npr--2020-03-04--Beginning Of The End For Roe? Supreme Court Weighs Louisiana Abortion Law

Beginning Of The End For Roe ?
Supreme Court Weighs Louisiana Abortion Law Abortion rights are on the chopping block Wednesday as the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case nearly identical to one decided just four years ago .
It 's the first major abortion case to come before the court since the 2018 retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy , making it the first time the majority of justices hearing an abortion case have anti-abortion-rights judicial records .
In 2016 , the justices struck down a Texas law that required abortion-clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that admitting privileges , which allow doctors to admit and care for their patients in hospitals , would protect the health and safety of women seeking abortions .
The justices , however , concluded that rather than protecting women 's health , these requirements simply created unconstitutional obstacles to abortion access by making it difficult or impossible to staff abortion clinics .
Before the court is a Louisiana admitting privileges law that the state concedes is identical to the Texas law .
The state law at the heart of the case Louisiana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court ruled the Texas statute unconstitutional .
Prior to that , the state required abortion clinics to have transfer agreements with hospitals so that if patients needed hospital attention , they could be easily transferred .
The 2014 law upped the ante , requiring that abortion clinic doctors have admitting privileges at hospitals , privileges that most hospitals will not grant to doctors who do n't provide the hospital with a steady stream of patients .
A federal district court judge struck down the law , finding the admitting privileges requirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been in Texas .
The judge said that because abortion is among the safest procedures today , it is unusual for patients to ever be admitted to a hospital .
And , he noted , in the `` extremely rare '' cases in which complications do arise , patients are treated by hospital staff .
The judge further found that the barriers to abortion doctors getting admitting privileges were so high that were the law allowed to go into effect , only one clinic and one abortion doctor in the state would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would in no way meet the needs of the 10,000 women who seek abortions in Louisiana each year .
But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals , which had been overruled in the Texas case , reinstated the Louisiana law and allowed it to go into effect .
The Supreme Court — on a split 5-4 vote — intervened to temporarily block the law , and now the justices are taking a second look .
Louisiana is essentially relitigating the issue decided in the Texas case four years ago .
But now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is different .
In the Texas case , the fifth and decisive vote was cast by Kennedy , who has since been replaced by Brett Kavanaugh , who was appointed by President Trump .
And Kavanaugh has already indicated his willingness to undermine the Texas ruling — he was among the four justices who voted to leave the Louisiana law in place .
Even though the law has not gone into effect , Louisiana argues that requiring admitting privileges for abortion providers really would make women safer .
`` If you have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is better for you ... to have some continuity of care and not to just be sent to the hospital , '' says Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill .
But every major medical group in the country — from the American Medical Association to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — contradicts that assertion .
Indeed , although the Trump administration is backing Louisiana in this case , the federal government itself recently eliminated admitting privilege requirements for doctors who treat Medicare and Medicaid patients at outpatient surgical centers .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be burdensome and unnecessary .
In reality , a decision to grant admitting privileges is largely a business decision for hospitals .
Doctors are not generally granted privileges unless they routinely admit significant numbers of patients for treatment .
For instance , doctors who regularly deliver babies in hospitals are good candidates for admitting privileges .
Abortion providers , on the other hand , are not .
Abortion has such a low complication rate — nationally , it is less than a quarter of 1 % — that providers do not regularly admit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without the financial incentive of regular hospital `` admits , '' there is even less reason for a hospital to grant privileges to doctors whose practice brings with it controversy and security risks .
Abortion is a hot-button issue in Louisiana , and doctors providing abortions in the state face extreme pressure .
One doctor `` was outed as an abortion provider and protesters showed up at [ his ] children 's school , '' says Julie Rikelman , who represents the Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport , a clinic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have already granted privileges to doctors do n't `` want to be identified by name , '' says Rikelman .
Louisiana , however , contends that none of this is really an obstacle for competent doctors .
It says that four of the state 's six abortion clinic doctors simply did not act in good faith when seeking to obtain hospital admitting privileges .
In short , it says , if the doctors had really tried , they could have complied with the state 's requirement .
Before the law went into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was an assistant clinical professor at [ Louisiana State University ] for 18 years and contacted LSU '' about obtaining privileges and was told , `` Sorry , now that you 're a full-time abortion provider , the hospital does n't want to do that , '' says Rikelman .
Rikelman will tell the justices that even the 5th Circuit conceded it could not identify a single woman who would have been better off because of the admitting privileges law .
Still , there is one new twist in Wednesday 's case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Trump administration , are claiming that doctors and clinics do not have the legal standing to challenge an abortion law on behalf of their patients .
`` The doctors who are seeking to have less oversight and reduce regulations upon them do not share the same interests as women , '' Louisiana Solicitor General Murrill said of the doctors and clinics who bring lawsuits on behalf of their patients .
For more than 40 years , the Supreme Court has recognized the rights of doctors to challenge abortion laws , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on behalf of their patients , too .
`` If you 're a patient in Louisiana and you 're struggling to find abortion care , all you know is that the clinic on the other end of the phone ca n't see you , '' says T.J. Tu , a senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights .
`` You might not know the reason you are not being seen .
The people who know that are the physicians in the clinics themselves , which is why they 're allowed to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
In short , abortion providers see this new procedural challenge as a backdoor way to prevent future challenges to anti-abortion-rights laws , or a wolf in sheep 's clothing .
`` The wolf is the doctors , '' counters Murrill .
`` These are not safe places .
Women are exposed to dangerous situations at these clinics , and I do think they could enhance the quality of care . ''
No court has found that the Hope clinic in Shreveport , which is at the center of Wednesday 's case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long provided about 3,000 abortions a year , and the district court found that in the past 23 years , only four patients had to be transferred to a hospital because of a complication .
In the short run , this case is about the availability of abortion in Louisiana .
In the early 2000s , there were 11 abortion clinics in the state .
Today , there are three , and if the state prevails , it is unclear whether all three could survive .
Based on the evidence to date , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing abortions in the state would be able to continue to do so .
And one of those has said he would retire under those circumstances .
Until then , Hope emphasizes that it will continue to provide abortions in Louisiana .
`` I do this ... because the women deserve good compassionate care , '' says Kathleen Pittman , director of the Hope clinic .
`` And we 're going to provide it as long as we possibly can .
And we 're not going to go quietly into the night .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , this case is about much more than Louisiana .
It is about the right to abortion in the United States and the decades-long effort by abortion opponents to overturn Roe v. Wade .
A decision by the court in favor of Louisiana would be a first big step in that direction .

Beginning Of The End For Roe? Supreme Court Weighs Louisiana Abortion Law
Enlarge this image toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Abortion rights are on the chopping block Wednesday as the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case nearly identical to one decided just four years ago.
It's the first major abortion case to come before the court since the 2018 retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, making it the first time the majority of justices hearing an abortion case have anti-abortion-rights judicial records.
In 2016, the justices struck down a Texas law that required abortion-clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. In that case, Texas argued that admitting privileges, which allow doctors to admit and care for their patients in hospitals, would protect the health and safety of women seeking abortions.
The justices, however, concluded that rather than protecting women's health, these requirements simply created unconstitutional obstacles to abortion access by making it difficult or impossible to staff abortion clinics.
Before the court is a Louisiana admitting privileges law that the state concedes is identical to the Texas law.
The state law at the heart of the case
Louisiana passed its law in 2014, before the Supreme Court ruled the Texas statute unconstitutional. Prior to that, the state required abortion clinics to have transfer agreements with hospitals so that if patients needed hospital attention, they could be easily transferred. The 2014 law upped the ante, requiring that abortion clinic doctors have admitting privileges at hospitals, privileges that most hospitals will not grant to doctors who don't provide the hospital with a steady stream of patients.
A federal district court judge struck down the law, finding the admitting privileges requirement as unnecessary in Louisiana as it had been in Texas. The judge said that because abortion is among the safest procedures today, it is unusual for patients to ever be admitted to a hospital. And, he noted, in the "extremely rare" cases in which complications do arise, patients are treated by hospital staff.
The judge further found that the barriers to abortion doctors getting admitting privileges were so high that were the law allowed to go into effect, only one clinic and one abortion doctor in the state would be able to perform abortions — a situation that would in no way meet the needs of the 10,000 women who seek abortions in Louisiana each year.
But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had been overruled in the Texas case, reinstated the Louisiana law and allowed it to go into effect. The Supreme Court — on a split 5-4 vote — intervened to temporarily block the law, and now the justices are taking a second look.
Louisiana is essentially relitigating the issue decided in the Texas case four years ago. But now, the composition of the Supreme Court is different.
In the Texas case, the fifth and decisive vote was cast by Kennedy, who has since been replaced by Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by President Trump. And Kavanaugh has already indicated his willingness to undermine the Texas ruling — he was among the four justices who voted to leave the Louisiana law in place.
Admitting privileges
Even though the law has not gone into effect, Louisiana argues that requiring admitting privileges for abortion providers really would make women safer.
"If you have a good doctor and a competent doctor, it is better for you ... to have some continuity of care and not to just be sent to the hospital," says Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Sarah McCammon/NPR Sarah McCammon/NPR
But every major medical group in the country — from the American Medical Association to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — contradicts that assertion. Indeed, although the Trump administration is backing Louisiana in this case, the federal government itself recently eliminated admitting privilege requirements for doctors who treat Medicare and Medicaid patients at outpatient surgical centers. The federal government found admitting privilege requirements to be burdensome and unnecessary.
In reality, a decision to grant admitting privileges is largely a business decision for hospitals. Doctors are not generally granted privileges unless they routinely admit significant numbers of patients for treatment. For instance, doctors who regularly deliver babies in hospitals are good candidates for admitting privileges.
Abortion providers, on the other hand, are not. Abortion has such a low complication rate — nationally, it is less than a quarter of 1% — that providers do not regularly admit patients to hospitals. What's more, without the financial incentive of regular hospital "admits," there is even less reason for a hospital to grant privileges to doctors whose practice brings with it controversy and security risks.
Abortion is a hot-button issue in Louisiana, and doctors providing abortions in the state face extreme pressure.
One doctor "was outed as an abortion provider and protesters showed up at [his] children's school," says Julie Rikelman, who represents the Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, a clinic that provides abortion services.
Even hospitals that have already granted privileges to doctors don't "want to be identified by name," says Rikelman.
Louisiana, however, contends that none of this is really an obstacle for competent doctors. It says that four of the state's six abortion clinic doctors simply did not act in good faith when seeking to obtain hospital admitting privileges. In short, it says, if the doctors had really tried, they could have complied with the state's requirement.
Rikelman sees that assertion as absurd.
Before the law went into effect, one "doctor who actually was an assistant clinical professor at [Louisiana State University] for 18 years and contacted LSU" about obtaining privileges and was told, "Sorry, now that you're a full-time abortion provider, the hospital doesn't want to do that," says Rikelman.
Rikelman will tell the justices that even the 5th Circuit conceded it could not identify a single woman who would have been better off because of the admitting privileges law.
A question of legal standing
Still, there is one new twist in Wednesday's case. For the first time, Louisiana, and the Trump administration, are claiming that doctors and clinics do not have the legal standing to challenge an abortion law on behalf of their patients.
"The doctors who are seeking to have less oversight and reduce regulations upon them do not share the same interests as women," Louisiana Solicitor General Murrill said of the doctors and clinics who bring lawsuits on behalf of their patients.
For more than 40 years, the Supreme Court has recognized the rights of doctors to challenge abortion laws, not just on behalf of themselves, but on behalf of their patients, too.
"If you're a patient in Louisiana and you're struggling to find abortion care, all you know is that the clinic on the other end of the phone can't see you," says T.J. Tu, a senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights. "You might not know the reason you are not being seen. The people who know that are the physicians in the clinics themselves, which is why they're allowed to come to court and raise their patients rights."
In short, abortion providers see this new procedural challenge as a backdoor way to prevent future challenges to anti-abortion-rights laws, or a wolf in sheep's clothing.
"The wolf is the doctors," counters Murrill. "These are not safe places. Women are exposed to dangerous situations at these clinics, and I do think they could enhance the quality of care."
No court has found that the Hope clinic in Shreveport, which is at the center of Wednesday's case, to be unsafe. It has long provided about 3,000 abortions a year, and the district court found that in the past 23 years, only four patients had to be transferred to a hospital because of a complication.
In the short run, this case is about the availability of abortion in Louisiana. In the early 2000s, there were 11 abortion clinics in the state. Today, there are three, and if the state prevails, it is unclear whether all three could survive. Based on the evidence to date, only two of the six doctors currently providing abortions in the state would be able to continue to do so. And one of those has said he would retire under those circumstances.
Until then, Hope emphasizes that it will continue to provide abortions in Louisiana.
"I do this ... because the women deserve good compassionate care," says Kathleen Pittman, director of the Hope clinic. "And we're going to provide it as long as we possibly can. And we're not going to go quietly into the night."
In the long run, of course, this case is about much more than Louisiana. It is about the right to abortion in the United States and the decades-long effort by abortion opponents to overturn Roe v. Wade. A decision by the court in favor of Louisiana would be a first big step in that direction.


npr--2020-03-04--Biden Surges On Super Tuesday, Transforming Democratic Primary Into 2-Man Race

Momentum and timing matter in politics — and both helped former Vice President Joe Biden mount a comeback against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , who went into Super Tuesday with front-runner status after significant wins in early states .
After poor showings in some opening contests , Biden 's campaign was seen by many as left for dead .
On Tuesday he emerged as the chief alternative to Sanders .
The Democratic presidential race at one point had almost two dozen candidates , but now it 's essentially a contest between two men representing dueling ideological poles of the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with promises to transform the party and dramatically expand the government 's role .
Biden 's pledge to fight for the `` soul of America '' has rallied centrists around him , largely focused on the question of electability against President Trump and Biden 's broader ability to help congressional candidates down-ballot in 2020 .
`` For those who have been knocked down , counted out , left behind — this is your campaign , '' Biden said to supporters in Los Angeles late Tuesday evening .
Biden capitalized at warp speed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary on Saturday .
Biden went from fourth place in Iowa , fifth place in New Hampshire and a distant second in Nevada to handily winning a state with a large African American population — a constituency that is responsible for his rapid rise .
That blowout forced the centrists out of the race , leaving the moderate lane to Biden .
His former rivals who split the vote just a week earlier went from jabbing him on the debate state to endorsing him and cutting ads on his behalf .
Minnesota Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former mayor of South Bend , Ind.
, ended their campaigns after Biden 's South Carolina win and joined him on stage in Texas on Monday , the day before Super Tuesday .
Biden ended up winning the state .
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke , who dropped out of the presidential race Nov. 1 , also endorsed Biden at the Texas rally .
A key factor fueling Biden 's rebound is that late-deciding voters broke for him by a margin of 2 to 1 , according to exit polls conducted by NBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The former vice president faced criticism for poor debate performances , weak fundraising and weak campaign field operations in key states , but he managed to win in a range of geographic areas .
Biden dominated in the South , where African Americans — a key constituency of the party — helped him carry Virginia , North Carolina , Alabama , Arkansas , Oklahoma and Tennessee .
He also won Minnesota — a state where Sanders campaigned a day before the primary .
And Biden won Massachusetts , home state of Sen. Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rally over the weekend .
Another reason voters likely rallied to Biden is that they viewed him as a safer choice at a time when it 's clear President Trump and congressional Republicans are eager to tag all Democrats as `` socialists '' — a label Sanders uses about his own policies .
Virginia freshman Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger endorsed Biden after he won her home state .
She told NPR that the GOP will nationalize the race regardless of who the Democratic nominee is but said it would be better for her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Trump .
`` In any case , it would be desirable for me to be aligned on policy with the person at the top of the ticket because it 's just one less conversation to have , '' she said Tuesday night .
Sanders won the California primary , the largest state with the largest delegate haul , The Associated Press projected .
He also won his home state of Vermont .
Sanders also won Utah as well as Colorado , a state with a significant Latino population .
Sanders referred to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party as he spoke to supporters in Essex Junction , Vt. , on Tuesday night .
`` We 're not only taking on the corporate establishment — we 're taking on the political establishment , '' he said .
As he regularly does at his rallies , which often draw crowds larger than Biden 's events , Sanders touted his ability to build a multigenerational , multiracial movement .
His campaign repeatedly mentions his ability to draw more young and first-time voters to the ballot box , though exit polls showed lower turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following helped position him at the top of national polls , but his big wins in the early contests of New Hampshire and Nevada also showed his strength with a range of key voting blocs such as labor , Latinos and the white working class .
But that momentum was blunted once Biden won South Carolina .
Bill de Blasio , mayor of New York City and a Sanders supporter , told NPR that Sanders has a better chance to beat Trump in a general election because he can attract crossover voters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , such as Michigan , Wisconsin and Pennsylvania .
`` He 's got a lot he can cash in on ahead , '' de Blasio said .
Both Biden and Sanders stressed that their campaigns are focused on getting Trump out of office , and they each described policies they believe will attract people who are n't convinced the strong economy is translating to gains in their own lives .
Biden did n't mention Sanders directly but argued Tuesday night he also had new energy that would make the difference against Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolution ; we started a movement .
We 've increased turnout .
The turnout turned out for us .
That can deliver us to a moment where we can do extraordinary , extraordinary things , '' he said .
Sanders more directly engaged on the contrast between his record and Biden 's .
Without naming the former vice president , Sanders honed in on the Iraq War — an issue that has been litigated in previous Democratic primaries .
Sanders proudly noted he voted against the war in Iraq , while `` another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued his positions on trade , financial regulation and health care were more in line with core supporters of the party .
He said he would ultimately prevail , saying , `` Tonight I tell you with absolute confidence that we are going to win the Democratic nomination and we are going to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of this country . ''
Mike Bloomberg , the billionaire businessman and former mayor of New York City , was on the ballot for the first time Tuesday after skipping the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent about $ 500 million of his personal fortune on the campaign , he had little to show for it .
He failed to win a single state and picked up delegates in only a smattering of them .
Bloomberg admitted his only path to the nomination would be through a contested convention , but as the polls started to close on Tuesday , his campaign manager had a different take .
`` We 'll find out whether Mike Bloomberg is on his way to becoming the candidate , or we will find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the most important person to whomever that candidate will be , '' Kevin Sheekey told reporters covering the wealthy philanthropist .
Sheekey said the campaign would assess its plans after Tuesday 's results were in .
But if Bloomberg chooses to step aside as a candidate , he could play a key role helping counter the fundraising juggernaut of the Trump campaign and its allies .
As much as Biden 's South Carolina win revived his campaign , March 3 may mark the moment when he convinced his party to take another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate to take on Trump in the fall .
`` They do n't call it Super Tuesday for nothing ! ''
Biden proclaimed .

Biden Surges On Super Tuesday, Transforming Democratic Primary Into 2-Man Race
Enlarge this image toggle caption Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images
Momentum and timing matter in politics — and both helped former Vice President Joe Biden mount a comeback against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who went into Super Tuesday with front-runner status after significant wins in early states.
After poor showings in some opening contests, Biden's campaign was seen by many as left for dead. On Tuesday he emerged as the chief alternative to Sanders.
The Democratic presidential race at one point had almost two dozen candidates, but now it's essentially a contest between two men representing dueling ideological poles of the party.
Sanders has energized the progressive wing with promises to transform the party and dramatically expand the government's role.
Biden's pledge to fight for the "soul of America" has rallied centrists around him, largely focused on the question of electability against President Trump and Biden's broader ability to help congressional candidates down-ballot in 2020.
"For those who have been knocked down, counted out, left behind — this is your campaign," Biden said to supporters in Los Angeles late Tuesday evening.
Biden surge follows centrist consolidation
Biden capitalized at warp speed on his big win in South Carolina's primary on Saturday.
Biden went from fourth place in Iowa, fifth place in New Hampshire and a distant second in Nevada to handily winning a state with a large African American population — a constituency that is responsible for his rapid rise.
That blowout forced the centrists out of the race, leaving the moderate lane to Biden. His former rivals who split the vote just a week earlier went from jabbing him on the debate stage to endorsing him and cutting ads on his behalf.
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., ended their campaigns after Biden's South Carolina win and joined him on stage in Texas on Monday, the day before Super Tuesday. Biden ended up winning the state.
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, who dropped out of the presidential race Nov. 1, also endorsed Biden at the Texas rally.
A key factor fueling Biden's rebound is that late-deciding voters broke for him by a margin of 2 to 1, according to exit polls conducted by NBC News in 12 Super Tuesday states.
The former vice president faced criticism for poor debate performances, weak fundraising and weak campaign field operations in key states, but he managed to win in a range of geographic areas.
Biden dominated in the South, where African Americans — a key constituency of the party — helped him carry Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee.
He also won Minnesota — a state where Sanders campaigned a day before the primary. And Biden won Massachusetts, home state of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and where Sanders held a big rally over the weekend.
Another reason voters likely rallied to Biden is that they viewed him as a safer choice at a time when it's clear President Trump and congressional Republicans are eager to tag all Democrats as "socialists" — a label Sanders uses about his own policies.
Virginia freshman Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger endorsed Biden after he won her home state. She told NPR that the GOP will nationalize the race regardless of who the Democratic nominee is but said it would be better for her if Biden was the one squaring off against Trump.
"In any case, it would be desirable for me to be aligned on policy with the person at the top of the ticket because it's just one less conversation to have," she said Tuesday night.
Sanders' anti-establishment message
Sanders won the California primary, the largest state with the largest delegate haul, The Associated Press projected. He also won his home state of Vermont. Sanders also won Utah as well as Colorado, a state with a significant Latino population.
Sanders referred to his camp's battle with the Democratic Party as he spoke to supporters in Essex Junction, Vt., on Tuesday night.
"We're not only taking on the corporate establishment — we're taking on the political establishment," he said.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alex Wong/Getty Images Alex Wong/Getty Images
As he regularly does at his rallies, which often draw crowds larger than Biden's events, Sanders touted his ability to build a multigenerational, multiracial movement. His campaign repeatedly mentions his ability to draw more young and first-time voters to the ballot box, though exit polls showed lower turnout for young people.
Sanders' loyal following helped position him at the top of national polls, but his big wins in the early contests of New Hampshire and Nevada also showed his strength with a range of key voting blocs such as labor, Latinos and the white working class.
But that momentum was blunted once Biden won South Carolina.
Bill de Blasio, mayor of New York City and a Sanders supporter, told NPR that Sanders has a better chance to beat Trump in a general election because he can attract crossover voters in key states that the president won in 2016, such as Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
"He's got a lot he can cash in on ahead," de Blasio said.
Biden and Sanders make different electability arguments
Both Biden and Sanders stressed that their campaigns are focused on getting Trump out of office, and they each described policies they believe will attract people who aren't convinced the strong economy is translating to gains in their own lives.
Biden didn't mention Sanders directly but argued Tuesday night he also had new energy that would make the difference against Trump.
"People are talking about a revolution; we started a movement. We've increased turnout. The turnout turned out for us. That can deliver us to a moment where we can do extraordinary, extraordinary things," he said.
Sanders more directly engaged on the contrast between his record and Biden's. Without naming the former vice president, Sanders honed in on the Iraq War — an issue that has been litigated in previous Democratic primaries.
Sanders proudly noted he voted against the war in Iraq, while "another candidate" backed it. He also argued his positions on trade, financial regulation and health care were more in line with core supporters of the party.
He said he would ultimately prevail, saying, "Tonight I tell you with absolute confidence that we are going to win the Democratic nomination and we are going to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of this country."
"The most important person"
Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire businessman and former mayor of New York City, was on the ballot for the first time Tuesday after skipping the first four Democratic contests.
But while Bloomberg spent about $500 million of his personal fortune on the campaign, he had little to show for it. He failed to win a single state and picked up delegates in only a smattering of them.
Bloomberg admitted his only path to the nomination would be through a contested convention, but as the polls started to close on Tuesday, his campaign manager had a different take.
"We'll find out whether Mike Bloomberg is on his way to becoming the candidate, or we will find out that Mike Bloomberg is going to be the most important person to whomever that candidate will be," Kevin Sheekey told reporters covering the wealthy philanthropist.
Sheekey said the campaign would assess its plans after Tuesday's results were in.
But if Bloomberg chooses to step aside as a candidate, he could play a key role helping counter the fundraising juggernaut of the Trump campaign and its allies.
As much as Biden's South Carolina win revived his campaign, March 3 may mark the moment when he convinced his party to take another look at whether he's the right candidate to take on Trump in the fall.
"They don't call it Super Tuesday for nothing!" Biden proclaimed.


npr--2020-03-04--White House Wants 'Greater Cooperation' From Airlines For Coronavirus Fight

White House Wants 'Greater Cooperation ' From Airlines For Coronavirus Fight Vice President Mike Pence is bringing the CEOs of major airlines to the White House on Wednesday to press for what he described as `` greater cooperation '' on data that public health officials use to track down passengers when someone on a flight is later found to have coronavirus .
`` We 'll be meeting with the CEOs of all the major airline carriers here , '' Pence told reporters .
`` The topic will be contact tracing data and how we can have a stronger relationship in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us with screening personnel coming back into the country . ''
Pence said he also plans to meet CEOs of leading commercial laboratories on Wednesday to `` clear up any potential barriers '' to ramping up coronavirus test processing around the country .
The new meetings are part of a series of public events the Trump administration is using as it seeks to demonstrate that is has control of the response to the virus .
President Trump toured a vaccine lab at the National Institutes of Health on Tuesday , and plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday .
Pence will visit a 3M plant in Minnesota that has contracted with the federal government to produce millions of face masks for health workers .
Trump has said his decision in late January to restrict air travel from China was a key factor in slowing the spread of the disease in the United States .
His administration has added screening measures for travelers on flights from Italy and South Korea — two other hot spots for the virus — and he said on Tuesday he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for those two countries and Japan .
However , Trump backed away from comments he made earlier this week about closing the southern border , noting coronavirus levels did not warrant that measure at this time .
The Washington Post reported that the administration and airlines are at an impasse over sharing data about passengers .
The Airlines for America lobby group said in a statement that airline CEOs would meet on Wednesday morning with Pence to discuss `` pragmatic '' solutions .
The group said it had already provided the administration with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread '' of coronavirus , `` even offering to pay for the implementation of a website and mobile app '' for contact data .
Pence met Tuesday with Republican and Democratic Senators who raised concerns about sufficient testing for the virus , and plans to meet with House members on Wednesday , he said .

Pence Heads To Washington State As Coronavirus Death Toll Rises
Enlarge this image toggle caption Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
Updated at 7 p.m. ET
Vice President Mike Pence will travel to Olympia, Wash., on Thursday to meet with the governor and health officials and express support for the region that has been hit hardest by coronavirus.
"By being there on the ground, I want to assure the people of Washington State, people of California, people that are in the communities that are being impacted by the virus, that we're with them," Pence told reporters, pledging federal resources to help.
As of Wednesday, 10 people in Washington state have died after contracting the virus. The state now has 39 confirmed cases, many of which are linked to a long-term care facility northeast of Seattle. California has had one death and more than 50 positive cases, state health officials say, including 24 people who arrived in the U.S. on repatriation flights from outbreak locations in Asia.
Pence held meetings with business leaders in sectors linked to the coronavirus response at the White House on Wednesday, including CEOs from nursing homes and commercial laboratory testing companies.
President Trump joined a task force meeting with CEOs of major airlines to press for more cooperation with data that public health officials use to track down passengers when someone on a flight is later found to have coronavirus.
"What we're asking for is additional pieces of information so that the CDC ... and others can track individuals as they come into the country and as they continue on to their final destination," acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf told reporters.
Asked whether the issue had been resolved, Wolf said: "I think we will continue to have conversations."
The top lobbyist for the airline industry told the task force that airlines are working on a mobile app and website to collect information. "We think there are better ways to trace the passengers coming in," said Nicholas Calio, CEO of Airlines for America.
The CDC is still working to trace people who shared a flight with a person from North Carolina who became sick with coronavirus after flying home from a visit to the Life Care Center in Kirkland, Wash., the long-term care facility that is considered to be the site of an outbreak.
"We have the manifest. Now the trick is to go find them. That's why we're having this discussion," Robert Redfield, director of the CDC, told reporters.
The airline CEOs told Trump and Pence they were taking extra steps to clean and disinfect aircraft. Oscar Munoz, CEO of United Airlines, said the issue was personal for him: He is a heart transplant survivor and has immune issues. He said his staff invented the "corona bump" – a greeting by elbow – which he called "a fun way of expressing what we all need to know."
Trump has said his decision in late January to restrict air travel from China was a key factor in slowing the spread of the disease in the United States. His administration has added screening measures for travelers on flights from Italy and South Korea — two other hot spots for the virus — and he said on Tuesday he is considering further limits on incoming travelers for those two countries and Japan.
Trump said the administration will continue to evaluate whether further restrictions are needed for international travelers entering the United States.
"As certain areas get to be more of a problem, we may close them up, as we have done with numerous areas," Trump said.
Pence met with Democratic and House lawmakers on Wednesday. Later, they approved a response package worth about $8 billion — far greater than the $2.5 billion that the Trump administration had requested. The Senate is expected to vote on the measure by the end of the week.
Some of the money will be used to buy millions of face masks and other protective gear for health workers from 3M, Honeywell and other companies. Pence plans to visit a 3M plant in Minnesota on Thursday before going to Washington state.


npr--2020-03-04--5 Takeaways From Super Tuesday And Joe Biden's Big Night

The Democratic presidential contest is now a two-man race .
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders went into Super Tuesday the front-runner , but it was Joe Biden 's night .
The former vice president rode a surge of momentum out of his big win in South Carolina on Saturday and established himself squarely as the principal alternative to Sanders .
Biden won a majority of states , including Texas , Tuesday night .
Sanders is projected to win California , but with votes still being counted there it 's unclear which candidate will emerge with a delegate lead .
That sets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight over the next two months between candidates with very different ideologies — Sanders paints in bold colors and wants radical change ; Biden believes in progress accomplished by working with Washington 's competing interests .
`` We are not only taking on the corporate establishment , we are taking on the political establishment , '' Sanders said before rattling off a list of differences with Biden .
Later , an ebullient Biden swatted at Sanders .
`` People are talking about a revolution , '' he said .
`` We started a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on why Biden did so well on Super Tuesday and where the race stands now : 1 .
Biden and Sanders have distinctly different bases of support Exit polling revealed Biden `` did well with moderates and conservatives , voters older than 45 and African Americans , '' according to The Associated Press .
In Alabama , for example , Biden won nearly 70 % of African American voters , who are a majority of the state 's Democratic electorate .
Sanders showed strength with liberal voters , Latinos and voters younger than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In California , Sanders won nearly half the Latino vote — double Biden 's share — which makes up 30 % of the state 's voters .
Black and Latino voters are pillars of the Democratic Party .
Whoever becomes the nominee needs to have their strong support .
And do n't forget about women .
They powered Democrats ' 2018 takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives .
The AP reports Biden `` enjoyed an advantage among women and college graduates . ''
The Biden campaign and the superPAC supporting him are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over women older than 40 .
Sanders may have expanded his coalition in the Nevada caucuses , but the breadth of his support looked awfully limited on Super Tuesday .
It 's hard to see how he regains his momentum and expands beyond his loyal base after Tuesday night .
Going on TV and talking about how he 's running against the Democratic Party establishment makes it hard to win over people who have proudly voted Democratic for a long time .
Even if Sanders does n't need establishment party leaders , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders has done very little to mollify and reach out to them .
Biden clearly picked up support from many of those kinds of voters after Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend , Ind.
, Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped out and endorsed him .
Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg 's campaign manager told reporters the campaign will assess the results Wednesday ( Bloomberg 's only Super Tuesday victory was in American Samoa ) .
If Bloomberg were to also endorse Biden , Biden 's support could expand further .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he gets a boost from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , who had another disappointing night , finishing third behind Biden and Sanders in her home state .
But she did gain delegates in almost half a dozen states Tuesday night .
Warren has n't shown much sign of giving up the fight and has already traveled to post-Super Tuesday states .
There will likely be pressure on her from progressives to back out and support Sanders .
3 .
Young voters are not coming out in droves '' We are going to defeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented grassroots , multigenerational , multiracial movement , '' Sanders said Tuesday night .
But Sanders ' actual younger-than-30 turnout is n't quite living up to that promise .
While Sanders is winning big margins among young voters , they are n't making up significantly higher shares of the electorate than in past elections .
Before Tuesday , voters younger than 30 were not keeping pace with the overall increase in voter turnout .
In fact , young voters ' share of the electorate went down in three of the first four states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not a single state saw an increase in young voters ' share of the electorate , according to exit polls conducted by Edison Research and sponsored by several of the television networks .
4 .
This campaign has already changed a lot — could it change again ?
Biden appears to be favored in some big upcoming contests , including Florida on March 17 and Georgia a week later .
But polls have defined four different leaders at various times during this race .
Biden has a reputation for being undisciplined , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wild card .
A shift like the one that occurred this Super Tuesday , though , is unprecedented , and it may very well be that all those voters — three-quarters in most polls — who have said they could change their minds may have made them up .
If that 's the case , that would give Biden the inside track to the nomination .
No one in modern history has been able to ignore the first four state contests and win the nomination .
Bloomberg had a plausible theory of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 500 million on his campaign .
But guess what ?
Hard-won momentum clearly trumped money .
Voters were at first open to Bloomberg , but his debate performances doomed him .
His favorability ratings tanked , so much so that majorities of Democratic voters said they had unfavorable opinions of Bloomberg in exit polls , while they had very favorable opinions of Biden , Sanders and Warren .
It 's not clear which states will go first in the next presidential nominating season , but it 's pretty likely no candidate will ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the early states .
If a guy with his kind of money spent this kind of fortune and came up short , it 's unlikely anyone will try it again .

5 Takeaways From Super Tuesday And Joe Biden's Big Night
Enlarge this image toggle caption Chris Carlson/AP Chris Carlson/AP
The Democratic presidential contest is now a two-man race.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders went into Super Tuesday the front-runner, but it was Joe Biden's night. The former vice president rode a surge of momentum out of his big win in South Carolina on Saturday and established himself squarely as the principal alternative to Sanders.
Biden won a majority of states, including Texas, Tuesday night. Sanders is projected to win California, but with votes still being counted there it's unclear which candidate will emerge with a delegate lead.
That sets up what looks to be a sharp fight over the next two months between candidates with very different ideologies — Sanders paints in bold colors and wants radical change; Biden believes in progress accomplished by working with Washington's competing interests.
"We are not only taking on the corporate establishment, we are taking on the political establishment," Sanders said before rattling off a list of differences with Biden.
Later, an ebullient Biden swatted at Sanders. "People are talking about a revolution," he said. "We started a movement."
Here are five takeaways on why Biden did so well on Super Tuesday and where the race stands now:
1. Biden and Sanders have distinctly different bases of support
Exit polling revealed Biden "did well with moderates and conservatives, voters older than 45 and African Americans," according to The Associated Press. In Alabama, for example, Biden won nearly 70% of African American voters, who are a majority of the state's Democratic electorate.
Sanders showed strength with liberal voters, Latinos and voters younger than 30, according to the AP. In California, Sanders won nearly half the Latino vote — double Biden's share — which makes up 30% of the state's voters.
Black and Latino voters are pillars of the Democratic Party. Whoever becomes the nominee needs to have their strong support.
And don't forget about women. They powered Democrats' 2018 takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives. The AP reports Biden "enjoyed an advantage among women and college graduates." The Biden campaign and the superPAC supporting him are confident that they are in particular winning over women older than 40.
2. Sanders' ceiling might be real
Sanders may have expanded his coalition in the Nevada caucuses, but the breadth of his support looked awfully limited on Super Tuesday. It's hard to see how he regains his momentum and expands beyond his loyal base after Tuesday night.
Going on TV and talking about how he's running against the Democratic Party establishment makes it hard to win over people who have proudly voted Democratic for a long time. Even if Sanders doesn't need establishment party leaders, he needs the party's loyal voters. Sanders has done very little to mollify and reach out to them.
Biden clearly picked up support from many of those kinds of voters after Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped out and endorsed him.
Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg's campaign manager told reporters the campaign will assess the results Wednesday (Bloomberg's only Super Tuesday victory was in American Samoa). If Bloomberg were to also endorse Biden, Biden's support could expand further.
Sanders' hope has to be that he gets a boost from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who had another disappointing night, finishing third behind Biden and Sanders in her home state. But she did gain delegates in almost half a dozen states Tuesday night.
Warren hasn't shown much sign of giving up the fight and has already traveled to post-Super Tuesday states. There will likely be pressure on her from progressives to back out and support Sanders.
3. Young voters are not coming out in droves
"We are going to defeat Trump because we are putting together an unprecedented grassroots, multigenerational, multiracial movement," Sanders said Tuesday night.
But Sanders' actual younger-than-30 turnout isn't quite living up to that promise. While Sanders is winning big margins among young voters, they aren't making up significantly higher shares of the electorate than in past elections.
Before Tuesday, voters younger than 30 were not keeping pace with the overall increase in voter turnout. In fact, young voters' share of the electorate went down in three of the first four states compared with 2016.
On Tuesday night, not a single state saw an increase in young voters' share of the electorate, according to exit polls conducted by Edison Research and sponsored by several of the television networks.
4. This campaign has already changed a lot — could it change again?
Biden appears to be favored in some big upcoming contests, including Florida on March 17 and Georgia a week later.
But polls have defined four different leaders at various times during this race. Biden has a reputation for being undisciplined, and his continued success is certainly a wild card.
A shift like the one that occurred this Super Tuesday, though, is unprecedented, and it may very well be that all those voters — three-quarters in most polls — who have said they could change their minds may have made them up.
If that's the case, that would give Biden the inside track to the nomination.
5. Momentum still trumps money in presidential primaries
No one in modern history has been able to ignore the first four state contests and win the nomination. Bloomberg had a plausible theory of how to do it — namely spending $500 million on his campaign.
But guess what? Hard-won momentum clearly trumped money. Voters were at first open to Bloomberg, but his debate performances doomed him. His favorability ratings tanked, so much so that majorities of Democratic voters said they had unfavorable opinions of Bloomberg in exit polls, while they had very favorable opinions of Biden, Sanders and Warren.
It's not clear which states will go first in the next presidential nominating season, but it's pretty likely no candidate will ever again try what Bloomberg did in bypassing the early states. If a guy with his kind of money spent this kind of fortune and came up short, it's unlikely anyone will try it again.


npr--2020-03-04--Bloomberg's Super Tuesday Flop

Bloomberg's Super Tuesday Flop

In front of the cameras Tuesday night , former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg sounded upbeat .
`` No matter how many delegates we win tonight , we have done something no one thought was possible , '' he told cheering supporters gathered at the convention center in West Palm Beach , Fla. `` In just three months , we 've gone from 1 % in the polls to being a contender for the Democratic nomination for president . ''
Behind the scenes , his campaign is assessing how much longer he will stay in the race after he failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday states .
Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey was sending signals that the end could be near .
He told reporters the campaign would reassess the next steps , heaped praise on former Vice President Joe Biden and downplayed Bloomberg 's commitment , made earlier in the day , to a contested convention this summer .
`` I do n't happen to think Democrats will have a contested convention , '' Sheekey said .
`` I heard him , and that may be true , it may not . ''
In comments sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorse Biden , Sheekey praised the former vice president as `` one of the most decent public servants I 've ever met . ''
Bloomberg returned to New York on Tuesday evening .
For now , Bloomberg is scheduled to campaign in Michigan on Thursday ahead of the state 's March 10 primary .
Sheekey made clear that Bloomberg 's pledge to spend more of his fortune to elect a Democrat stands , noting that if Bloomberg did not become the nominee , he would become `` the most important person to whomever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commitment also holds if the nominee is Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , Sheekey said .
`` They agree on something that 's really important , which is this president has to be removed from office , '' he said .
Bloomberg spent more than $ 500 million in just 100 days on his own campaign .
With a fortune estimated around $ 60 billion , he could do it again for someone else without breaking a financial sweat , helping state parties and supporting efforts to identify and turn out voters in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2,000 people on staff who could transition to help the nominee , under Bloomberg 's direction .
The ability for one billionaire to inject that much money into the political system is something the Democratic Party opposes .
But the quest to defeat President Trump has quieted protests within the ranks .
Bloomberg 's continued involvement stands to benefit Democrats down the ballot as well .
He spent heavily on House races in 2018 and takes credit for helping flip the House to a Democratic majority .
Asked about Bloomberg 's spending last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraging .
`` As far as Michael Bloomberg is concerned , I think that his involvement in this campaign will be a positive one , '' she told reporters .

Bloomberg's Super Tuesday Flop
Enlarge this image toggle caption Eva Marie Uzcategui/AFP via Getty Images Eva Marie Uzcategui/AFP via Getty Images
In front of the cameras Tuesday night, former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg sounded upbeat.
"No matter how many delegates we win tonight, we have done something no one thought was possible," he told cheering supporters gathered at the convention center in West Palm Beach, Fla. "In just three months, we've gone from 1% in the polls to being a contender for the Democratic nomination for president."
Behind the scenes, his campaign is assessing how much longer he will stay in the race after he failed to win any of the 14 Super Tuesday states.
Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey was sending signals that the end could be near. He told reporters the campaign would reassess the next steps, heaped praise on former Vice President Joe Biden and downplayed Bloomberg's commitment, made earlier in the day, to a contested convention this summer.
"I don't happen to think Democrats will have a contested convention," Sheekey said. "I heard him, and that may be true, it may not."
In comments sure to stoke further speculation that Bloomberg would endorse Biden, Sheekey praised the former vice president as "one of the most decent public servants I've ever met."
Bloomberg returned to New York on Tuesday evening. For now, Bloomberg is scheduled to campaign in Michigan on Thursday ahead of the state's March 10 primary.
Sheekey made clear that Bloomberg's pledge to spend more of his fortune to elect a Democrat stands, noting that if Bloomberg did not become the nominee, he would become "the most important person to whomever that candidate will be."
That commitment also holds if the nominee is Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sheekey said. "They agree on something that's really important, which is this president has to be removed from office," he said.
Bloomberg spent more than $500 million in just 100 days on his own campaign. With a fortune estimated around $60 billion, he could do it again for someone else without breaking a financial sweat, helping state parties and supporting efforts to identify and turn out voters in November. Bloomberg's campaign has more than 2,000 people on staff who could transition to help the nominee, under Bloomberg's direction.
The ability for one billionaire to inject that much money into the political system is something the Democratic Party opposes. But the quest to defeat President Trump has quieted protests within the ranks. Bloomberg's continued involvement stands to benefit Democrats down the ballot as well. He spent heavily on House races in 2018 and takes credit for helping flip the House to a Democratic majority.
Asked about Bloomberg's spending last month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was encouraging. "As far as Michael Bloomberg is concerned, I think that his involvement in this campaign will be a positive one," she told reporters.


npr--2020-03-04--In A 1st, Scientists Use Revolutionary Gene-Editing Tool To Edit Inside A Patient

In A 1st , Scientists Use Revolutionary Gene-Editing Tool To Edit Inside A Patient For the first time , scientists have used the gene-editing technique CRISPR to try to edit a gene while the DNA is still inside a person 's body .
The groundbreaking procedure involved injecting the microscopic gene-editing tool into the eye of a patient blinded by a rare genetic disorder , in hopes of enabling the volunteer to see .
They hope to know within weeks whether the approach is working and , if so , to know within two or three months how much vision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really excited about this , '' Dr. Eric Pierce , a professor of ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School , who is leading a study that the procedure launched , tells NPR .
`` We 're helping open , potentially , an era of gene-editing for therapeutic use that could have impact in many aspects of medicine , '' Pierce says .
The CRISPR gene-editing technique has been revolutionizing scientific research by making it much easier to rewrite the genetic code .
It 's also raising high hopes of curing many diseases .
Before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CRISPR to try to treat a small number of patients who have cancer , or the rare blood disorders sickle cell anemia or beta-thalassemia .
While some of the initial results have been promising , it 's still too soon to know whether the strategy is working .
In those other cases , doctors removed cells from patients ' bodies , edited genes in the cells with CRISPR in the lab and then infused the modified cells back into the volunteers ' bodies to either attack their cancer or produce a protein their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiment , doctors at the Casey Eye Institute in Portland , Ore. , injected ( into the eye of a patient who is nearly blind from a condition called Leber congenital amaurosis ) microscopic droplets carrying a harmless virus that had been engineered to deliver the instructions to manufacture the CRISPR gene-editing machinery .
Beginning in infancy , the rare genetic condition progressively destroys light-sensing cells in the retina that are necessary for vision .
Vision impairment with LCA varies widely , but most patients are legally blind and are only able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to detect movement .
`` The majority of people affected by this disease have the most severe end of the spectrum , in terms of how poor their vision is , '' Pierce says .
`` They 're functionally blind . ''
The goal is that once the virus carrying the CRISPR instructions has been infused into the eye , the gene-editing tool will slice out the genetic defect that caused the blindness .
That would , the researchers hope , restore production of a crucial protein and prevent the death of cells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revive other cells — enabling patients to regain at least some vision .
`` It 's the first time the CRISPR gene-editing is used directly in a patient , '' Pierce says .
`` We 're really optimistic that this has a good chance of being effective . ''
The study is being sponsored by Editas Medicine , of Cambridge , Mass.
, and Allergan , based in Dublin .
It will eventually involve a total of 18 patients , including some as young as ages 3 to 17 , who will receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very excited about this .
This is the first time we 're doing editing inside the body , '' says Charles Albright , the chief scientific officer at Editas .
`` We believe that the ability to edit inside the body is going to open entire new areas of medicine and lead to a whole new class of therapies for diseases that are not treatable any other way , '' Albright says .
Francis Collins , director of the National Institutes of Health , calls the advance `` a significant moment . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ time might be coming where we could apply this approach for thousands of diseases , '' Collins tells NPR .
`` This is the first time that 's being tried in a human being .
And it gives us hope that we could extend that to lots of other diseases — if it works and if it 's safe . ''
Pierce , Albright and others stressed that only one patient has been treated so far and that the study , still at a very early stage , is designed primarily to determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the eye is safe .
To that end , the researchers are starting with lowest dose and the oldest patients , who have already suffered extensive damage to their vision .
And doctors are only treating one eye in each patient .
All of those steps are being taken in case the treatment somehow backfires , causing more damage instead of being helpful .
`` CRISPR has never been used directly inside a patient before , '' Pierce says .
`` We want to make sure we 're doing it right . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ underlying defect can be repaired in this patient and others with advanced damage , `` we have the potential to restore vision to people who never had normal vision before .
It would indeed be amazing . ''
The study involves a form of Leber congenital amaurosis known as Type 10 , which is caused by a defect in the CEP290 gene .
If the approach appears to be safe and effective , the researchers will start treating younger patients .
`` We believe children have the potential to have the most benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their visual pathways are still intact , '' Albright explains .
The procedure , which takes about an hour to perform , involves making tiny incisions that enable access to the back of the eye .
That allows a surgeon to inject three droplets of fluid containing billions of copies of the virus that has been engineered to carry the CRISPR gene-editing instructions under the retina .
The idea is that once there , the CRISPR editing elements would snip out the mutation that causes a defect in CEP290 .
The hope is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would correct vision for a lifetime .
If it works , the volunteers in the study might be able to have the procedure repeated on the other eye later .
`` If we can do this safely , that opens the possibility to treat many other diseases where it 's not possible to remove the cells from the body and do the treatment outside , '' Pierce says .
The list of such conditions might include some brain disorders , such Huntington 's disease and inherited forms of dementia , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dystrophy and myotonic dystrophy , according to Pierce and Albright .
`` Inherited retinal diseases are a good choice in terms of gene-based therapies , '' says Artur Cideciyan , a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Pennsylvania , given that the retina is accessible from outside the body But Cideciyan cautions that other approaches for these conditions are also showing promise , and it remains unclear which will turn out to be the best .
`` The gene-editing approach is hypothesized to be a 'forever fix , ' `` he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known .
And the data will have to be evaluated to see the durability of that .
We 'll have to see what happens . ''

In A 1st, Scientists Use Revolutionary Gene-Editing Tool To Edit Inside A Patient
Enlarge this image toggle caption KTSDesign/Science Photo Library/Getty Images KTSDesign/Science Photo Library/Getty Images
For the first time, scientists have used the gene-editing technique CRISPR to try to edit a gene while the DNA is still inside a person's body.
The groundbreaking procedure involved injecting the microscopic gene-editing tool into the eye of a patient blinded by a rare genetic disorder, in hopes of enabling the volunteer to see. They hope to know within weeks whether the approach is working and, if so, to know within two or three months how much vision will be restored.
"We're really excited about this," says Dr. Eric Pierce, a professor of ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Inherited Retinal Disorders Service at Massachusetts Eye and Ear. Pierce is leading a study that the procedure launched.
"We're helping open, potentially, an era of gene-editing for therapeutic use that could have impact in many aspects of medicine," Pierce tells NPR.
The CRISPR gene-editing technique has been revolutionizing scientific research by making it much easier to rewrite the genetic code. It's also raising high hopes of curing many diseases.
Before this step, doctors had only used CRISPR to try to treat a small number of patients who have cancer, or the rare blood disorders sickle cell anemia or beta-thalassemia. While some of the initial results have been promising, it's still too soon to know whether the strategy is working.
In those other cases, doctors removed cells from patients' bodies, edited genes in the cells with CRISPR in the lab and then infused the modified cells back into the volunteers' bodies to either attack their cancer or produce a protein their bodies are missing.
In this new experiment, doctors at the Casey Eye Institute in Portland, Ore., injected (into the eye of a patient who is nearly blind from a condition called Leber congenital amaurosis) microscopic droplets carrying a harmless virus that had been engineered to deliver the instructions to manufacture the CRISPR gene-editing machinery.
Beginning in infancy, the rare genetic condition progressively destroys light-sensing cells in the retina that are necessary for vision. Vision impairment with LCA varies widely, but most patients are legally blind and are only able to differentiate between light and dark or perhaps to detect movement.
"The majority of people affected by this disease have the most severe end of the spectrum, in terms of how poor their vision is," Pierce says. "They're functionally blind."
The goal is that once the virus carrying the CRISPR instructions has been infused into the eye, the gene-editing tool will slice out the genetic defect that caused the blindness. That would, the researchers hope, restore production of a crucial protein and prevent the death of cells in the retina, as well as revive other cells — enabling patients to regain at least some vision.
"It's the first time the CRISPR gene-editing is used directly in a patient," Pierce says. "We're really optimistic that this has a good chance of being effective."
The study is being sponsored by Editas Medicine, of Cambridge, Mass., and Allergan, based in Dublin. It will eventually involve a total of 18 patients, including some as young as ages 3 to 17, who will receive three different doses.
"We're very excited about this. This is the first time we're doing editing inside the body," says Charles Albright, the chief scientific officer at Editas.
"We believe that the ability to edit inside the body is going to open entire new areas of medicine and lead to a whole new class of therapies for diseases that are not treatable any other way," Albright says.
Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, calls the advance "a significant moment."
"All of us dream that a time might be coming where we could apply this approach for thousands of diseases," Collins tells NPR. "This is the first time that's being tried in a human being. And it gives us hope that we could extend that to lots of other diseases — if it works and if it's safe."
Pierce, Albright and others stressed that only one patient has been treated so far and that the study, still at a very early stage, is designed primarily to determine whether injecting the gene-editing tool directly into the eye is safe.
To that end, the researchers are starting with lowest dose and the oldest patients, who have already suffered extensive damage to their vision. And doctors are only treating one eye in each patient. All of those steps are being taken in case the treatment somehow backfires, causing more damage instead of being helpful.
"CRISPR has never been used directly inside a patient before," Pierce says. "We want to make sure we're doing it right."
Still, he says, if the underlying defect can be repaired in this patient and others with advanced damage, "we have the potential to restore vision to people who never had normal vision before. It would indeed be amazing."
The study involves a form of Leber congenital amaurosis known as Type 10, which is caused by a defect in the CEP290 gene.
If the approach appears to be safe and effective, the researchers will start treating younger patients.
"We believe children have the potential to have the most benefit from their therapy, because we know their visual pathways are still intact," Albright explains.
The procedure, which takes about an hour to perform, involves making tiny incisions that enable access to the back of the eye. That allows a surgeon to inject three droplets of fluid containing billions of copies of the virus that has been engineered to carry the CRISPR gene-editing instructions under the retina.
The idea is that once there, the CRISPR editing elements would snip out the mutation that causes a defect in CEP290. The hope is that this would be a one-time treatment that would correct vision for a lifetime.
If it works, the volunteers in the study might be able to have the procedure repeated on the other eye later.
"If we can do this safely, that opens the possibility to treat many other diseases where it's not possible to remove the cells from the body and do the treatment outside," Pierce says.
The list of such conditions might include some brain disorders, such Huntington's disease and inherited forms of dementia, as well as muscle diseases, such as muscular dystrophy and myotonic dystrophy, according to Pierce and Albright.
"Inherited retinal diseases are a good choice in terms of gene-based therapies," says Artur Cideciyan, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Pennsylvania, given that the retina is easily accessible.
But Cideciyan cautions that other approaches for these conditions are also showing promise, and it remains unclear which will turn out to be the best.
"The gene-editing approach is hypothesized to be a 'forever fix,' " he says. "However, that's not known. And the data will have to be evaluated to see the durability of that. We'll have to see what happens."


npr--2020-03-04--Freedom House Report Finds Freedom On The Wane Worldwide

For nearly a half century , Freedom House — the avowedly non-partisan democracy advocacy organization whose founders include Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Wilkie — has published an annual report on the state of freedom in the world .
This year 's edition , titled `` A Leaderless Struggle for Democracy , '' is just out , and it is decidedly downbeat in its assessment of where worldwide freedom stands today .
`` Democracy and pluralism are under assault , '' writes the report 's author , Sarah Repucci .
`` The unchecked brutality of autocratic regimes and the ethical decay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world increasingly hostile to fresh demands for better governance . ''
In its survey of the state of freedom in 195 nations and 15 territories over the past year , Freedom House finds little to cheer about .
`` This year 's report is deeply concerning , in that it finds that we are in the 14th year of a global recession in democracy , '' says Freedom House president Michael Abramowitz .
`` Almost twice as many countries declined in their scores this year as improved , and those declines are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expect , like China or Russia , but also in established democracies . ''
Twenty five of the 41 `` established democracies '' identified by Freedom House saw net losses in democracy since 2006 .
`` The most common areas of decline , '' says Repucci , `` took place in functioning of government , freedom of expression and belief , and rule of law . ''
A decade ago , Freedom House rated freedom in the United States on a par with nations such as Switzerland and the United Kingdom .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has dropped 8 points , behind Slovakia and Mauritius and just ahead of Argentina and Croatia .
Much of the blame for the slide in the U.S. standing gets placed on President Trump .
`` The Trump administration has failed to exhibit consistent commitment to a foreign policy based on the principles of democracy and human rights , '' the report states .
`` [ Trump ] has also given a pass to tyrannical leaders whom he hopes to woo diplomatically , including Vladimir Putin of Russia and Kim Jong-un of North Korea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the press , the rule of law , and other pillars of democracy coming from American leaders , including the president himself , '' are also noted by Freedom House , which relies on federal funding for most of its $ 38 million annual budget .
`` An ongoing decline in fair and equal treatment of refugees and asylum seekers , '' the report adds , `` is also particularly worrisome for a country that takes pride in its traditional role as a beacon for the oppressed . ''
The report is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identifying `` alarming setbacks in the world 's largest democracy . ''
While Freedom House continues to count India among the 43 percent of the world 's nations it considers `` free , '' it warns that through discriminatory actions against the Muslim minority and a crackdown on the country 's Muslim-majority region of Kashmir , Prime Minister Narendra Modi 's Bharatiya Janata Party `` has distanced itself from the country 's founding commitment to pluralism and individual rights . ''
Both Trump and Modi are described as part of a larger `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' in which `` freely elected leaders distance themselves from traditional elites and political norms , claim to speak for a more authentic popular base , and use the ensuing confrontations to justify extreme policies — against minorities and pluralism in particular . ''
Among such leaders cited : Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu .
`` He has countenanced no criticism , denouncing his perceived enemies in the parliament , civil society , the media , and law enforcement agencies , '' the report notes , pointing out that things came to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was indicted on three separate corruption charges , refused to step down , and actively sought immunity even as he ran for re-election . ''
Forty nine nations are listed as `` not free '' in the report , with Syria ranking dead last among the 10 nations identified as the `` worst of the worst . ''
Others earning that dubious distinction include Eritrea , North Korea , Saudi Arabia , and Somalia .
Among the nations ranked `` not free '' is China .
Beijing is accused of mass violations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minorities in the autonomous region of Xinjiang , which is described in the report as `` a dystopian open-air prison . ''
Russia is also labeled `` not free , '' although the description of its suppression of political opposition is limited to a scant two sentences in the 33-page report .
Other large nations , among them Brazil and Mexico , are not even mentioned .
The Freedom House report comes on the heels of another global survey on the health of democracy by the Pew Research Center .
`` Democracy remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' the Pew 34-nation survey reports , `` but commitment to democratic ideals is not always strong . ''
Unlike the Freedom House report , which ranks countries ' degrees of freedom based on an array of indicators , the Pew study actually polled citizens last year on their attitudes toward democracy and elected leaders .
A fair judiciary and gender equality were the two highest ranked attributes for a democracy among the 38,426 persons polled ; the ability of human rights groups and political parties to operate freely ranked the lowest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ finds a bright spot in an otherwise largely dismal outlook for freedom last year in the rise of street protests in Hong Kong , Bolivia , Chile , Sudan , Russia , Algeria , India and Iran .
`` The protests show that people want to be free , '' the former Washington Post White House correspondent says .
`` But we have to also acknowledge that these movements frequently run up against deeply entrenched interests , and thus far , we have not seen a material improvement in global freedom . ''

Freedom House Report Finds Freedom On The Wane Worldwide
Enlarge this image toggle caption Ng Han Guan/AP Ng Han Guan/AP
For nearly a half century, Freedom House — the avowedly non-partisan democracy advocacy organization whose founders include Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Wilkie — has published an annual report on the state of freedom in the world. This year's edition, titled "A Leaderless Struggle for Democracy," is just out, and it is decidedly downbeat in its assessment of where worldwide freedom stands today.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Susan Walsh/AP Susan Walsh/AP
"Democracy and pluralism are under assault," writes the report's author, Sarah Repucci. "The unchecked brutality of autocratic regimes and the ethical decay of democratic powers are combining to make the world increasingly hostile to fresh demands for better governance."
In its survey of the state of freedom in 195 nations and 15 territories over the past year, Freedom House finds little to cheer about.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Oded Balilty/AP Oded Balilty/AP
"This year's report is deeply concerning, in that it finds that we are in the 14th year of a global recession in democracy," says Freedom House president Michael Abramowitz. "Almost twice as many countries declined in their scores this year as improved, and those declines aren't just happening in places that you expect, like China or Russia, but also in established democracies."
Twenty five of the 41 "established democracies" identified by Freedom House saw net losses in democracy since 2006. "The most common areas of decline," says Repucci, "took place in functioning of government, freedom of expression and belief, and rule of law."
A decade ago, Freedom House rated freedom in the United States on a par with nations such as Switzerland and the United Kingdom. In its latest report, the U.S. ranking has dropped 8 points, behind Slovakia and Mauritius and just ahead of Argentina and Croatia.
Much of the blame for the slide in the U.S. standing gets placed on President Trump.
"The Trump administration has failed to exhibit consistent commitment to a foreign policy based on the principles of democracy and human rights," the report states. "[Trump] has also given a pass to tyrannical leaders whom he hopes to woo diplomatically, including Vladimir Putin of Russia and Kim Jong-un of North Korea."
"Fierce rhetorical attacks on the press, the rule of law, and other pillars of democracy coming from American leaders, including the president himself," are also noted by Freedom House, which relies on federal funding for most of its $38 million annual budget.
"An ongoing decline in fair and equal treatment of refugees and asylum seekers," the report adds, "is also particularly worrisome for a country that takes pride in its traditional role as a beacon for the oppressed."
The report is also unsparing in its appraisal of India, identifying "alarming setbacks in the world's largest democracy." While Freedom House continues to count India among the 43 percent of the world's nations it considers "free," it warns that through discriminatory actions against the Muslim minority and a crackdown on the country's Muslim-majority region of Kashmir, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party "has distanced itself from the country's founding commitment to pluralism and individual rights."
Both Trump and Modi are described as part of a larger "drift from the ideals of liberal democracy" in which "freely elected leaders distance themselves from traditional elites and political norms, claim to speak for a more authentic popular base, and use the ensuing confrontations to justify extreme policies — against minorities and pluralism in particular."
Among such leaders cited: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "He has countenanced no criticism, denouncing his perceived enemies in the parliament, civil society, the media, and law enforcement agencies," the report notes, pointing out that things came to a head last year, "when he was indicted on three separate corruption charges, refused to step down, and actively sought immunity even as he ran for re-election."
Forty nine nations are listed as "not free" in the report, with Syria ranking dead last among the 10 nations identified as the "worst of the worst." Others earning that dubious distinction include Eritrea, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Somalia.
Among the nations ranked "not free" is China. Beijing is accused of mass violations of basic freedoms of Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in the autonomous region of Xinjiang, which is described in the report as "a dystopian open-air prison."
Russia is also labeled "not free," although the description of its suppression of political opposition is limited to a scant two sentences in the 33-page report.
Other large nations, among them Brazil and Mexico, are not even mentioned.
The Freedom House report comes on the heels of another global survey on the health of democracy by the Pew Research Center.
"Democracy remains a popular idea among average citizens," the Pew 34-nation survey reports, "but commitment to democratic ideals is not always strong."
Unlike the Freedom House report, which ranks countries' degrees of freedom based on an array of indicators, the Pew study actually polled citizens last year on their attitudes toward democracy and elected leaders.
A fair judiciary and gender equality were the two highest ranked attributes for a democracy among the 38,426 persons polled; the ability of human rights groups and political parties to operate freely ranked the lowest.
Abramowitz, the Freedom House president, finds a bright spot in an otherwise largely dismal outlook for freedom last year in the rise of street protests in Hong Kong, Bolivia, Chile, Sudan, Russia, Algeria, India and Iran.
"The protests show that people want to be free," the former Washington Post White House correspondent says. "But we have to also acknowledge that these movements frequently run up against deeply entrenched interests, and thus far, we have not seen a material improvement in global freedom."


npr--2020-03-03--Supreme Court Casts Doubt On Independence Of Consumer Protection Agency

If you have a mortgage or a loan or a credit card , you likely have more protection from deceptive practices in the financial services industry today than you did at the time of the 2008 financial crash .
But at the Supreme Court Tuesday , the court 's conservative majority voiced skepticism about the independent agency Congress created to protect consumers from abuse in the financial services industry .
In the aftermath of the financial crisis , the CFPB enacted new rules to safeguard the mortgage market and protect consumers from abusive and misleading practices involving everything from credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is headed by a single director , appointed by the president for a five-year term , and lodged in the Federal Reserve .
In order to ensure the director 's independence , the law bars the president from firing him or her for any reason except malfeasance , inefficiency , or neglect of duty .
It is that independence from presidential firing that is being challenged as unconstitutional by Seila Law — a law firm under CFPB investigation for misleading practices — and the Trump administration .
Both the firm and the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary , to strike down a long line of decisions going back almost a century , that uphold the structure of all independent regulatory agencies .
First up to the lectern Tuesday morning was Seila 's lawyer Kannon Shanmugam .
`` Never before in American history has Congress given so much executive power to a single individual who does not answer to the President , '' he said .
Justice Sonia Sotomayor interjected : `` You said that no other agency has this single director framework , but there are at least two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which affects virtually every American . ''
Shanmugam replied that the Social Security Administration `` poses no threat to individual liberty . ''
`` Whose liberty are we speaking of ? ''
shot back Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
`` What about consumers ?
... Congress passed this law so that consumers would be better protected against financial fraud . ''
Shanmugam pivoted , saying that `` because of its desire to protect consumers '' Congress had improperly created an agency `` insulated from political control . ''
Representing the Trump administration , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack on the CFPB structure .
He also got push-back from Ginsburg who noted that it is unusual for an administration to refuse to defend an act of Congress .
Francisco replied that the `` general rule is that ... we will defend acts of Congress ... but there is an exception '' when a law infringes on the president 's power .
This law does that , he said , by not allowing the president to fire the director over policy differences .
Other independent regulatory agencies , run by multi-member commissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they operate based on consensus .
The Supreme Court upheld the independence of those agencies in 1935 , ruling unanimously that Congress limited the president 's power to fire independent commissioners in order to protect those agencies ' independence .
Ours `` is a Constitution that does not say anything about removal '' or `` the structure ... of the government in general , '' noted Justice Elena Kagan .
Given that , she asked `` why not leave it to the political branches '' to establish the terms for removal ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ execute the laws , countered Francisco .
`` The only way he can do that is if he 's fully accountable , '' for his principle officers and they are accountable to him .
But `` removal is like a nuclear bomb , '' replied Kagan .
There are many other ways a president can control officers — appointment , term limits — why this one ?
With the Trump administration joining the attack on the CFPB structure , the Supreme Court appointed former Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the existing law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is like the thread on the sweater that if you start tugging on it , and you tug on it hard enough , potentially , the whole sweater comes undone , '' said Clement shortly after receiving the appointment .
`` The sweater here really is ... the entirety of the independent agencies ... the whole alphabet soup of agencies . ''
During arguments Tuesday Clement took a beating from the court 's conservatives .
`` What about the budgetary consequences ? ''
asked Chief Justice John Roberts .
Does that make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... the effective president over the significant swath of the economy ... they do n't even have to go to Congress to get their money '' because they get their budget directly from the Federal Reserve Board .
Kavanaugh jumped in , wanting to know what is `` enough '' for the president to fire the director of the bureau .
Sotomayor stepped in , asking Clement to address `` head on '' the `` assumption that ... the president needs unfettered discretion to execute the laws . ''
Clement replied that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For instance , when it comes to independent agencies like the Fed `` we do n't want the president to juice up interest rates right before a presidential election . ''
Similarly , he pointed to the current coronavirus situation , noting `` people are trying to make a political football out of a pandemic ... Congress might decide that the head of the CDC ( the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ) should be protected from removal , '' except for misconduct , '' because that 'll make sure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice .
Ultimately , he said , these decisions about whether and to what degree to insulate an agency from political control are Congress ' call , and Congress has been making these calls for over 100 years .
Douglas Letter , counsel for the House of Representatives , was last up to the lectern .
Like Clement he faced incoming fire from the conservative part of the bench , especially from Kavanaugh , who as a lower court judge in a different case , made clear that he thought the structure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , he suggested , may have to suffer the consequences of a CFPB director appointed by President Trump because the current director 's term does not end until 2023 .
But that situation is not unprecedented .
Letter pointed to the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors , who are appointed for 14-year terms , which means a one-term president is `` very likely to have almost no influence over the Fed . ''
At the end of the day , there appeared to be five conservative justices unwilling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CFPB , and four liberal justices with an opposite view .
A decision in the case is expected this summer .

Supreme Court Casts Doubt On Independence Of Consumer Protection Agency
Enlarge this image Andrew Harnik/AP Andrew Harnik/AP
If you have a mortgage or a loan or a credit card, you likely have more protection from deceptive practices in the financial services industry today than you did at the time of the 2008 financial crash. But at the Supreme Court Tuesday, the court's conservative majority voiced skepticism about the independent agency Congress created to protect consumers from abuse in the financial services industry.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the CFPB enacted new rules to safeguard the mortgage market and protect consumers from abusive and misleading practices involving everything from credit cards to debt relief. The bureau is headed by a single director, appointed by the president for a five-year term, and lodged in the Federal Reserve.
In order to ensure the director's independence, the law bars the president from firing him or her for any reason except malfeasance, inefficiency, or neglect of duty.
It is that independence from presidential firing that is being challenged as unconstitutional by Seila Law — a law firm under CFPB investigation for misleading practices — and the Trump administration. Both the firm and the administration are asking the Supreme Court, if necessary, to strike down a long line of decisions going back almost a century, that uphold the structure of all independent regulatory agencies.
First up to the lectern Tuesday morning was Seila's lawyer Kannon Shanmugam. "Never before in American history has Congress given so much executive power to a single individual who does not answer to the President," he said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor interjected: "You said that no other agency has this single director framework, but there are at least two, including the Social Security Administration ... which affects virtually every American."
Shanmugam replied that the Social Security Administration "poses no threat to individual liberty."
"Whose liberty are we speaking of?" shot back Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "What about consumers? ... Congress passed this law so that consumers would be better protected against financial fraud."
Shanmugam pivoted, saying that "because of its desire to protect consumers" Congress had improperly created an agency "insulated from political control."
Representing the Trump administration, Solicitor General Noel Francisco joined in the attack on the CFPB structure. He also got push-back from Ginsburg who noted that it is unusual for an administration to refuse to defend an act of Congress.
Francisco replied that the "general rule is that ... we will defend acts of Congress ... but there is an exception" when a law infringes on the president's power. This law does that, he said, by not allowing the president to fire the director over policy differences. Other independent regulatory agencies, run by multi-member commissions are different, he argued, because they operate based on consensus.
The Supreme Court upheld the independence of those agencies in 1935, ruling unanimously that Congress limited the president's power to fire independent commissioners in order to protect those agencies' independence.
Ours "is a Constitution that does not say anything about removal" or "the structure ... of the government in general," noted Justice Elena Kagan. Given that, she asked "why not leave it to the political branches" to establish the terms for removal?
The Constitution grants the president the power to execute the laws, countered Francisco. "The only way he can do that is if he's fully accountable," for his principle officers and they are accountable to him.
But "removal is like a nuclear bomb," replied Kagan. There are many other ways a president can control officers — appointment, term limits — why this one?
With the Trump administration joining the attack on the CFPB structure, the Supreme Court appointed former Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the existing law.
"The issue in this case is like the thread on the sweater that if you start tugging on it, and you tug on it hard enough, potentially, the whole sweater comes undone," said Clement shortly after receiving the appointment. "The sweater here really is ... the entirety of the independent agencies ... the whole alphabet soup of agencies."
During arguments Tuesday Clement took a beating from the court's conservatives.
"What about the budgetary consequences?" asked Chief Justice John Roberts. Does that make the head of the CFPB "sort of ... the effective president over the significant swath of the economy ... they don't even have to go to Congress to get their money" because they get their budget directly from the Federal Reserve Board.
Kavanaugh jumped in, wanting to know what is "enough" for the president to fire the director of the bureau.
Sotomayor stepped in, asking Clement to address "head on" the "assumption that ... the president needs unfettered discretion to execute the laws."
Clement replied that it wasn't true for all presidential powers. For instance, when it comes to independent agencies like the Fed "we don't want the president to juice up interest rates right before a presidential election."
Similarly, he pointed to the current coronavirus situation, noting "people are trying to make a political football out of a pandemic ... Congress might decide that the head of the CDC (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) should be protected from removal," except for misconduct," because that'll make sure that people get good advice" not political advice.
Ultimately, he said, these decisions about whether and to what degree to insulate an agency from political control are Congress' call, and Congress has been making these calls for over 100 years.
Douglas Letter, counsel for the House of Representatives, was last up to the lectern.
Like Clement he faced incoming fire from the conservative part of the bench, especially from Kavanaugh, who as a lower court judge in a different case, made clear that he thought the structure of the CFPB is unconstitutional.
The next president, he suggested, may have to suffer the consequences of a CFPB director appointed by President Trump because the current director's term does not end until 2023.
But that situation is not unprecedented. Letter pointed to the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, who are appointed for 14-year terms, which means a one-term president is "very likely to have almost no influence over the Fed."
At the end of the day, there appeared to be five conservative justices unwilling to recognize that kind of independence for the CFPB, and four liberal justices with an opposite view.
A decision in the case is expected this summer.