absence of vaccine trial data on pregnant people, the call on whether to get vaccinated will likely come down to that conversation between the pregnant person and the health care provider.
"People who are pregnant have a lot to worry about, and we don't need to add to people's stress," Faden says. "Unfortunately, this is a stressful circumstance. Take a deep breath, and if you're given the choice, it may make good sense to have this vaccine. It may not."


npr--2020-12-11--Why Do So Many Places In Texas Have 'Negro' In Their Name, Despite A Law Against It?

Why Do So Many Places In Texas Have 'Negro ' In Their Name , Despite A Law Against It ?
Editor 's note : This is a story about the pervasive nature of racial insensitivity in America and how it persists to this day , and contains terms some might find offensive .
In 1991 , Texas passed a law to remove the word `` Negro '' from its place names .
But today , over two dozen geographic places in the state — think creeks , valleys and other small features — still have the word in their names @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blocked the name changes .
In almost 30 years , only one of the places mentioned in the bill has been renamed , according to an NPR review .
And the most vocal advocates of this law were n't aware the changes had never been made until NPR contacted them earlier this year .
Rodney Ellis , a Harris County commissioner and the bill 's sponsor in 1991 , said it is time to make sure these place names are changed for good .
`` After the George Floyd incident in particular , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reckoning .
We 're looking at a lot of wrongs that we just ignored and oftentimes perpetrated for decades , for centuries , '' Ellis said , referring to the death of Black man at the hands of police in May that tipped off nationwide protests .
`` We 're really trying to see what we can do to be more inclusive and make everybody feel a part of the fabric of America .
And that 's why it 's important to get rid of those old racially offensive terms . ''
Scattered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ named `` Negro Bend , '' `` Negro Hollow '' and `` Negrohead Bluff , '' among others .
The 1991 bill sought to ban the word from all Texas geographic features , listing 19 examples .
The places were to be renamed after African Americans who made significant contributions to the state .
But the federal board in charge said no .
It turns out that states do not have the authority to officially rename their geographic features .
That authority lies with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The state submitted proposals for each of the places it identified .
But the proposals were rejected because they did not have a historical connection to the geography they would name , USBGN researcher Jennifer Runyon said .
And there was no evidence of county support or input , she said , which the board takes seriously when renaming features .
`` We spent a lot of time reaching out to the counties , '' she said , `` and a lot of them said , 'No , do n't change those names @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' `` One by one , each proposal was dismissed .
And the board did n't revisit them .
It does n't seek out names to change — it simply reacts to proposals , Runyon said .
That is n't acceptable , said Texas NAACP President Gary Bledsoe , one of the most vocal and active supporters of the legislation before it was passed .
`` Negro is still offensive .
It 's outrageous , '' he said .
`` Offensive names have no place in the public domain . ''
He said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with racist overtones .
Those names do n't carry historic value either , he added .
Bledsoe , who spent years advocating against these place names , did not know the changes were never made .
He and Ellis both thought that once then-Texas Gov .
Ann Richards signed the bill into law in 1991 , the issue was resolved , until NPR contacted them for this story .
Harris County , where Ellis lives and works , houses Negrohead Lake .
The lake was listed in the bill , but the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the board `` did not observe any evidence that there was any local involvement in the renaming process . ''
He said he 's making it a priority now to push to get the names changed .
`` We are writing to express our serious concerns with the numerous racially offensive names of creeks , rivers , cliffs and other geographic features in Texas , '' Ellis and state Rep. Ron Reynolds said in a Nov. 16 letter to the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Geographic Names Committee .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and our collective efforts to reconcile a racist past , now is the time to change these names and I hope that we can work with both of your offices to do so , '' the two stated in the letter .
By early December , Ellis ' office has not received a response , but both departments confirmed that they received the email .
A transportation department spokesperson said the department will research the bill and set up a meeting with Ellis and Reynolds at another date .
The term `` Negro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way Black communities identify – and the way the U.S. government identifies them – has shifted over time .
While it was once used as a common descriptor in the U.S. , many people today find the term antiquated and offensive .
Using the word `` Negro '' for place names like these is n't appropriate , said Minkah Makalani , an associate professor of African and African Diaspora studies at the University of Texas at Austin .
`` It 's an outdated word that did n't really identify anything .
And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the enslavement of Africans in the Americas , it is part of the process of stripping away history , '' Makalani said .
`` From my perspective , to maintain for place names the word Negro — it could be a sign of disrespect , '' he added .
`` It could be a sign of wanting to maintain a set of relationships from a bygone era . ''
Ellis said he believed the place names today could cause divisions in the community and promote outdated and prejudiced views .
He considers the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a slur .
Only one of the 19 places mentioned in the 1991 bill was eventually changed to the proposed name .
That did n't happen until 2018 , according to federal records .
In Montgomery County , a property developer requested that the legislature 's name change be made official .
The federal board honored his request and Negro Pond became Emancipation Pond .
The board has granted other similar small-scale requests .
One of the more alarming examples in the state was an area located in northwest Texas named Dead Negro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in April this year from Garza County Judge Lee Norman to rename the area Buffalo Soldier Draw .
Runyon , from the federal board , said this proposal went through easily because it had historical context and came from the county judge .
The process can be straightforward , if local communities put forward the proposals , Runyon said .
Across the U.S. , there are at least 600 geographic features with `` Negro '' in the names , according to a search on U.S. Geological Survey 's website .
It 's worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spanish word for the color black , and some of these do not appear to have a racial meaning .
And some are structures still bearing segregation-era names , such as historical schools .
There are 26 places in Texas listed on the federal database with the term in their names , not counting names that are in Spanish .
There are also at least 800 places with the term Squaw , and dozens with Asian pejoratives , a search of the USGS website shows .
`` It 's past time to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Rep. Debra Haaland told NPR .
`` All visitors to our public lands deserve to feel welcome . ''
The Democrat from New Mexico introduced a bill called the Reconciliation in Place Names Act in the House at the end of September to address racially offensive names .
The bill calls for the `` review and revise offensive names of Federal land units '' and for an advisory board to be established .
She said these place names effectively `` restrict access to certain groups of people . ''
Her bill says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ is ] time-consuming , lacks transparency and public involvement , and fails to address the scope and breadth of inappropriate place names . ''
It proposes a more proactive approach , seeking out and changing these names without the need for a proposal .
There 's a precedent for widespread name changes in the U.S .
The board changed all mentions of the N-word in geographic place names to Negro in 1963 and substituted Japanese for the racial slur `` Jap '' in 1974 .
Ellis said he was pleased to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it had n't , he would have worked to get similar legislation introduced .
`` To change the name would mean we 're moving away from those racially offensive terms , '' he said , `` that were a throwback to our dark prejudiced racist pasts . ''
Reese Oxner is an intern on NPR 's News Desk .

Why Do So Many Places In Texas Have 'Negro' In Their Name, Despite A Law Against It?
Enlarge this image toggle caption Adria Malcolm/Bloomberg via Getty Images Adria Malcolm/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Updated at 5:53 p.m. ET
Editor's note: This is a story about the pervasive nature of racial insensitivity in America and how it persists to this day, and contains terms some might find offensive.
In 1991, Texas passed a law to remove the word "Negro" from its place names. But today, over two dozen geographic places in the state — think creeks, valleys and other small features — still have the word in their names.
That's because the federal government blocked the name changes.
In almost 30 years, only one of the places mentioned in the bill has been renamed, according to an NPR review. And the most vocal advocates of this law weren't aware the changes had never been made until NPR contacted them earlier this year.
Rodney Ellis, a Harris County commissioner and the bill's sponsor in 1991, said it is time to make sure these place names are changed for good.
"After the George Floyd incident in particular, we're in an era of racial reckoning. We're looking at a lot of wrongs that we just ignored and oftentimes perpetrated for decades, for centuries," Ellis said, referring to the death of Black man at the hands of police in May that tipped off nationwide protests.
"We're really trying to see what we can do to be more inclusive and make everybody feel a part of the fabric of America. And that's why it's important to get rid of those old racially offensive terms."
Why weren't the names changed?
Scattered across the state, there are places named "Negro Bend," "Negro Hollow" and "Negrohead Bluff," among others. The 1991 bill sought to ban the word from all Texas geographic features, listing 19 examples.
The places were to be renamed after African Americans who made significant contributions to the state.
But the federal board in charge said no.
It turns out that states do not have the authority to officially rename their geographic features. That authority lies with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, which is part of the Department of Interior.
The state submitted proposals for each of the places it identified. But the proposals were rejected because they did not have a historical connection to the geography they would name, USBGN researcher Jennifer Runyon said.
And there was no evidence of county support or input, she said, which the board takes seriously when renaming features.
"We spent a lot of time reaching out to the counties," she said, "and a lot of them said, 'No, don't change those names. And we were not consulted.' "
One by one, each proposal was dismissed.
And the board didn't revisit them. It doesn't seek out names to change — it simply reacts to proposals, Runyon said.
That isn't acceptable, said Texas NAACP President Gary Bledsoe, one of the most vocal and active supporters of the legislation before it was passed.
"Negro is still offensive. It's outrageous," he said. "Offensive names have no place in the public domain."
He said many of the places were named haphazardly with racist overtones. Those names don't carry historic value either, he added.
Bledsoe, who spent years advocating against these place names, did not know the changes were never made.
He and Ellis both thought that once then-Texas Gov. Ann Richards signed the bill into law in 1991, the issue was resolved, until NPR contacted them for this story.
Harris County, where Ellis lives and works, houses Negrohead Lake. The lake was listed in the bill, but the federal board rejected the plan to rename it because the board "did not observe any evidence that there was any local involvement in the renaming process."
He said he's making it a priority now to push to get the names changed.
"We are writing to express our serious concerns with the numerous racially offensive names of creeks, rivers, cliffs and other geographic features in Texas," Ellis and state Rep. Ron Reynolds said in a Nov. 16 letter to the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Geographic Names Committee.
"Given the current moment in our history and our collective efforts to reconcile a racist past, now is the time to change these names and I hope that we can work with both of your offices to do so," the two stated in the letter.
By early December, Ellis' office has not received a response, but both departments confirmed that they received the email.
A transportation department spokesperson said the department will research the bill and set up a meeting with Ellis and Reynolds at another date.
'A sign of disrespect'
The term "Negro" has a complicated history. The way Black communities identify – and the way the U.S. government identifies them – has shifted over time. While it was once used as a common descriptor in the U.S., many people today find the term antiquated and offensive.
Using the word "Negro" for place names like these isn't appropriate, said Minkah Makalani, an associate professor of African and African Diaspora studies at the University of Texas at Austin.
"It's an outdated word that didn't really identify anything. And so if you think about the history of the enslavement of Africans in the Americas, it is part of the process of stripping away history," Makalani said.
"From my perspective, to maintain for place names the word Negro — it could be a sign of disrespect," he added. "It could be a sign of wanting to maintain a set of relationships from a bygone era."
Ellis said he believed the place names today could cause divisions in the community and promote outdated and prejudiced views.
He considers the term in today's context to be a slur.
Approved name changes
Only one of the 19 places mentioned in the 1991 bill was eventually changed to the proposed name. That didn't happen until 2018, according to federal records.
In Montgomery County, a property developer requested that the legislature's name change be made official. The federal board honored his request and Negro Pond became Emancipation Pond.
The board has granted other similar small-scale requests. One of the more alarming examples in the state was an area located in northwest Texas named Dead Negro Draw.
The board approved a proposal in April this year from Garza County Judge Lee Norman to rename the area Buffalo Soldier Draw.
Runyon, from the federal board, said this proposal went through easily because it had historical context and came from the county judge.
The process can be straightforward, if local communities put forward the proposals, Runyon said.
A federal push to change many place names?
Across the U.S., there are at least 600 geographic features with "Negro" in the names, according to a search on U.S. Geological Survey's website. It's worth noting that "negro" is the Spanish word for the color black, and some of these do not appear to have a racial meaning. And some are structures still bearing segregation-era names, such as historical schools.
There are 26 places in Texas listed on the federal database with the term in their names, not counting names that are in Spanish.
There are also at least 800 places with the term Squaw, and dozens with Asian pejoratives, a search of the USGS website shows.
"It's past time to change many of these offensive names," U.S. Rep. Debra Haaland told NPR. "All visitors to our public lands deserve to feel welcome."
The Democrat from New Mexico introduced a bill called the Reconciliation in Place Names Act in the House at the end of September to address racially offensive names. The bill calls for the "review and revise offensive names of Federal land units" and for an advisory board to be established.
She said these place names effectively "restrict access to certain groups of people."
Her bill says the federal board's current process "[is] time-consuming, lacks transparency and public involvement, and fails to address the scope and breadth of inappropriate place names." It proposes a more proactive approach, seeking out and changing these names without the need for a proposal.
There's a precedent for widespread name changes in the U.S. The board changed all mentions of the N-word in geographic place names to Negro in 1963 and substituted Japanese for the racial slur "Jap" in 1974.
Ellis said he was pleased to see Haaland's bill emerge. He said if it hadn't, he would have worked to get similar legislation introduced.
"To change the name would mean we're moving away from those racially offensive terms," he said, "that were a throwback to our dark prejudiced racist pasts."
Reese Oxner is an intern on NPR's News Desk.


npr--2020-12-11--Former U.S. Marine Found Guilty Of Trying To Smuggle Firearms Into Haiti

Former U.S. Marine Found Guilty Of Trying To Smuggle Firearms Into Haiti A federal jury has found a former U.S. Marine guilty on multiple counts of attempting to illegally smuggle guns from the U.S. to Haiti .
The Justice Department said there is evidence the man , who was an active duty Marine at the time , intended to train the Haitian Army `` in order to engage in foreign armed conflict . ''
Jacques Yves Sebastien Duroseau , 34 , a Haitian-born naturalized U.S. citizen , was found guilty Thursday after a three-day trial .
He was convicted of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told NPR that Duroseau is scheduled to be sentenced during the March 2021 term .
He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $ 250,000 fine .
`` The Defendant 's conduct here violated our firearms laws , particularly in relation to export and licensing , but it additionally posed concerns about our citizens unliterally acting in relation to the government of a foreign country , '' Robert J. Higdon , Jr. , U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina , said in a news release .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' he added .
Court documents show Duroseau contacted an unnamed person in Haiti in April 2019 to discuss the idea of him moving back to the Caribbean nation to `` train the Haitian police , and run for president of Haiti . ''
Duroseau was an active duty Marine who had attained the rank of sergeant when his plan to smuggle arms was put into action , the Justice officials said .
He once served as a marksman instructor on the firing ranges of the Marine Corps Base in Quantico , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Airlines flight on Nov. 11 , 2019 , Veterans Day , traveling from New Bern , N.C. , with a final destination of Port-au-Prince , the Haitian capital .
He and the co-conspirator each checked three suitcases and three plastic boxes containing firearms , according to court documents .
Officials said all told , the plastic containers included eight firearms including a Ruger model Precision Rifle 300WIN MAG as well as a Spikes Tactical model ST15 .
There were also `` copious ammunition , riflescopes and body armor '' a statement for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents say he did not have permission from Marines to leave the United States nor permission to export firearms .
Duroseau was able to travel through Charlotte and Miami before arriving in Haiti the next day , The Charlotte Observer reports .
The paper notes the plan was for him to him meet someone once he touched down in Haiti that would help expedite his passage through that nation 's customs process .
But the plan began to unravel , The Observer reports , when Duroseau became angered that a customs official pressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , `` resulting in an altercation with a Haitian police officer . ''
The Miami Herald reports that Haitian customs agents grew suspicious when Duroseau arrived with long cases , typically an indication that firearms are inside .
`` He did n't want us to touch the boxes .
He said his stuff will not go through a scanner , '' an unnamed agent told The Herald last year .
The paper notes the agent requested to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak with the media .
Investigators later discovered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was arrested at Toussaint Louverture International Airport , according to the indictment .
One of the charges Duroseau was facing was impersonating a high-ranking military officer , but he was found not guilty .
He always wanted to be a Marine A 2016 profile on Duroseau on the Marines.mil , the official website for that branch of the armed forces , described him as someone who `` persevered and reached his goal of becoming a Marine despite his challenges . ''
`` When I was a kid , I saw the marines back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little war going on , that was the first time I saw them and I hope to be one of them , '' Duroseau is quoted as saying .
`` Since that day I had it in the back of my head where I wanted to be a U.S. Marine .
The article notes that he finished high school in Brooklyn , N.Y. , in 2006 , the moved back home to Haiti .
He was home when a 7.0 devastating earthquake struck the Caribbean nation , leaving roughly 220,000 dead and 300,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial began this week and by Thursday , the jury reached its verdict .
The federal jury found him guilty on five counts , including knowingly conspiring to commit offenses against the U.S. and willfully exporting or attempting to export firearms from the U.S. without first obtaining a license .
You can read the Duroseau 's verdict form here .

Former U.S. Marine Found Guilty Of Trying To Smuggle Firearms Into Haiti
Enlarge this image toggle caption Sgt. Terence Brady/Defense Media Activity - Marines Sgt. Terence Brady/Defense Media Activity - Marines
A federal jury has found a former U.S. Marine guilty on multiple counts of attempting to illegally smuggle guns from the U.S. to Haiti. The Justice Department said there is evidence the man, who was an active duty Marine at the time, intended to train the Haitian Army "in order to engage in foreign armed conflict."
Jacques Yves Sebastien Duroseau, 34, a Haitian-born naturalized U.S. citizen, was found guilty Thursday after a three-day trial.
He was convicted of five counts and a Justice Department spokesperson told NPR that Duroseau is scheduled to be sentenced during the March 2021 term. He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
"The Defendant's conduct here violated our firearms laws, particularly in relation to export and licensing, but it additionally posed concerns about our citizens unliterally acting in relation to the government of a foreign country," Robert J. Higdon, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, said in a news release.
"Such conduct will not be tolerated," he added.
A plan to smuggle arms
Court documents show Duroseau contacted an unnamed person in Haiti in April 2019 to discuss the idea of him moving back to the Caribbean nation to "train the Haitian police, and run for president of Haiti."
Duroseau was an active duty Marine who had attained the rank of sergeant when his plan to smuggle arms was put into action, the Justice officials said.
He once served as a marksman instructor on the firing ranges of the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Va.
Prosecutors say he boarded an American Airlines flight on Nov. 11, 2019, Veterans Day, traveling from New Bern, N.C., with a final destination of Port-au-Prince, the Haitian capital.
He and the co-conspirator each checked three suitcases and three plastic boxes containing firearms, according to court documents.
Officials said all told, the plastic containers included eight firearms including a Ruger model Precision Rifle 300WIN MAG as well as a Spikes Tactical model ST15. There were also "copious ammunition, riflescopes and body armor" a statement for the Justice Department said.
Further court documents say he did not have permission from Marines to leave the United States nor permission to export firearms.
The scheme begins to unravel
Duroseau was able to travel through Charlotte and Miami before arriving in Haiti the next day, The Charlotte Observer reports.
The paper notes the plan was for him to him meet someone once he touched down in Haiti that would help expedite his passage through that nation's customs process.
But the plan began to unravel, The Observer reports, when Duroseau became angered that a customs official pressed him to fill out a declaration form, "resulting in an altercation with a Haitian police officer."
The Miami Herald reports that Haitian customs agents grew suspicious when Duroseau arrived with long cases, typically an indication that firearms are inside.
"He didn't want us to touch the boxes. He said his stuff will not go through a scanner," an unnamed agent told The Herald last year. The paper notes the agent requested to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak with the media.
Investigators later discovered a colonel uniform his bag when he was arrested at Toussaint Louverture International Airport, according to the indictment. One of the charges Duroseau was facing was impersonating a high-ranking military officer, but he was found not guilty.
He always wanted to be a Marine
A 2016 profile on Duroseau on the Marines.mil, the official website for that branch of the armed forces, described him as someone who "persevered and reached his goal of becoming a Marine despite his challenges."
"When I was a kid, I saw the marines back home [because] we had a little war going on, that was the first time I saw them and I hope to be one of them," Duroseau is quoted as saying.
"Since that day I had it in the back of my head where I wanted to be a U.S. Marine.
The article notes that he finished high school in Brooklyn, N.Y., in 2006, the moved back home to Haiti. He was home when a 7.0 devastating earthquake struck the Caribbean nation, leaving roughly 220,000 dead and 300,000 injured in January 2010.
Duroseau's trial began this week and by Thursday, the jury reached its verdict.
The federal jury found him guilty on five counts, including knowingly conspiring to commit offenses against the U.S. and willfully exporting or attempting to export firearms from the U.S. without first obtaining a license.
You can read the Duroseau's verdict form here.


npr--2020-12-11--Christopher Nolan Calls Warner Bros.' Shift To Streaming New Movies 'A Great Danger'

The pandemic has made 2020 a crazy year for the movie industry .
And Warner Bros. made a recent announcement that guarantees next year will be just as upside-down .
The company said that with many movie theaters operating at reduced capacity , all 17 of its films slated for release in 2021 will be available on the streaming platform HBO Max on the same day they 're released .
That includes the superhero flick Wonder Woman 1984 , Lin Manuel Miranda 's musical In The Heights and the sci-fi epic Dune .
`` No one wants films back on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' said Warner Bros. CEO Ann Sarnoff .
`` We know new content is the lifeblood of theatrical exhibition , but we have to balance this with the reality that most theaters in the U.S. will likely operate at reduced capacity throughout 2021 . ''
Many people in the movie industry were furious .
In an essay in Variety , Dune director Denis Villeneuve wrote : `` With this decision , AT & T [ Warner Bros. ' parent ] has hijacked one of the most respectable and important studios in film @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for cinema , nor for the audience here . ''
Another vocal critic was director Christopher Nolan , whose blockbuster movies for Warner Bros. have made billions .
In a blistering statement to The Hollywood Reporter , he called HBO Max `` the worst streaming service . ''
In an interview with NPR , Nolan — whose films include The Dark Knight , Dunkirk and Tenet — called this shift in Hollywood `` a sign of great danger '' for the people who work in the movie industry .
Nolan was asked whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic or something bigger — Netflix had more 2020 Oscar nominations than any other studio .
`` There is this idea that that 's been sort of put forward a lot , that the pandemic is sort of accelerating a trend that was already happening , '' he said .
`` But 2019 was the biggest year ever for movies financially .
That does n't suit the narrative that the tech companies or the big corporations kind of want to put out there right now .
`` But the reality is there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was n't bad either .
If you 're asking where moviegoing is going , I think the long-term health of the movie business depends on people 's desire to get together and experience a story together .
And I do n't see any signs that that 's going anywhere anytime soon . ''
These have been edited for length and clarity .
Were you satisfied with how you learned about the Warner Bros. decision and what went into it ?
The way in which the studio went about it was very unfortunate because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filmmakers .
And my film [ Tenet ] is n't caught up in this .
I 'm not a part of this .
I have no skin in the game .
But I look at those filmmakers for that slate and the production partners were n't even spoken to in advance .
But more than that , the economics of it are unsound unless you 're purely looking at movements in share price , number of eyeballs on the new streaming service .
Theatrical is really only one part of what we 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about your home video window , your secondary , tertiary windows .
These are things very important to the economics of the business and to the people who work in the business .
And I 'm not talking about me .
I 'm not talking about Ben Affleck or whoever .
I 'm talking about the grips , the electricians who depend on IA [ the International Alliance union ] and IA residuals for pension and health care .
I 'm talking about SAG [ the Screen Actors Guild ] .
I 'm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about when I come on the set and I 've got to shoot a scene with a waiter or a lawyer who has two or three lines .
They need to be earning a living in that profession , working maybe sometimes a couple of days a year .
And that 's why the residuals structure is in place .
That 's why the unions have secured participations for people down the line .
So when a movie is sold to a television station 20 years after it was made , a payment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on that on that film .
And these are important principles that when a company starts devaluing the individual assets by using them as leverage for a different business strategy without first figuring out how those new structures are going to have to work , it 's a sign of great danger for the ordinary people who work in this industry .
It sounds like you are accusing Warner Bros. and its parent company , AT & T , of basically throwing these movies and everybody who worked on them overboard in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service that was n't doing very well .
Is that what you 're saying ?
No , I 'm not .
And I 'm not accusing anybody of anything .
I 'm looking at the statements they 've made themselves and saying that what they see here is an opportunity to promote HBO Max using the slate of movies for next year .
And there is a danger with that that needs to be addressed through appropriate negotiation with unions , with talent and all the rest .
There are enormous number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economic structures that allow working people in Hollywood to maintain their lives and raise their families and have health care and all the rest .
And I 'm saying these are all things that have n't yet been thought through and they need to be .
The point I 'm trying to make is not about , you know , anybody 's intention or why this should be happening or what people are trying to achieve .
My point is when you think of the film business , you need to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid , high-profile people .
On the theatrical side as well , it 's very important that everybody remember that the exhibition business provides hundreds of thousands of jobs for ordinary people .
And my work has only ever got out there in the world because of the hard work of people working in those businesses .
And so , you know , they need to be taken into account as we 're looking at how our work is shown and where it 's shown and how the business moves forward .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fatma Tanis and Courtney Dorning .
Avie Schneider adapted it for the Web .

Christopher Nolan Calls Warner Bros.' Shift To Streaming New Movies 'A Great Danger'
Enlarge this image toggle caption Clay Enos/Warner Bros. Entertainment Clay Enos/Warner Bros. Entertainment
The pandemic has made 2020 a crazy year for the movie industry. And Warner Bros. made a recent announcement that guarantees next year will be just as upside-down.
The company said that with many movie theaters operating at reduced capacity, all 17 of its films slated for release in 2021 will be available on the streaming platform HBO Max on the same day they're released. That includes the superhero flick Wonder Woman 1984, Lin Manuel Miranda's musical In The Heights and the sci-fi epic Dune.
"No one wants films back on the big screen more than we do," said Warner Bros. CEO Ann Sarnoff. "We know new content is the lifeblood of theatrical exhibition, but we have to balance this with the reality that most theaters in the U.S. will likely operate at reduced capacity throughout 2021."
Many people in the movie industry were furious.
In an essay in Variety, Dune director Denis Villeneuve wrote: "With this decision, AT&T [Warner Bros.' parent] has hijacked one of the most respectable and important studios in film history. There is absolutely no love for cinema, nor for the audience here."
Another vocal critic was director Christopher Nolan, whose blockbuster movies for Warner Bros. have made billions. In a blistering statement to The Hollywood Reporter, he called HBO Max "the worst streaming service."
In an interview with NPR, Nolan — whose films include The Dark Knight, Dunkirk and Tenet — called this shift in Hollywood "a sign of great danger" for the people who work in the movie industry.
Nolan was asked whether the move to streaming is really about the pandemic or something bigger — Netflix had more 2020 Oscar nominations than any other studio.
"There is this idea that that's been sort of put forward a lot, that the pandemic is sort of accelerating a trend that was already happening," he said. "But 2019 was the biggest year ever for movies financially. That doesn't suit the narrative that the tech companies or the big corporations kind of want to put out there right now.
"But the reality is there was enormous success in 2019 and 2018 wasn't bad either. If you're asking where moviegoing is going, I think the long-term health of the movie business depends on people's desire to get together and experience a story together. And I don't see any signs that that's going anywhere anytime soon."
Interview Highlights
These have been edited for length and clarity.
Were you satisfied with how you learned about the Warner Bros. decision and what went into it?
The way in which the studio went about it was very unfortunate because they didn't include any of those filmmakers. And my film [Tenet] isn't caught up in this. I'm not a part of this. I have no skin in the game. But I look at those filmmakers for that slate and the production partners weren't even spoken to in advance.
But more than that, the economics of it are unsound unless you're purely looking at movements in share price, number of eyeballs on the new streaming service. Theatrical is really only one part of what we're talking about here. You're talking about your home video window, your secondary, tertiary windows. These are things very important to the economics of the business and to the people who work in the business.
And I'm not talking about me. I'm not talking about Ben Affleck or whoever. I'm talking about the grips, the electricians who depend on IA [the International Alliance union] and IA residuals for pension and health care. I'm talking about SAG [the Screen Actors Guild]. I'm talking about actors. I'm talking about when I come on the set and I've got to shoot a scene with a waiter or a lawyer who has two or three lines. They need to be earning a living in that profession, working maybe sometimes a couple of days a year. And that's why the residuals structure is in place.
That's why the unions have secured participations for people down the line. So when a movie is sold to a television station 20 years after it was made, a payment is made to the people who collaborated on that on that film. And these are important principles that when a company starts devaluing the individual assets by using them as leverage for a different business strategy without first figuring out how those new structures are going to have to work, it's a sign of great danger for the ordinary people who work in this industry.
It sounds like you are accusing Warner Bros. and its parent company, AT&T, of basically throwing these movies and everybody who worked on them overboard in order to boost HBO Max, the streaming service that wasn't doing very well. Is that what you're saying?
No, I'm not. And I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm looking at the statements they've made themselves and saying that what they see here is an opportunity to promote HBO Max using the slate of movies for next year. And there is a danger with that that needs to be addressed through appropriate negotiation with unions, with talent and all the rest.
There are enormous number of questions that come out of that about the economic structures that allow working people in Hollywood to maintain their lives and raise their families and have health care and all the rest. And I'm saying these are all things that haven't yet been thought through and they need to be.
The point I'm trying to make is not about, you know, anybody's intention or why this should be happening or what people are trying to achieve. My point is when you think of the film business, you need to think of working people as well as highly paid, high-profile people. On the theatrical side as well, it's very important that everybody remember that the exhibition business provides hundreds of thousands of jobs for ordinary people.
And my work has only ever got out there in the world because of the hard work of people working in those businesses. And so, you know, they need to be taken into account as we're looking at how our work is shown and where it's shown and how the business moves forward.
The audio story was produced and edited by Fatma Tanis and Courtney Dorning. Avie Schneider adapted it for the Web.


npr--2020-12-11--Alabama Vows To 'Fervently Defend' Prison System Against Justice Department Lawsuit

Alabama corrections officials say they were caught off-guard by a lawsuit this week from the Justice Department alleging dangerous and unconstitutional conditions in the state 's prisons .
It 's the latest in a long list of legal challenges over a system plagued by deadly violence and neglect .
In a statement , the Alabama Department of Corrections says the agency will `` fervently defend '' its system against the lawsuit , which it says undermines months of settlement negotiations that it characterized as making good progress .
`` On the eve of another settlement session , the DOJ elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notice or any indication that they were unsatisfied with the process , '' the statement says .
The talks with the Trump administration have been underway since April 2019 when federal investigators found Alabama to be `` deliberately indifferent '' to a prison system in crisis where violence was common , cruel and pervasive .
Now , the lawsuit argues Alabama is violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of male prisoners by failing to protect them from excessive use of force by guards , failing to prevent inmate-on-inmate violence including sexual abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confinement .
It seeks to force the state to remedy chronic overcrowding and severe understaffing , issues federal judges have cited in judgments against the state over horrendous prison conditions .
Alabama corrections officials say the DOJ lawsuit fails to appreciate ongoing efforts to improve prisons , including hiring more staff , holding prison staff to account for any wrongdoing and making a plan to seek the private development of three large new regional prisons to replace dilapidated state lockups .
Advocates for the incarcerated have long argued that it would take legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alabama to confront the failures of its prison system .
`` The same questions arise again for Alabama leaders , '' says Ebony Howard , senior supervising attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery .
`` Now that the State is a defendant in another federal lawsuit and again linked to civil and human rights abuses , will leaders remain silent in the face of this crisis ? ''

Alabama Vows To 'Fervently Defend' Prison System Against Justice Department Lawsuit
Enlarge this image toggle caption Kim Chandler/AP Kim Chandler/AP
Alabama corrections officials say they were caught off-guard by a lawsuit this week from the Justice Department alleging dangerous and unconstitutional conditions in the state's prisons.
It's the latest in a long list of legal challenges over a system plagued by deadly violence and neglect.
In a statement, the Alabama Department of Corrections says the agency will "fervently defend" its system against the lawsuit, which it says undermines months of settlement negotiations that it characterized as making good progress.
"On the eve of another settlement session, the DOJ elected to file a lawsuit with zero advance notice or any indication that they were unsatisfied with the process," the statement says.
The talks with the Trump administration have been underway since April 2019 when federal investigators found Alabama to be "deliberately indifferent" to a prison system in crisis where violence was common, cruel and pervasive.
Now, the lawsuit argues Alabama is violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of male prisoners by failing to protect them from excessive use of force by guards, failing to prevent inmate-on-inmate violence including sexual abuse and failing to provide safe conditions of confinement. It seeks to force the state to remedy chronic overcrowding and severe understaffing, issues federal judges have cited in judgments against the state over horrendous prison conditions.
Alabama corrections officials say the DOJ lawsuit fails to appreciate ongoing efforts to improve prisons, including hiring more staff, holding prison staff to account for any wrongdoing and making a plan to seek the private development of three large new regional prisons to replace dilapidated state lockups.
Advocates for the incarcerated have long argued that it would take legal action from the federal government to force Alabama to confront the failures of its prison system.
"The same questions arise again for Alabama leaders," says Ebony Howard, senior supervising attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery. "Now that the State is a defendant in another federal lawsuit and again linked to civil and human rights abuses, will leaders remain silent in the face of this crisis?"