alternet--2020-12-07--The legacy of philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson: Moral pioneer who wrote 'A Defense of Abortion' die

The legacy of philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson: Moral pioneer who wrote 'A Defense of Abortion' dies at 91

Just as the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade was headed before the United States Supreme Court , a new journal of academic philosophy prepared to publish its inaugural issue including an innovative argument from Judith Jarvis Thomson .
That 1971 paper , `` A Defense of Abortion , '' published in Philosophy & Public Affairs , became one of the most influential pieces of contemporary applied ethics , an enduring part of the legacy left behind when she died at 91 on Nov. 20 , 2020 .
`` It has had such an incredible impact on people who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a professor of philosophy and women 's and gender studies at MIT , where she worked alongside Professor Thomson , told me .
`` Almost anybody who teaches contemporary moral problems or an intro to moral philosophy is likely to teach that paper . ''
The key genius of the paper , one of the sources of its originality and staying power , is that it conceded to the opponents of abortion their strongest premise : that a fetus is a person worthy of full moral concern .
Thomson did n't defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had serious objections to it — but she wanted to show that even if we believe a fetus has as much a right to live as anyone else , it does n't follow that abortion is impermissible .
To make her case , Thomson spun an elaborate and memorable thought experiment : '' I imagine you would regard this as outrageous , '' she told her readers , counting on the widely shared view that the kidnapped person would not be obligated to give over their body in this way .
The paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , along with increasingly fanciful examples that illuminate different features of pregnancy and address potential counterarguments , show something perhaps unexpected about our moral intuitions : A right to life is not always the end of an ethical argument .
We are not morally required to forfeit control over our bodies , even if death of another may be the foreseeable result .
Abortion , therefore , may be permissible , even if pro-life arguments about the moral status of the fetus are correct .
It was an impressive argument , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` My body , my choice . ''
`` It 's had a huge influence in the field .
No argument about abortion can proceed without taking her arguments really seriously , even if it ends up opposing abortion , '' Kate Manne , a philosophy professor at Cornell University who worked with Thomson while studying at MIT , told me .
Despite its remarkable impact , though , Manne argued the central thesis of `` A Defense of Abortion '' is still underappreciated .
`` I actually think it should have had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
`` We 're still at this annoying dialectical point where the personhood of the fetus is taken establish the impermissibility of abortion in wider culture .
So it 's still a very good thing that Judy 's piece showed that that 's far too quick .
But in a way , I wish it had had more uptake . ''
Thomson 's paper is n't just notable for its influence or the importance of its ideas about morality .
As a piece of philosophy , it 's exceptionally inventive and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The structure of the thought experiment she used did n't need the patient with a kidney ailment be a violinist , as opposed to an unidentified person , but these kinds of details add color and life to what could otherwise be a stark examples .
Her personal humor and charm were reflected in her writing .
`` She 's quite witty about it , '' Manne said of Thomson 's argumentation style .
`` She says if she needed Henry Fonda 's cooling touch upon her fevered brow , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in from the West Coast to apply it ' and save her life .
But she is n't owed that by him . ''
Of course , excessively creative thought experiments in an argument have the potential to bog a paper down or complicate an argument unnecessarily , if not deployed right .
But Thomson was a master of the form , using a series of whimsical examples to convince the reader of the plausibility of her view while never abandoning or distracting from the rigor of her argument .
But while it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the paper on abortion did n't define her career .
Within academia , Thomson was n't known solely as a philosopher of applied ethics .
Much of her work focused on foundational issues in philosophy and metaphysics , such as the nature of normativity , moral objectivity , composition , and action .
In its own way , Thomson 's presence in these debates was perhaps as bold and unflinching as her views on abortion .
`` Philosophy is male-dominated , but metaphysics is the most-male dominated , even now , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a period in grad school in the '80s , mainly .
Judy was already producing really stunning work .
And I started my career in analytic metaphysics .
This remains a field where there are not very many women .
And I would look in the bibliographies of the books I was encouraged to read or the articles I was encouraged to read , just looking for any name of a woman .
And there were always only two , pretty much : Ruth Barcan Marcus and Judith Jarvis Thomson . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to debates about the concept of goodness , which she leveraged to make nuanced arguments against one of the most dominant theories in philosophical ethics .
In Thomson 's view , good `` is n't the kind of thing appropriately applied to states of affairs , '' said Haslanger .
Something ca n't merely be good , simpliciter .
It has to be good in some way .
`` So you can have a good toaster , or a good breakfast , or a good person .
But a good state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have criteria of goodness built into them . ''
This conclusion , she argued , was a big problem for utilitarianism and other consequentialist theories , which hold , more or less , that actions are to be judged by the consequences or states of affairs that they bring about .
For Thomson , this view was n't even really coherent , Haslanger said .
But she could be surprisingly effusive about views she did n't hold .
Once , in a talk of hers I heard addressing another objection to utilitarianism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the view , arguing that there were many things about the theory to recommend it .
`` Many things , '' she stressed , repeating herself for emphasis .
First and foremost , the best reason to be impressed with utilitarianism was the simplest : `` It 's a theory ! ''
she exclaimed .
Thomson made clear that many of the alternatives to utilitarianism that have been proposed over the years would n't merit this designation .
And for her , utilitarianism 's status as a full-fledged theory was undoubtedly high praise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , was manifest in another of her philosophical contributions that has reached far beyond the academy and into the popular imagination : Trolley problems .
She actually credited the invention of the problem type to philosopher Philippa Foot , but it was Thomson who clarified and popularized the topic , which has become a sub-field of ethics in its own right known as trolleyology .
In her first paper laying out the problem , she put forward the now-standard formulation : Almost everyone seems to agree that it 's permissible to turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate breaks out when you ask whether you are morally required to turn the trolley .
But the structure of the case lends itself to endless variation : What if you 're not the driver , but just a bystander able to pull a lever and divert the trolley ?
What if the trolley loops around , such that the crushing of the one person is n't just an alternative to the deaths of the five , but would actually slow the trolley and thus be the means by which the others are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike us so differently than a case of a surgeon who kills one unsuspecting healthy person to harvest organs that will save the lives of five patients who would otherwise die ?
On an austere consequentialist or utilitarian approach to moral reasoning , all these problems have simple answers : make the choice that results in the most lives saved , that does the most good .
But Thomson reveled in complexities and qualifications of our moral commitments , and she rejected simplistic solutions .
This was n't mere pedantry for its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the principles that underlie our intuitions in these cases and what they can tell us about morality .
Her work on the topic eventually led her to change her mind about a key part of the problem , which she explained once in a seminar at MIT in 2013 that I was lucky enough to attend .
She argued that a bystander watching the trolley would not be permitted , despite what she had previously believed and argued , to pull a switch to save the five people and kill the one .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
She imagined a new scenario in which the bystander had the opportunity to flip the switch to direct the trolley away from the five people and toward herself .
Were she so noble , she might be willing to make that choice .
But in Thomson 's view , she was n't obligated to make this choice .
In an argumentative move that echoes the insight from `` A Defense of Abortion , '' she posited that morality does n't require us to sacrifice our lives for the lives of five others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she reasoned , then how can the bystander in the original case make the decision for the one person on the track to sacrifice her life for the other five ?
The bystander ca n't justify that choice , in Thomson 's view .
Despite what most people 's intuition tells them , it 's not permissible to flip the switch to kill one and save five from the oncoming trolley .
Her views were n't unforgiving or completely absolutist , though .
If the cost were high enough , you might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Were the trolley carrying a bomb and on a course to destroy New York City , you ought to kill the one person to save the lives of millions .
`` We must save New York ! ''
she said .
One characteristic about Thomson that came through both in her writing and when she spoke was a firm belief that when discussing these kinds of ethical questions , there is a correct answer , even if it 's hard to discern .
In one seminar I attended at MIT , the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' is objective or subjective .
Does it make sense to think of what we `` ought '' to do in a moral dilemma as reflecting the objective conditions , or our subjective perception of those conditions ?
Debating this question , naturally , brings up more clever thought experiments , some of which seem to suggest that `` ought '' must be interpreted objectively , while others suggest a subjective interpretation of `` ought '' is best .
It seemed to me that the solution is to simply stipulate that sometimes `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense , and sometimes it is used in an objective sense .
Thomson disagreed .
She believed `` ought '' is objective — end of story .
The clever counterexamples that suggest otherwise were certainly worth considering for her , but they were n't a reason to back down from the idea that there was a definitive answer to the puzzle .
This conviction stood out , especially because it was matched by fierce wit .
`` There was just no one like her , '' said Haslanger .
`` To have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it , out-arguing others and making her way .
It was really inspiring to me . ''
Thomson 's confidence , fortitude and toughness were undoubtedly necessary for the career she had .
Without this disposition , she may not have lasted in the world of academic philosophy or had such an impact at the time she entered the field .
`` I found it in the eighties and nineties just awful to try to survive in mainstream analytic metaphysics , '' Haslanger explained .
`` It was just grueling .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead of me is just mind-boggling .
And she would comment on that now and then .
She was n't someone to complain or make a fuss about things that happened to her along the way .
But you ca n't survive it unless you 're very strong-minded and very determined , and brilliant .
And she was all those things . ''
But if that toughness helped her survive , she did n't feel a need to abandon it once she had reached the pinnacle of her career .
She was known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ papers .
Getting the mechanics of a philosophical paper right — not just the argument , but the structure and the presentation of the ideas , down to the level of the sentence — was a top priority for her .
Manne remembered how Thomson subjected her work as a grad student to exacting standards .
Those lessons stayed with Manne and influence her writing to this day , though she doubted that Thomson would always be satisfied with the results .
`` She brought me into her office , '' Manne recounted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mine , and very plainly said , in a tone that was genuinely warm : 'This paper is terrible ! '
'' Manne added : `` She was incredibly tough , but I always got the sense that she was tough in the service of making people better philosophers .
She was never just mean . ''
For Haslanger , this side of Thomson was an asset .
Haslanger joined the philosophy department faculty at MIT when Thomson was the only other woman .
`` I 'm known for my strong feminist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often and loudly .
And I came to MIT , and it was the first time in my career where I could be the feminist 'good cop , ' because Judy had spent so many years already being the feminist 'bad cop . '
So we kind of worked together quite well .
And it was such a relief , '' said Haslanger .
`` We definitely worked well together on encouraging people , and insisting , in fact , that people take women seriously . ''
She added : `` She really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of us , who gave us hope and gave us courage to carry on . ''
It 's notable , though , that — with the one clear exception — Thomson 's work itself was n't feminist philosophy .
She generally worked on the traditional types of ethical and metaphysical questions handed down in the canon of philosophy , a canon that was historically fashioned by men .
Questions that male philosophers have tended to ignore , such as those about the nature of gender oppression , say , did n't draw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions about the relationship between the statue and the clay or personal identity over time did .
The exception , of course , is her defense of abortion — what she 's best known for .
`` The fact that she just did what she did was a powerful feminist intervention .
Her being who she was was a feminist intervention .
I do n't think that her work draws on gendered experience , or shows herself to draw on her feminist commitments to intervene in a debate , except for the abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether or not she would have avowed it , I do think there 's something feminist about her tough and unapologetic stance on bodily autonomy being something that is important , and that people have a right to , within limits , '' said Manne .
`` It really is about ways in which we 've perhaps been myopic about the fact that women are entitled to bodily control , even if others depend upon them for their lives , which really is a deeply feminist point . ''

Just as the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade was headed before the United States Supreme Court, a new journal of academic philosophy prepared to publish its inaugural issue including an innovative argument from Judith Jarvis Thomson. That 1971 paper, "A Defense of Abortion," published in Philosophy & Public Affairs, became one of the most influential pieces of contemporary applied ethics, an enduring part of the legacy left behind when she died at 91 on Nov. 20, 2020.
"It has had such an incredible impact on people who have taken philosophy classes," Sally Haslanger, a professor of philosophy and women's and gender studies at MIT, where she worked alongside Professor Thomson, told me. "Almost anybody who teaches contemporary moral problems or an intro to moral philosophy is likely to teach that paper."
The key genius of the paper, one of the sources of its originality and staying power, is that it conceded to the opponents of abortion their strongest premise: that a fetus is a person worthy of full moral concern. Thomson didn't defend this view — in fact, she had serious objections to it — but she wanted to show that even if we believe a fetus has as much a right to live as anyone else, it doesn't follow that abortion is impermissible.
To make her case, Thomson spun an elaborate and memorable thought experiment:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."
"I imagine you would regard this as outrageous," she told her readers, counting on the widely shared view that the kidnapped person would not be obligated to give over their body in this way.
The paper goes on to argue that this case, along with increasingly fanciful examples that illuminate different features of pregnancy and address potential counterarguments, shows something perhaps unexpected about our moral intuitions: A right to life is not always the end of an ethical argument. We are not morally required to forfeit control over our bodies, even if death of another may be the foreseeable result. Abortion, therefore, may be permissible, even if pro-life arguments about the moral status of the fetus are correct.
It was an impressive argument, and it resonates today in the feminist rallying cry "My body, my choice."
"It's had a huge influence in the field. No argument about abortion can proceed without taking her arguments really seriously, even if it ends up opposing abortion," Kate Manne, a philosophy professor at Cornell University who worked with Thomson while studying at MIT, told me.
Despite its remarkable impact, though, Manne argued the central thesis of "A Defense of Abortion" is still underappreciated.
"I actually think it should have had more influence than it did," she said. "We're still at this annoying dialectical point where the personhood of the fetus is taken establish the impermissibility of abortion in wider culture. So it's still a very good thing that Judy's piece showed that that's far too quick. But in a way, I wish it had had more uptake."
Thomson's paper isn't just notable for its influence or the importance of its ideas about morality. As a piece of philosophy, it's exceptionally inventive and lucid. It's also particularly memorable. The structure of the thought experiment she used didn't need the patient with a kidney ailment be a violinist, as opposed to an unidentified person, but these kinds of details add color and life to what could otherwise be a stark examples. Her personal humor and charm were reflected in her writing.
"She's quite witty about it," Manne said of Thomson's argumentation style. "She says if she needed Henry Fonda's cooling touch upon her fevered brow, it would be 'frightfully nice for him to fly in from the West Coast to apply it' and save her life. But she isn't owed that by him."
Of course, excessively creative thought experiments in an argument have the potential to bog a paper down or complicate an argument unnecessarily, if not deployed right. But Thomson was a master of the form, using a series of whimsical examples to convince the reader of the plausibility of her view while never abandoning or distracting from the rigor of her argument.
But while it's undoubtedly her best-known contribution to philosophy, the paper on abortion didn't define her career. Within academia, Thomson wasn't known solely as a philosopher of applied ethics. Much of her work focused on foundational issues in philosophy and metaphysics, such as the nature of normativity, moral objectivity, composition, and action.
In its own way, Thomson's presence in these debates was perhaps as bold and unflinching as her views on abortion.
"Philosophy is male-dominated, but metaphysics is the most-male dominated, even now," Haslanger explained. "I came up in a period in grad school in the '80s, mainly. Judy was already producing really stunning work. And I started my career in analytic metaphysics. This remains a field where there are not very many women. And I would look in the bibliographies of the books I was encouraged to read or the articles I was encouraged to read, just looking for any name of a woman. And there were always only two, pretty much: Ruth Barcan Marcus and Judith Jarvis Thomson."
Thomson made significant contributions, for example, to debates about the concept of goodness, which she leveraged to make nuanced arguments against one of the most dominant theories in philosophical ethics.
In Thomson's view, good "isn't the kind of thing appropriately applied to states of affairs," said Haslanger. Something can't merely be good, simpliciter. It has to be good in some way. "So you can have a good toaster, or a good breakfast, or a good person. But a good state of affairs — states of affairs don't have criteria of goodness built into them."
This conclusion, she argued, was a big problem for utilitarianism and other consequentialist theories, which hold, more or less, that actions are to be judged by the consequences or states of affairs that they bring about. For Thomson, this view wasn't even really coherent, Haslanger said.
But she could be surprisingly effusive about views she didn't hold. Once, in a talk of hers I heard addressing another objection to utilitarianism, Thomson began by emphasizing the strengths of the view, arguing that there were many things about the theory to recommend it. "Many things," she stressed, repeating herself for emphasis.
First and foremost, the best reason to be impressed with utilitarianism was the simplest: "It's a theory!" she exclaimed.
Thomson made clear that many of the alternatives to utilitarianism that have been proposed over the years wouldn't merit this designation. And for her, utilitarianism's status as a full-fledged theory was undoubtedly high praise.
Her firm opposition to utilitarianism, though, was manifest in another of her philosophical contributions that has reached far beyond the academy and into the popular imagination: Trolley problems.
She actually credited the invention of the problem type to philosopher Philippa Foot, but it was Thomson who clarified and popularized the topic, which has become a sub-field of ethics in its own right known as trolleyology. In her first paper laying out the problem, she put forward the now-standard formulation:
Suppose you are the driver of a trolley. The trolley rounds a bend, and there come into view ahead five track workmen, who have been repairing the track. The track goes through a bit of a valley at that point, and the sides are steep, so you must stop the trolley if you are to avoid running the five men down. You step on the brakes, but alas they don't work. Now you suddenly see a spur of track leading off to the right. You can turn the trolley onto it, and thus save the five men on the straight track ahead. Unfortunately, Mrs. Foot has arranged that there is one track workman on that spur of track. He can no more get off the track in time than the five can, so you will kill him if you turn the trolley onto him. Is it morally permissible for you to turn the trolley?
Almost everyone seems to agree that it's permissible to turn the trolley, she explained. More debate breaks out when you ask whether you are morally required to turn the trolley. But the structure of the case lends itself to endless variation: What if you're not the driver, but just a bystander able to pull a lever and divert the trolley? What if the trolley loops around, such that the crushing of the one person isn't just an alternative to the deaths of the five, but would actually slow the trolley and thus be the means by which the others are saved? And why does this case strike us so differently than a case of a surgeon who kills one unsuspecting healthy person to harvest organs that will save the lives of five patients who would otherwise die?
On an austere consequentialist or utilitarian approach to moral reasoning, all these problems have simple answers: make the choice that results in the most lives saved, that does the most good. But Thomson reveled in complexities and qualifications of our moral commitments, and she rejected simplistic solutions. This wasn't mere pedantry for its own sake — she was deeply concerned with the principles that underlie our intuitions in these cases and what they can tell us about morality.
Her work on the topic eventually led her to change her mind about a key part of the problem, which she explained once in a seminar at MIT in 2013 that I was lucky enough to attend. She argued that a bystander watching the trolley would not be permitted, despite what she had previously believed and argued, to pull a switch to save the five people and kill the one.
How did she reach this startling conclusion? She imagined a new scenario in which the bystander had the opportunity to flip the switch to direct the trolley away from the five people and toward herself. Were she so noble, she might be willing to make that choice. But in Thomson's view, she wasn't obligated to make this choice. In an argumentative move that echoes the insight from "A Defense of Abortion," she posited that morality doesn't require us to sacrifice our lives for the lives of five others.
But if that's the case, she reasoned, then how can the bystander in the original case make the decision for the one person on the track to sacrifice her life for the other five? The bystander can't justify that choice, in Thomson's view. Despite what most people's intuition tells them, it's not permissible to flip the switch to kill one and save five from the oncoming trolley.
Her views weren't unforgiving or completely absolutist, though. If the cost were high enough, you might be obligated to flip the switch. Were the trolley carrying a bomb and on a course to destroy New York City, you ought to kill the one person to save the lives of millions.
"We must save New York!" she said.
One characteristic about Thomson that came through both in her writing and when she spoke was a firm belief that when discussing these kinds of ethical questions, there is a correct answer, even if it's hard to discern. In one seminar I attended at MIT, the group discussed whether the concept of "ought" is objective or subjective. Does it make sense to think of what we "ought" to do in a moral dilemma as reflecting the objective conditions, or our subjective perception of those conditions?
Debating this question, naturally, brings up more clever thought experiments, some of which seem to suggest that "ought" must be interpreted objectively, while others suggest a subjective interpretation of "ought" is best. It seemed to me that the solution is to simply stipulate that sometimes "ought" is used in a subjective sense, and sometimes it is used in an objective sense.
Thomson disagreed. She believed "ought" is objective — end of story. The clever counterexamples that suggest otherwise were certainly worth considering for her, but they weren't a reason to back down from the idea that there was a definitive answer to the puzzle.
This conviction stood out, especially because it was matched by fierce wit.
"There was just no one like her," said Haslanger. "To have a woman being really right in the thick of it, out-arguing others and making her way. It was really inspiring to me."
Thomson's confidence, fortitude and toughness were undoubtedly necessary for the career she had. Without this disposition, she may not have lasted in the world of academic philosophy or had such an impact at the time she entered the field.
"I found it in the eighties and nineties just awful to try to survive in mainstream analytic metaphysics," Haslanger explained. "It was just grueling. And that Judy did that a whole generation ahead of me is just mind-boggling. And she would comment on that now and then. She wasn't someone to complain or make a fuss about things that happened to her along the way. But you can't survive it unless you're very strong-minded and very determined, and brilliant. And she was all those things."
But if that toughness helped her survive, she didn't feel a need to abandon it once she had reached the pinnacle of her career. She was known as a fierce critic of students' papers. Getting the mechanics of a philosophical paper right — not just the argument, but the structure and the presentation of the ideas, down to the level of the sentence — was a top priority for her.
Manne remembered how Thomson subjected her work as a grad student to exacting standards. Those lessons stayed with Manne and influence her writing to this day, though she doubted that Thomson would always be satisfied with the results.
"She brought me into her office," Manne recounted, "having read a paper of mine, and very plainly said, in a tone that was genuinely warm: 'This paper is terrible!'"
Manne added: "She was incredibly tough, but I always got the sense that she was tough in the service of making people better philosophers. She was never just mean."
For Haslanger, this side of Thomson was an asset. Haslanger joined the philosophy department faculty at MIT when Thomson was the only other woman.
"I'm known for my strong feminist, anti-racist views, and I express them often and loudly. And I came to MIT, and it was the first time in my career where I could be the feminist 'good cop,' because Judy had spent so many years already being the feminist 'bad cop.' So we kind of worked together quite well. And it was such a relief," said Haslanger. "We definitely worked well together on encouraging people, and insisting, in fact, that people take women seriously."
She added: "She really was a symbol, an icon for many of us, who gave us hope and gave us courage to carry on."
It's notable, though, that — with the one clear exception — Thomson's work itself wasn't feminist philosophy. She generally worked on the traditional types of ethical and metaphysical questions handed down in the canon of philosophy, a canon that was historically fashioned by men. Questions that male philosophers have tended to ignore, such as those about the nature of gender oppression, say, didn't draw Thomson's scrutiny in the way traditional questions about the relationship between the statue and the clay or personal identity over time did.
The exception, of course, is her defense of abortion — what she's best known for.
"The fact that she just did what she did was a powerful feminist intervention. Her being who she was was a feminist intervention. I don't think that her work draws on gendered experience, or shows herself to draw on her feminist commitments to intervene in a debate, except for the abortion paper," said Haslanger.
"Whether or not she would have avowed it, I do think there's something feminist about her tough and unapologetic stance on bodily autonomy being something that is important, and that people have a right to, within limits," said Manne. "It really is about ways in which we've perhaps been myopic about the fact that women are entitled to bodily control, even if others depend upon them for their lives, which really is a deeply feminist point."


alternet--2020-12-07--'How could this be?': This COVID-19 patient had to travel nearly 200 miles to another state for trea

'How could this be?': This COVID-19 patient had to travel nearly 200 miles to another state for treatment

As COVID-19 continues to surge all over the United States , many medical facilities are being overwhelmed with patients — and South Dakota resident Rose Mary Kor , who was diagnosed with COVID pneumonia , saw first-hand how bad the problem is when was told she would have to go to Wyoming for treatment .
Kor described her ordeal to CNN 's Brooke Baldwin , saying , `` They said , 'We 're going to send you to Wyoming , and the two options are Gillette and Casper .
We 'll see who will take you . '
And as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Casper was the one .
They could take me . ''
Baldwin , who was infected with COVID-19 back in April , noted that Kor was being asked to travel to another state when she was quite sick .
Kor , a resident of Custer , South Dakota , told Baldwin , `` What is happening ? '
is what I was thinking .
'How could this be ? '
And , 'Do you guys know how far away Casper is ?
'… .
If you drive it , it is about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Casper , where she was hospitalized for two weeks before returning to South Dakota .
She has been recovering from her illness at home .
The Custer resident told Baldwin , `` It seems our system is not prepared for the scope of what this virus is doing . ''
Baldwin noted how hard South Dakota has been hit by the pandemic , asking Kor why some South Dakota residents believe that `` COVID wo n't come for them '' — to which Kor responded , `` This is not particularly kind , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We were being careful .
We live out in the forest .
I rarely went to town .
I wore a mask .
I have n't been going to church .
But still , my husband , I think , got it first — and then , I got it . ''
Kor , who believes that Republican South Dakota Gov .
Kristi Noem has `` shown a deep lack of leadership , '' added , `` If you 're not really thinking this is real , that you do n't need a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be careful , you 're living in some sort of alternate reality . ''

As COVID-19 continues to surge all over the United States, many medical facilities are being overwhelmed with patients — and South Dakota resident Rose Mary Kor, who was diagnosed with COVID pneumonia, saw first-hand how bad the problem is when was told she would have to go to Wyoming for treatment.
Kor described her ordeal to CNN's Brooke Baldwin, saying, "They said, 'We're going to send you to Wyoming, and the two options are Gillette and Casper. We'll see who will take you.' And as it turned out, Wyoming Medical Center in Casper was the one. They could take me."
Baldwin, who was infected with COVID-19 back in April, noted that Kor was being asked to travel to another state when she was quite sick.
Kor, a resident of Custer, South Dakota, told Baldwin, "What is happening?' is what I was thinking. 'How could this be?' And, 'Do you guys know how far away Casper is?'…. If you drive it, it is about three hours."
Kor went to Casper, where she was hospitalized for two weeks before returning to South Dakota. She has been recovering from her illness at home.
The Custer resident told Baldwin, "It seems our system is not prepared for the scope of what this virus is doing."
Baldwin noted how hard South Dakota has been hit by the pandemic, asking Kor why some South Dakota residents believe that "COVID won't come for them" — to which Kor responded, "This is not particularly kind, but I think they're stupid. We were being careful. We live out in the forest. I rarely went to town. I wore a mask. I haven't been going to church. But still, my husband, I think, got it first — and then, I got it."
Kor, who believes that Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem has "shown a deep lack of leadership," added, "If you're not really thinking this is real, that you don't need a mask — that you don't need to be careful, you're living in some sort of alternate reality."


alternet--2020-12-07--Court rejects Trump lawsuit over botched paperwork — as Biden is declared the Georgia winner again

In Georgia , challenges to President-elect Joe Biden 's victory in the 2020 presidential election have not been going well for President Donald Trump and his supporters .
Two recounts have demonstrated that Biden won the state 's 16 electoral votes .
And the Fulton County Superior Court , according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution , has rejected a Trump campaign lawsuit because the attorneys failed to pay the necessary filing fee or fill out the paperwork correctly .
Last week , Trump 's campaign filed a new Georgia-related lawsuit , alleging that it could prove widespread voter fraud in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani , the campaign 's top lawyer , and another campaign lawyer , Ray Smith .
The campaign and its allies have filed literally dozens of these types of lawsuits , which have consistently gone down to humiliating defeat when they actually make it before a judge .
This is because Trump 's complaints about the election are based on lies and disinformation .
Constitution reporter David Wickert notes , `` Among other things , they said it would reveal tens of thousands of ineligible voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were underage , out-of-state residents and others — cast ballots in the November election .
The ( Georgia ) Secretary of State 's Office has repeatedly denied any widespread voting fraud in Georgia . ''
But on Monday , the Fulton County Superior Court , according to Wickert , said that Trump campaign attorneys `` did not pay the appropriate filing fee or fully complete the case information form . ''
And Smith , in response , said that the fee will be paid .
This rejection by the superior court in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one of many election results challenges in Georgia that has gone badly for Trump and his supporters .
In Georgia , Judge Timothy C. Batten slammed a lawsuit by pro-Trump attorneys Sidney Powell and Lin Wood , saying that they waited too long to file the lawsuit and rejecting their request to decertify the presidential election results in Georgia .
Powell and Wood , in that lawsuit , claimed that equipment by Dominion Voting Systems was used in Georgia to swing the election results in Biden 's favor .
The attorneys have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's equipment was used to help leftist President Hugo Chavez ( who died in 2013 ) steal votes — and Dominion , in a press release , stressed that its equipment has never even been used in the South American country .
That Powell/Wood lawsuit was separate from the Trump campaign , although Powell and Wood are both aggressive Trump supporters .
Powell 's antics are so beyond the pale that even Trump 's legal team has distanced itself from her .
In an official statement in November , Giuliani and Trump lawyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is practicing law on her own .
She is not a member of the Trump legal team .
She is also not a lawyer for the president in his personal capacity . ''
In Georgia , Biden 's victory over Trump has been proven three times — first in the election , then in two recounts .
And on Monday , following the second recount , Biden 's victory in that state was recertified .
On Saturday , a federal appeals court rejected one of Wood 's lawsuits .
Wood , in one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should declare martial law because of widespread voter fraud — which is something he has offered no concrete proof of .

In Georgia, challenges to President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election have not been going well for President Donald Trump and his supporters. Two recounts have demonstrated that Biden won the state's 16 electoral votes. And the Fulton County Superior Court, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, has rejected a Trump campaign lawsuit because the attorneys failed to pay the necessary filing fee or fill out the paperwork correctly.
Last week, Trump's campaign filed a new Georgia-related lawsuit, alleging that it could prove widespread voter fraud in that state. The lawsuit was announced by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the campaign's top lawyer, and another campaign lawyer, Ray Smith.
The campaign and its allies have filed literally dozens of these types of lawsuits, which have consistently gone down to humiliating defeat when they actually make it before a judge. This is because Trump's complaints about the election are based on lies and disinformation.
Constitution reporter David Wickert notes, "Among other things, they said it would reveal tens of thousands of ineligible voters — felons, people who registered when they were underage, out-of-state residents and others — cast ballots in the November election. The (Georgia) Secretary of State's Office has repeatedly denied any widespread voting fraud in Georgia."
But on Monday, the Fulton County Superior Court, according to Wickert, said that Trump campaign attorneys "did not pay the appropriate filing fee or fully complete the case information form." And Smith, in response, said that the fee will be paid.
This rejection by the superior court in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, is one of many election results challenges in Georgia that has gone badly for Trump and his supporters. In Georgia, Judge Timothy C. Batten slammed a lawsuit by pro-Trump attorneys Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, saying that they waited too long to file the lawsuit and rejecting their request to decertify the presidential election results in Georgia.
Powell and Wood, in that lawsuit, claimed that equipment by Dominion Voting Systems was used in Georgia to swing the election results in Biden's favor. The attorneys have preposterously claimed that in Venezuela, Dominion's equipment was used to help leftist President Hugo Chavez (who died in 2013) steal votes — and Dominion, in a press release, stressed that its equipment has never even been used in the South American country.
That Powell/Wood lawsuit was separate from the Trump campaign, although Powell and Wood are both aggressive Trump supporters. Powell's antics are so beyond the pale that even Trump's legal team has distanced itself from her. In an official statement in November, Giuliani and Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis said, "Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump legal team. She is also not a lawyer for the president in his personal capacity."
In Georgia, Biden's victory over Trump has been proven three times — first in the election, then in two recounts. And on Monday, following the second recount, Biden's victory in that state was recertified.
On Saturday, a federal appeals court rejected one of Wood's lawsuits. Wood, in one of his tweets, wrote that Trump should declare martial law because of widespread voter fraud — which is something he has offered no concrete proof of.


alternet--2020-12-07--The future of Trumpism: How the right's fallen hero could become yet another embarrassing regret

One version of conventional wisdom holds that if the Republican establishment had tried harder to control Donald Trump , his supporters might have started to question him and he would have lost his stranglehold on the Republican base .
We fondly recall those Republican leaders , led by the right-wing senator and former presidential nominee Barry Goldwater , going up to the White House to tell Richard Nixon it was over , or the Senate 's vote to censure red-baiting Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy , as events that broke the fever and brought their rabid followers back to reality .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do n't think any of us should be soothed by that example .
It was only six years later that the conservative movement that had been turbocharged by Goldwater 's 1964 defeat reached the pinnacle of national power with the election of Ronald Reagan .
The fever did n't break .
It got stronger .
And according to an article in the Washington Post by Yale historian Beverly Gage , we might recall McCarthy as the most hated man in America , but he maintained the support of a third of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of politics in disgrace .
I wrote last week about the GOP 's reluctance to confront McCarthy ( and Trump ) , out of both fear and opportunism .
But Gage points out that out of that ignominious defeat , a new generation of right-wing activists was born .
And she adds , ominously : We do n't often hear , she observes , about `` the counter narrative that began to build among McCarthy 's grass-roots supporters during those years , in which the sheer volume of criticism aimed at the senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along : that the country was , indeed , run by a menacing but elusive liberal-communist conspiracy aimed at taking down right-thinking , God-fearing Americans . ''
That certainly sounds familiar .
Gage also notes that this began the construction of right-wing institutions that took advantage of the conspiratorial thinking that sprang from that era .
Over the years they dropped poor old McCarthy from their list of mentors , replacing him with more respectable names like Goldwater and Reagan .
But McCarthyism was the genesis of what came to be defined as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rally in Georgia over the weekend , ostensibly to support the two Republican senators campaigning for the runoff election in January and gave his interpretation : If you wanted a plain and simple definition of Trumpism , McCarthyism or any other version of the conspiracy-addled conservative mindset , there it is .
This sense of grievance has been there for many decades now .
I do n't know whether this will have legs , though .
Trump 's supporters are up in arms about what they 've been told is a stolen election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tells them that he has proof and that his forces will prevail .
It 's hard to predict what they will do when confronted with the hard cold fact that Trump is no longer going to be president .
This Tuesday marks the `` safe harbor '' deadline for the resolution of all electoral disputes , and the members of the Electoral College will cast their votes next Monday , Dec. 14 .
Trump 's fans may enjoy playing victims , but when it comes to their leaders , they do n't like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will retain his popularity with this base , I would just remind people that we 've just recently seen a Republican president topple from dizzying heights of popularity that Trump has never come close to seeing .
I 'm speaking of George W. Bush , who entered the White House having lost the popular vote and won in the Electoral College , thanks to machinations in a state that was governed by his brother , along with an overtly partisan Supreme Court decision .
He nonetheless entered office with a 57 % approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after 9/11 .
Bush soon fell out of favor with Democrats after he launched the Iraq war , but Republicans adored him as fervently as they love Trump .
Bush flew high for years .
The mainstream media extolled him as the second coming of Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln rolled into one .
His cocksure declaration that the terrorists would `` hear from us real soon '' at the World Trade Center site had pundits swooning as if he had delivered FDR 's `` a day that will live in infamy '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cowboy who liked to clear brush on his faux ranch in Texas , but also a guy but with a great arm who could `` throw a strike '' over the plate in the first Yankee game after the terrorist attack .
A year or so later , he was seen as a fighter-pilot president who landed on the deck of an aircraft carrier , evoking hours of stomach-churning , sycophantic media coverage .
Here 's one of the most egregious examples from that day , a so-called commentary from Chris Matthews : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filled with ecstatic followers , you do n't remember the Bush events in 2004 in which he would land on the field on Marine One to the thundering strains of `` The Natural '' theme .
By the way , Bush actually won his re-election campaign , unlike Donald Trump .
And guess what happened after that ?
Within three years , his war was a train wreck , the economy was in free fall and he had bungled the horrific disaster of Hurricane Katrina .
Then the global economy imploded and Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rating sink as low as 25 % by October 2008 , just before the election of Barack Obama .
Will Trump 's followers go the way the Bush-loving base once went ?
I do n't know , but it 's certainly possible .
As I said , for all their grievances and feelings of victimization , Republicans do n't like losers .
And Donald Trump is most definitely a colossal , historic failure , whose pathetic attempts to pretend otherwise have sealed his legacy as the sorest loser in recent human history .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative movement , the Reagan Revolution , proud patriots , the Tea Party , MAGA , Trumpism or something else , that rabid base will still be with us .
They love to worship their leaders , but when they get tired of them they toss them out like yesterday 's papers and start looking for the next one .
But Wingnut Nation will live on , Trump or no Trump .

One version of conventional wisdom holds that if the Republican establishment had tried harder to control Donald Trump, his supporters might have started to question him and he would have lost his stranglehold on the Republican base. We fondly recall those Republican leaders, led by the right-wing senator and former presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, going up to the White House to tell Richard Nixon it was over, or the Senate's vote to censure red-baiting Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy, as events that broke the fever and brought their rabid followers back to reality.
As far as Nixon is concerned, I don't think any of us should be soothed by that example. It was only six years later that the conservative movement that had been turbocharged by Goldwater's 1964 defeat reached the pinnacle of national power with the election of Ronald Reagan. The fever didn't break. It got stronger.
And according to an article in the Washington Post by Yale historian Beverly Gage, we might recall McCarthy as the most hated man in America, but he maintained the support of a third of the country even after he was driven out of politics in disgrace. I wrote last week about the GOP's reluctance to confront McCarthy (and Trump), out of both fear and opportunism. But Gage points out that out of that ignominious defeat, a new generation of right-wing activists was born. And she adds, ominously:
Something similar is likely to happen as Trump departs the Oval Office warning of elite conspiracies and rigged ballots, encouraging his base to see themselves as noble warriors against an illegitimate political order. While the Trump presidency will soon be over, the history of Trumpism is just beginning.
We don't often hear, she observes, about "the counter narrative that began to build among McCarthy's grass-roots supporters during those years, in which the sheer volume of criticism aimed at the senator became proof that he was right all along: that the country was, indeed, run by a menacing but elusive liberal-communist conspiracy aimed at taking down right-thinking, God-fearing Americans."
That certainly sounds familiar. Gage also notes that this began the construction of right-wing institutions that took advantage of the conspiratorial thinking that sprang from that era. Over the years they dropped poor old McCarthy from their list of mentors, replacing him with more respectable names like Goldwater and Reagan. But McCarthyism was the genesis of what came to be defined as the conservative movement.
Gage continues:
Trump's story of what happened in the 2020 election bears all the hallmarks of McCarthyite myth: conspiring elites, hidden corruption, even the threat of an imminent socialist takeover. And though Trump will no doubt leave office on Jan. 20, that story — and the powerful sense of grievance behind it — is sure to thrive in the years ahead ...
Today's Republican establishment may ultimately repudiate the man who has held it in thrall — and in fear — for four-plus years. But it is Trump's base, and their interpretation of his ouster from Washington, that will determine the future of Trumpism.
Trump held a rally in Georgia over the weekend, ostensibly to support the two Republican senators campaigning for the runoff election in January and gave his interpretation:
If you wanted a plain and simple definition of Trumpism, McCarthyism or any other version of the conspiracy-addled conservative mindset, there it is. This sense of grievance has been there for many decades now.
I don't know whether this will have legs, though. Trump's supporters are up in arms about what they've been told is a stolen election. They believe their leader when he tells them that he has proof and that his forces will prevail. It's hard to predict what they will do when confronted with the hard cold fact that Trump is no longer going to be president. This Tuesday marks the "safe harbor" deadline for the resolution of all electoral disputes, and the members of the Electoral College will cast their votes next Monday, Dec. 14. Trump's fans may enjoy playing victims, but when it comes to their leaders, they don't like losers.
As we consider whether Trump will retain his popularity with this base, I would just remind people that we've just recently seen a Republican president topple from dizzying heights of popularity that Trump has never come close to seeing. I'm speaking of George W. Bush, who entered the White House having lost the popular vote and won in the Electoral College, thanks to machinations in a state that was governed by his brother, along with an overtly partisan Supreme Court decision. He nonetheless entered office with a 57% approval rating, which soared to 90% after 9/11. Bush soon fell out of favor with Democrats after he launched the Iraq war, but Republicans adored him as fervently as they love Trump.
Bush flew high for years. The mainstream media extolled him as the second coming of Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln rolled into one. His cocksure declaration that the terrorists would "hear from us real soon" at the World Trade Center site had pundits swooning as if he had delivered FDR's "a day that will live in infamy" speech. He was perceived as a cowboy who liked to clear brush on his faux ranch in Texas, but also a guy but with a great arm who could "throw a strike" over the plate in the first Yankee game after the terrorist attack. A year or so later, he was seen as a fighter-pilot president who landed on the deck of an aircraft carrier, evoking hours of stomach-churning, sycophantic media coverage. Here's one of the most egregious examples from that day, a so-called commentary from Chris Matthews:
We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton. ... Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president.
If you think Trump's rallies are filled with ecstatic followers, you don't remember the Bush events in 2004 in which he would land on the field on Marine One to the thundering strains of "The Natural" theme. By the way, Bush actually won his re-election campaign, unlike Donald Trump. And guess what happened after that? Within three years, his war was a train wreck, the economy was in free fall and he had bungled the horrific disaster of Hurricane Katrina. Then the global economy imploded and Bush became monumentally unpopular, seeing his approval rating sink as low as 25% by October 2008, just before the election of Barack Obama.
Will Trump's followers go the way the Bush-loving base once went? I don't know, but it's certainly possible. As I said, for all their grievances and feelings of victimization, Republicans don't like losers. And Donald Trump is most definitely a colossal, historic failure, whose pathetic attempts to pretend otherwise have sealed his legacy as the sorest loser in recent human history.
Unfortunately, whether they call themselves the conservative movement, the Reagan Revolution, proud patriots, the Tea Party, MAGA, Trumpism or something else, that rabid base will still be with us. They love to worship their leaders, but when they get tired of them they toss them out like yesterday's papers and start looking for the next one. But Wingnut Nation will live on, Trump or no Trump.


alternet--2020-12-07--These 1,500+ attorneys argue Trump's legal team must face sanctions for 'historic abuse'

As President Donald Trump continues what critics have called a `` narcissistic crusade '' contesting his loss of the November election with lies and baseless lawsuits about election fraud and security , by Monday more than 1,500 attorneys across the country had signed on to a call for bar associations to condemn and investigate his campaign 's lawyers .
Although even some Trump allies like U.S. Attorney General William Barr have admitted there is no evidence of mass voter fraud that led to President-elect Joe Biden 's victory last month , the president 's attorneys have continued to pursue suits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in bad faith that state and local officials are beginning to call for judges to sanction Trump campaign and Republican lawyers , '' as Vox noted Saturday .
Those calls are coupled with the Lawyers Defending American Democracy ( LDAD ) open letter , which has now been signed by hundreds of attorneys—among them , former American Bar Association ( ABA ) and state bar presidents , retired federal judges and state Supreme Court justices , and former leaders of lawyer disciplinary bodies .
`` More than 35 losses in election-related cases have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump 's barrage of litigation is a pretext for a campaign to undermine public confidence in the outcome of the 2020 election , which inevitably will subvert constitutional democracy , '' the letter says .
`` Sadly , the president 's primary agents and enablers in this effort are lawyers , obligated by their oath and ethical rules to uphold the rule of law . ''
In a statement Monday , Stephen Gillers , professor of legal ethics at New York University 's School of Law and a signatory to the letter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump would attack the courts and other public institutions to sow distrust in the election results . ''
`` Sadly , some lawyers are abusing their law licenses and positions as officers of the court to aid him , '' Gillers added .
`` 'President 's Lawyers Trash American Democracy ' is a headline we never expected to see .
To mitigate the harm such tactics can inflict , the bar must forcefully repudiate their behavior . ''
Urging bar associations to condemn and investigate `` this abuse '' of U.S. law and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's lawyers by name : The letter details their three-pronged strategy—make baseless press statements about fraud ; replace fraud assertions with speculative claims in court ; then return to echoing Trump by making fraud and conspiracy claims to the press—and highlights some their recent remarks .
It also notes that federal judges appointed by various presidents , including Trump , `` have rejected the Trump legal teams ' factual assertions and legal claims , more than one in scathing terms . ''
As Cheryl Niro , former president of the Illinois State Bar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , put it : `` The facts are clear : the election was secure and the results have been consistently confirmed .
Giuliani and certain Trump campaign lawyers have either been lying to the public or believe frivolous and unfounded claims , calling into question their fitness to practice law . ''
`` The conduct of Mr. Giuliani and his colleagues is a disgrace , '' the letter declares .
`` We condemn this conduct without reservation .
It demeans the legal profession and the multitudes of lawyers of all political persuasions who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honorably .
Our profession needs to affirm that this behavior grossly deviates from the bar 's deep commitment to democratic institutions and the fact-based processes that maintain our democracy 's vitality . ''
Marna S. Tucker , a past president of the D.C. Bar and a signatory to the letter , also warned Monday of the consequences if Trump 's attorneys are allowed to continue their behavior .
`` The legal profession enjoys the privilege of self-regulation , '' Tucker said .
`` That privilege demands that we assure the public that lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be disciplined by appropriate disciplinary authorities .
If the public does not see us discipline our own for their misconduct , that privilege is imperiled . ''
Echoing the letter 's conclusion , Laurel G. Bellows , another signatory and former head of both the American Bar Association and the Chicago Bar Association , urged other attorneys to support the joint demand for accountability .
`` Our justice system only works when lawyers tell the truth and adhere to their oath , '' Bellows explained .
`` Every attorney , including the organized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers who trample the truth and undermine democracy through their false statements . ''
The figures for the LDAD letter were announced after news broke over the weekend that Giuliani , the former mayor of New York City , had tested positive for Covid-19 .
Trump tweeted Saturday that Giuliani , `` by far the greatest mayor in the history of NYC , and who has been working tirelessly exposing the most corrupt election ( by far ! )
in the history of the USA , has tested positive for the China Virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will carry on !
!
! ''
The Associated Press reported that the 76-year-old `` was exhibiting some symptoms and was admitted Sunday to Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington . ''
Last week , in addition to visiting Georgia and Michigan , Giuliani went to Arizona and met with multiple state lawmakers .
After his diagnosis was made public , the Arizona legislature closed both chambers this week `` out of an abundance of caution for recent cases and concerns relating to Covid-19 , '' according to an email to state House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which noted that `` no one will have permission to work or meet in the building . ''
In a statement Sunday , Trump 's legal team said that `` Mayor Giuliani tested negative twice immediately preceding his trip to Arizona , Michigan , and Georgia .
The Mayor did not experience any symptoms or test positive for Covid-19 until more than 48 hours after his return .
Citing current guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , the statement added that `` no legislators in any state or members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ list . ''

As President Donald Trump continues what critics have called a "narcissistic crusade" contesting his loss of the November election with lies and baseless lawsuits about election fraud and security, by Monday more than 1,500 attorneys across the country had signed on to a call for bar associations to condemn and investigate his campaign's lawyers.
Although even some Trump allies like U.S. Attorney General William Barr have admitted there is no evidence of mass voter fraud that led to President-elect Joe Biden's victory last month, the president's attorneys have continued to pursue suits that "have become so transparently filed in bad faith that state and local officials are beginning to call for judges to sanction Trump campaign and Republican lawyers," as Vox noted Saturday.
Those calls are coupled with the Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) open letter, which has now been signed by hundreds of attorneys—among them, former American Bar Association (ABA) and state bar presidents, retired federal judges and state Supreme Court justices, and former leaders of lawyer disciplinary bodies.
"More than 35 losses in election-related cases have made one thing painfully clear: President Trump's barrage of litigation is a pretext for a campaign to undermine public confidence in the outcome of the 2020 election, which inevitably will subvert constitutional democracy," the letter says. "Sadly, the president's primary agents and enablers in this effort are lawyers, obligated by their oath and ethical rules to uphold the rule of law."
In a statement Monday, Stephen Gillers, professor of legal ethics at New York University's School of Law and a signatory to the letter, said that "it was predictable that Trump would attack the courts and other public institutions to sow distrust in the election results."
"Sadly, some lawyers are abusing their law licenses and positions as officers of the court to aid him," Gillers added. "'President's Lawyers Trash American Democracy' is a headline we never expected to see. To mitigate the harm such tactics can inflict, the bar must forcefully repudiate their behavior."
Urging bar associations to condemn and investigate "this abuse" of U.S. law and democracy, the letter calls out Trump's lawyers by name:
The president put Rudolph Giuliani in charge of the Trump legal team. Notwithstanding their monumental string of losses, Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Joseph DiGenova, Victoria Toensing and, until November 23, Sidney Powell, have persisted with press statements, purported "hearings," and continuing litigation. Behind the fog created by this waste and distraction of the country's attention is a president's and his lawyers' historic abuse of the judicial process.
The letter details their three-pronged strategy—make baseless press statements about fraud; replace fraud assertions with speculative claims in court; then return to echoing Trump by making fraud and conspiracy claims to the press—and highlights some their recent remarks. It also notes that federal judges appointed by various presidents, including Trump, "have rejected the Trump legal teams' factual assertions and legal claims, more than one in scathing terms."
As Cheryl Niro, former president of the Illinois State Bar and a steering committee member of LDAD, put it: "The facts are clear: the election was secure and the results have been consistently confirmed. Giuliani and certain Trump campaign lawyers have either been lying to the public or believe frivolous and unfounded claims, calling into question their fitness to practice law."
"The conduct of Mr. Giuliani and his colleagues is a disgrace," the letter declares. "We condemn this conduct without reservation. It demeans the legal profession and the multitudes of lawyers of all political persuasions who daily serve their clients and the public honorably. Our profession needs to affirm that this behavior grossly deviates from the bar's deep commitment to democratic institutions and the fact-based processes that maintain our democracy's vitality."
Marna S. Tucker, a past president of the D.C. Bar and a signatory to the letter, also warned Monday of the consequences if Trump's attorneys are allowed to continue their behavior.
"The legal profession enjoys the privilege of self-regulation," Tucker said. "That privilege demands that we assure the public that lawyers who press unfounded election fraud claims will be disciplined by appropriate disciplinary authorities. If the public does not see us discipline our own for their misconduct, that privilege is imperiled."
Echoing the letter's conclusion, Laurel G. Bellows, another signatory and former head of both the American Bar Association and the Chicago Bar Association, urged other attorneys to support the joint demand for accountability.
"Our justice system only works when lawyers tell the truth and adhere to their oath," Bellows explained. "Every attorney, including the organized bar and disciplinary authorities, should disavow lawyers who trample the truth and undermine democracy through their false statements."
The figures for the LDAD letter were announced after news broke over the weekend that Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, had tested positive for Covid-19.
Trump tweeted Saturday that Giuliani, "by far the greatest mayor in the history of NYC, and who has been working tirelessly exposing the most corrupt election (by far!) in the history of the USA, has tested positive for the China Virus. Get better soon Rudy, we will carry on!!!"
The Associated Pressreported that the 76-year-old "was exhibiting some symptoms and was admitted Sunday to Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington."
Last week, in addition to visiting Georgia and Michigan, Giuliani went to Arizona and met with multiple state lawmakers. After his diagnosis was made public, the Arizona legislature closed both chambers this week "out of an abundance of caution for recent cases and concerns relating to Covid-19," according to an email to state House members obtained by the Washington Post, which noted that "no one will have permission to work or meet in the building."
In a statement Sunday, Trump's legal team said that "Mayor Giuliani tested negative twice immediately preceding his trip to Arizona, Michigan, and Georgia. The Mayor did not experience any symptoms or test positive for Covid-19 until more than 48 hours after his return.
Citing current guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the statement added that "no legislators in any state or members of the press are on the contact tracing list."


alternet--2020-12-07--Listen: GOP-appointed judge  excoriates Sidney Powell’s assault on democratic election results

Sidney Powell , the attorney whose over-the-top antics led President Donald Trump 's legal team to distance itself from her , has found her lawsuits vehemently rebuked by more than one judge .
In Michigan , a Powell lawsuit challenging President-elect Joe Biden 's victory in that state was slammed by U.S. District Judge Linda Parker — and in Georgia , GOP-appointed Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. had no kind words for a Powell lawsuit challenging the election results in that state .
Powell claimed that in Georgia , the Dominion Voting Systems equipment was used to unfairly swing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and she alleged that Dominion 's equipment was also used by leftist President Hugo Chavez ( who died of cancer in 2013 ) to steal votes in Venezuela .
However , Dominion has stressed , in response , that its equipment has never even been used in the South American country .
Batten , in his decision , complained , `` I find that the plaintiffs waited too long to file this suit .
Their primary complaint involves the Dominion ballot marking devices .
They say that those machines are susceptible to fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have followed the Administrative Procedure Act and objected to the rule-making authority that had been exercised by the secretary of state . ''
The judge added , `` This suit could have been filed months ago… .
The plaintiffs waited over three weeks after the election to file the suit — there 's no question , in my mind , that if I were to deny the motion to dismiss , the matter would be brought before the 11th Circuit , and the 11th Circuit would reverse me .
The relief that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not grant . ''
In the Michigan lawsuit that Judge Parker criticized , Powell wanted to decertify the election results — and she wanted to do the same thing in Georgia .
And Batten was vehemently opposed to that idea .
`` Finally , in their complaint , the plaintiffs essentially ask the court for perhaps the most extraordinary relief ever sought in any federal court in connection with an election , and they want this court to substitute its judgment for that of 2.5 million Georgia voters who voted for Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do , '' Batten ruled .

Sidney Powell, the attorney whose over-the-top antics led President Donald Trump's legal team to distance itself from her, has found her lawsuits vehemently rebuked by more than one judge. In Michigan, a Powell lawsuit challenging President-elect Joe Biden's victory in that state was slammed by U.S. District Judge Linda Parker — and in Georgia, GOP-appointed Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. had no kind words for a Powell lawsuit challenging the election results in that state.
Powell claimed that in Georgia, the Dominion Voting Systems equipment was used to unfairly swing the election results in Biden's favor — and she alleged that Dominion's equipment was also used by leftist President Hugo Chavez (who died of cancer in 2013) to steal votes in Venezuela. However, Dominion has stressed, in response, that its equipment has never even been used in the South American country.
Batten, in his decision, complained, "I find that the plaintiffs waited too long to file this suit. Their primary complaint involves the Dominion ballot marking devices. They say that those machines are susceptible to fraud. There's no reason they could not have followed the Administrative Procedure Act and objected to the rule-making authority that had been exercised by the secretary of state."
The judge added, "This suit could have been filed months ago…. The plaintiffs waited over three weeks after the election to file the suit — there's no question, in my mind, that if I were to deny the motion to dismiss, the matter would be brought before the 11th Circuit, and the 11th Circuit would reverse me. The relief that the plaintiffs seek, this court cannot grant."
In the Michigan lawsuit that Judge Parker criticized, Powell wanted to decertify the election results — and she wanted to do the same thing in Georgia. And Batten was vehemently opposed to that idea.
"Finally, in their complaint, the plaintiffs essentially ask the court for perhaps the most extraordinary relief ever sought in any federal court in connection with an election, and they want this court to substitute its judgment for that of 2.5 million Georgia voters who voted for Joe Biden — and this I am unwilling to do," Batten ruled.
Listen to Batten's decision here:


alternet--2020-12-07--Melania Trump unveils new White House tennis court as US COVID deaths approach 300,000

December 7 , 2020 — a day which will live in tennis history !
Big news , dead Americans !
You have a new White House tennis court to look down on as you temporarily pry your gaze from the immaculate , eternal , and supremely blissful beatific vision !
Oh , yay !
That will take the sting out of the swimming pool full of coronavirus and murder hornets we 're fixin ' to cannonball into this winter .
While it 's important to note that the pavilion was paid for with private donations ( I guess the optics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after spending tens of millions on POTUS ' golf trips would be , well , bad ) , maybe there are better things for the first lady to focus on .
Like , say , anything else .
Hmm , for some reason I 'm reminded of this : Say , what is Melania planning for Christmas this year ?
Will we see children decked out in adorable Dickensian street urchin couture as they beg for thin gruel from Mitch McConnell , Steve Mnuchin , and Daddy Trump ?
Because that would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or maybe she could depict Balthazar , Caspar , and Melchior showing up on Epiphany Sunday with some gold , frankincense , and millions of Trump ballots they found in a Long John Silver 's dumpster somewhere .
Now that would be a focking miracle .

December 7, 2020 — a day which will live in tennis history!
Big news, dead Americans! You have a new White House tennis court to look down on as you temporarily pry your gaze from the immaculate, eternal, and supremely blissful beatific vision!
Politico:
Weeks before her family turns the White House over to President-elect Joe Biden, Melania Trump announced Monday that a new tennis pavilion on the south grounds is ready for action.
Oh, yay! That will take the sting out of the swimming pool full of coronavirus and murder hornets we're fixin' to cannonball into this winter.
While it's important to note that the pavilion was paid for with private donations (I guess the optics of gouging taxpayers for a tennis court after spending tens of millions on POTUS' golf trips would be, well, bad), maybe there are better things for the first lady to focus on. Like, say, anything else.
Earlier this year, as the coronavirus pandemic began to take hold in the U.S., the first lady tweeted photos of herself wearing a hard hat while reviewing blueprints for the pavilion.
Her critics lashed out, with some calling the photos insensitive during the coronavirus scare. She pushed back in a follow-up tweet encouraging "everyone who chooses to be negative & question my work at the @WhiteHouse to take time and contribute something good & productive in their own communities."
Hmm, for some reason I'm reminded of this:
Say, what is Melania planning for Christmas this year? Will we see children decked out in adorable Dickensian street urchin couture as they beg for thin gruel from Mitch McConnell, Steve Mnuchin, and Daddy Trump?
Because that would be a theme befitting our current situation.
Or maybe she could depict Balthazar, Caspar, and Melchior showing up on Epiphany Sunday with some gold, frankincense, and millions of Trump ballots they found in a Long John Silver's dumpster somewhere.
Now that would be a focking miracle.


alternet--2020-12-07--GOP has more in common with authoritarian regimes than traditional conservatives: Dean Obeidallah

In addition to winning 306 electoral votes , President-elect Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump by more than 7 million in the popular vote .
But on Saturday , December 5 , the Washington Post reported that out of 249 Republicans serving in the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives , only 27 of them were willing to publicly acknowledge Biden as president-elect .
Journalist Dean Obeidallah , a Daily Beast columnist and host of `` The Dean Obeidallah Show '' on SiriusXM , discusses the Republican response to Biden 's victory in an op-ed for CNN 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this refusal to accept democratic election results shows how much the GOP of 2020 has in common with authoritarian parties like Hungary 's Fidesz and Turkey 's AKP .
`` A study released in October by experts from the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden documented the GOP 's descent toward authoritarianism , '' Obeidallah explains .
`` Anna Luehrmann , one of the lead authors of the study , told CNN the GOP 's philosophy of 'take all means necessary to achieve our policy ' has left it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fidesz and Turkey 's AKP . ''
Obeidallah notes that although some prominent Republicans have n't hesitated to acknowledge Biden as president-elect — for example , Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah — many others have not .
And refusing to accept democratic election results , Obeidallah laments , shows a dangerously authoritarian mentality .
`` Trump is not an aberration — he 's a manifestation of where the GOP has been heading , '' Obeidallah warns .
`` Until we hear GOP members of Congress say otherwise , we must assume they agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 election results and getting reinstalled as president for four more years . ''
Obeidallah is n't the only journalist who has made a GOP/Fidesz comparison : liberal economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has argued that in 2020 , the GOP has more in common with Fidesz , far-right Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán 's party , than it does with the Conservative Party of the U.K .
According to Krugman , `` The decay of U.S. democracy is n't about 'politics ' ; it 's about one party 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP is nothing like center-right parties in other advanced nations ; it 's more like Fidesz , which has turned Hungary into a one-party state , than it is like , say , Britain 's Tories . ''
Obeidallah 's GOP/AKP analogy is also quite disturbing .
In Turkey , the AKP Party is led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan .
Turkey was once the most liberal and democratic country in the Islamic world , but the far-right Erdoğan , since coming to power , has done everything he can to undermine Turkey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn it into an authoritarian state .
Obeidallah wraps up his CNN op-ed by emphasizing that Democrats should n't hesitate to call out GOP authoritarianism .
`` My message to Democratic leaders is that it 's time to stop being timid about using words like 'authoritarian , ' 'un-American ' and perhaps even 'fascist ' to describe Trump and the GOP 's tactics , '' Obeidallah writes .
`` The stakes are too high not to call it like it is . ''

In addition to winning 306 electoral votes, President-elect Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump by more than 7 million in the popular vote. But on Saturday, December 5, the Washington Post reported that out of 249 Republicans serving in the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives, only 27 of them were willing to publicly acknowledge Biden as president-elect. Journalist Dean Obeidallah, a Daily Beast columnist and host of "The Dean Obeidallah Show" on SiriusXM, discusses the Republican response to Biden's victory in an op-ed for CNN's website — and in Obeidallah's view, this refusal to accept democratic election results shows how much the GOP of 2020 has in common with authoritarian parties like Hungary's Fidesz and Turkey's AKP.
"A study released in October by experts from the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden documented the GOP's descent toward authoritarianism," Obeidallah explains. "Anna Luehrmann, one of the lead authors of the study, told CNN the GOP's philosophy of 'take all means necessary to achieve our policy' has left it resembling authoritarian ruling parties like Hungary's Fidesz and Turkey's AKP."
Obeidallah notes that although some prominent Republicans haven't hesitated to acknowledge Biden as president-elect — for example, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah — many others have not. And refusing to accept democratic election results, Obeidallah laments, shows a dangerously authoritarian mentality.
"Trump is not an aberration — he's a manifestation of where the GOP has been heading," Obeidallah warns. "Until we hear GOP members of Congress say otherwise, we must assume they agree with Trump's agenda of overturning the 2020 election results and getting reinstalled as president for four more years."
Obeidallah isn't the only journalist who has made a GOP/Fidesz comparison: liberal economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has argued that in 2020, the GOP has more in common with Fidesz, far-right Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's party, than it does with the Conservative Party of the U.K. According to Krugman, "The decay of U.S. democracy isn't about 'politics'; it's about one party's turn away from democracy. Today's GOP is nothing like center-right parties in other advanced nations; it's more like Fidesz, which has turned Hungary into a one-party state, than it is like, say, Britain's Tories."
Obeidallah's GOP/AKP analogy is also quite disturbing. In Turkey, the AKP Party is led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Turkey was once the most liberal and democratic country in the Islamic world, but the far-right Erdoğan, since coming to power, has done everything he can to undermine Turkey's system of checks and balances and turn it into an authoritarian state.
Obeidallah wraps up his CNN op-ed by emphasizing that Democrats shouldn't hesitate to call out GOP authoritarianism.
"My message to Democratic leaders is that it's time to stop being timid about using words like 'authoritarian,' 'un-American' and perhaps even 'fascist' to describe Trump and the GOP's tactics," Obeidallah writes. "The stakes are too high not to call it like it is."


alternet--2020-12-07--Sen. Ron Johnson invites AIDS-denying anti-vaxxer to testify on COVID

Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson , Republican of Wisconsin , has invited a physician known for opposing vaccines and promoting hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 to testify before the Senate on the coronavirus pandemic on Tuesday .
Dr. Jane Orient `` will be the lead witness at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Tuesday , prompting criticism from Democrats who say Republicans should not give a platform to someone who spreads conspiracy theories , '' The New York Times reports .
She is the head of two fringe medical groups , the American Association of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Preparedness .
Orient and her groups oppose vaccine mandates , support the false claim being gay reduces life expectancy , and warned in a 2018 article of `` tattooed MS-13 gang members , rapists , jihadists , human traffickers , and other criminals intent on harming Americans .
Such people also infect , molest , assault , or murder people in their own countries and in the caravan . ''
Doctors for Disaster Preparedness ( DDP ) rejects the scientifically-proven theory of man-made climate change , and supports debunked quackery known as AIDS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bloomberg reported , one speaker , a `` retired heart surgeon from Seattle spent almost an hour arguing that HIV does not cause AIDS ; rather , he said , the link was invented by government scientists who wanted to cover up other health risks of 'the lifestyle of homosexual men . '
'' In an interview with the Times she criticized Dr. Anthony Fauci , the federal government 's most-respected public voice on the coronavirus pandemic , asking , `` Why is he dictating care for 340 million Americans ? ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious intrusion into individual liberty , autonomy and parental decisions , '' the Times notes , and has `` resisted being cast as an 'anti-vaxxer ' '' but `` opposed the government 's push for all Americans to be vaccinated against the coronavirus . ''
`` Her selection as a witness as federal health officials are trying to promote a vaccine as a way to end a pandemic that has killed more than 281,000 Americans prompted harsh criticism from Senator Chuck Schumer , Democrat of New York and the minority leader . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bloomberg added in its prescient January , 2016 article .
`` Working with his daughter Rebekah , he 's spent tens of millions more to advance a conservative agenda , investing in think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation , the media outlet Breitbart.com , and Cambridge Analytica , a data company that builds psychological profiles of voters . ''
Cambridge Analytica was the scandal-plagued political consulting firm that helped place Donald Trump in the white House .

Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, has invited a physician known for opposing vaccines and promoting hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 to testify before the Senate on the coronavirus pandemic on Tuesday.
Dr. Jane Orient "will be the lead witness at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Tuesday, prompting criticism from Democrats who say Republicans should not give a platform to someone who spreads conspiracy theories," The New York Times reports.
She is the head of two fringe medical groups, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons and Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.
Orient and her groups oppose vaccine mandates, support the false claim being gay reduces life expectancy, and warned in a 2018 article of "tattooed MS-13 gang members, rapists, jihadists, human traffickers, and other criminals intent on harming Americans. Such people also infect, molest, assault, or murder people in their own countries and in the caravan."
Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP) rejects the scientifically-proven theory of man-made climate change, and supports debunked quackery known as AIDS denialism. At its 2015 annual meeting, Bloomberg reported, one speaker, a "retired heart surgeon from Seattle spent almost an hour arguing that HIV does not cause AIDS; rather, he said, the link was invented by government scientists who wanted to cover up other health risks of 'the lifestyle of homosexual men.'"
In an interview with the Times she criticized Dr. Anthony Fauci, the federal government's most-respected public voice on the coronavirus pandemic, asking, "Why is he dictating care for 340 million Americans?"
Orient has called vaccine mandates "a serious intrusion into individual liberty, autonomy and parental decisions," the Times notes, and has "resisted being cast as an 'anti-vaxxer'" but "opposed the government's push for all Americans to be vaccinated against the coronavirus."
"Her selection as a witness as federal health officials are trying to promote a vaccine as a way to end a pandemic that has killed more than 281,000 Americans prompted harsh criticism from Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader."
Orient is funded by extremist Robert Mercer, Bloomberg added in its prescient January, 2016 article.
"Working with his daughter Rebekah, he's spent tens of millions more to advance a conservative agenda, investing in think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the media outlet Breitbart.com, and Cambridge Analytica, a data company that builds psychological profiles of voters."
Cambridge Analytica was the scandal-plagued political consulting firm that helped place Donald Trump in the white House.