truthout--2020-04-26--Don’t Bail Out Oil and Gas — Use the Money for Environmental Cleanup Instead

Despite the evidence that the fossil fuel industry in the U.S. is not profitable and basically a giant money pit , President Trump tweeted last Tuesday that he has directed his cabinet to come up with a bailout plan for the floundering industry .
The announcement came on the heels of a historic plunge in crude oil that sent prices deep into the red .
Because of decreases in demand due to COVID-19 and a long history of being propped up solely by government funding , the fracking industry in the U.S. looks to be on the verge of collapse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come .
As these fossil fuel companies go bankrupt or shutter completely , they shirk cleanup responsibilities – and the cost eventually falls on the taxpayer .
Instead of bailing out the moribund oil and gas industry , environmental advocates say that the federal government should take a step toward transitioning away from fossil fuels and put money into cleaning up idling or abandoned oil and gas wells .
These contaminated spots dot both public and private land as , through the decades , many oil and gas companies have left wells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Regulatory agencies also allow companies to leave a well idle for years even if they have no intention to turn back to them , providing another avenue to avoid cleaning up .
Across the country , there are millions of unplugged oil and gas wells waiting to be cleaned and sealed according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates .
The numbers vary , since , due to lax regulation by the Bureau of Land Management ( BLM ) and other state regulators , there aren ’ t many records of how many of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are .
In Pennsylvania , according to state officials , there are anywhere from 200,000 to 750,000 sites where the operator has gone bankrupt , leaving so-called orphan wells .
As long as they remain unplugged , idling and orphan wells are an environmental hazard .
They leak the potent greenhouse gas methane into the air and contaminate ground and surface water , posing risks to both wildlife and humans .
“ The [ oil and gas ] industry might view these apportioned and abandoned wells as benign , ” said Nadia Steinzor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But “ the fact that they are , in many cases , literally falling apart , and are not being maintained or overseen is a serious environmental problem.
” Though the companies in charge of these wells are technically responsible for cleanup , “ the oil and gas industry has gotten fairly clever at delaying their liability , ” said Tim Donaghy , senior research specialist at Greenpeace .
Companies are allowed to put off cleanup by paying small idling fees or simply slipping under the radar ; some just don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bankrupt .
Many ( if not all ) of these companies , even big ones , don ’ t have the money to fully fund cleanup anyway .
“ If you ask these companies to either clean up all their wells right away , or to put up as much money as it would cost to clean up the wells now , put it in a separate account , they couldn ’ t , ” said Steven Feit , an attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law ( CIEL ) .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there.
” Though Feit admits that it ’ s not necessarily fair to ask them to front the cost for every well up front , “ the problem , especially with fracking , is that of these companies are not producing positive cash flow ” to address even the most immediate problems .
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO ) , a single well can cost anywhere from $ 20,000 to $ 150,000 to reclaim .
Fracking can ’ t recover as much product per well as traditional oil exploration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ add up .
With many companies teetering on the edge of bankruptcy even before the current pandemic – an Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis report found that bankruptcies in 2019 alone involved $ 26 billion in debt – there ’ s not much left over to spend on an activity that doesn ’ t make money .
In order to ensure that these sites get plugged , the BLM and state governments set bonds to fund cleanup if the responsible company becomes defunct .
But , as the GAO has reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amounts – which haven ’ t even been updated to count for inflation since the 1950s – set by the BLM are wholly insufficient to cover the actual cost of cleanup .
State level bonds are only marginally better .
“ The abandoned well issue really shines a light on the fact that this is an industry that has been unable to deal with its own pollution and its own true costs of operation , ” says Steinzor .
There have even been instances of companies avoiding paying their bonds altogether , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Oil and gas companies that are struggling financially “ will now say that [ abandoning wells is ] circumstantial because of COVID and the economic downturn , ” says Steinzor , “ but they have made choices along the way for decades to not properly shut down and abandon and clog their wells in a responsible way.
” Healthy companies may struggle after such a large crash , but could likely bounce back – the oil and gas industry , operating on razor-thin or nonexistent margins , have thus far only been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bailouts from the government .
As Feit co-wrote in a report for CIEL on the oil , gas and plastic industries , a massive pandemic bailout will only delay the industries ’ inevitable decline .
According to free-market principles that the right and other capitalists claim to love , by nearly every definition , the U.S. oil and gas industry has failed .
Yet , still , the government and financial institutions seem inclined to give them a massive bailout – again !
– anyways .
Instead of pouring billions into another fruitless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , money would be much better suited for funding orphan well cleanups instead .
States like Colorado and Ohio have recently increased funding for these efforts , but without federal support , this funding will likely not be enough .
With only the money allocated for cleanup now , the prospect of plugging every idle or orphan well is basically insurmountable .
State officials in Pennsylvania estimate that the cost to clean up every well in the state would cost around $ 7 billion .
“ At current funding levels , this would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhere around 17,000 years to complete , ” said Matt Kelso , manager of data and technology at FracTracker Alliance , over email .
As the current massive downturn in the fracking industry plays out , the problem will only multiply .
“ The orders of magnitude of this problem , ” said Kate Kelly , director of Public Lands at the Center for American Progress .
“ I don ’ t think we fully appreciate at this point.
” While using public money to clean up after oil and gas companies is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been built upon a “ polluter pays ” principle – the sheer amount of orphan wells with no documentation , some decades old , makes it impossible to track down the likely bankrupt responsible parties .
That ’ s why , instead , some groups are looking into ways to prevent this situation from happening in the future .
In funding existing orphan well cleanups , there are opportunities to be proactive and to pre-empt the message that the public will always end up cleaning up after fossil fuel companies .
For instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predicate [ orphan well ] funding upon states and the federal government and tribes demonstrating that they have adequate bonding requirements in place going forward.
” Kelly pointed out that there are also already dormant enforcement mechanisms that prevent companies from participating in lease sales if they ’ re neglecting their reclamation responsibilities .
There ’ s also an existing federal orphan well program , established as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 , that has no funding or enforcement mechanism that could also be revamped and funded in pandemic-related packages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mobilization efforts could also be a huge job creation and major stimulus opportunity .
The millions of unplugged wells not only need plugging , but they also need locating ; and the people who would be well-equipped for such surveying and cleanup jobs are the same people who may have been laid off by the oil and gas industry .
Massive recent downturns mean that abandoned wells may also be in the same places that oil and gas companies already operate , which means that many workers likely won ’ t even have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that job creation through well cleanup is mostly local .
State and local economies that are dependent upon the industry could benefit greatly from such a stimulus that provides not only funding , but jobs .
Some advocates view a cleanup program as part of a larger plan to manage the decline of the fossil fuel industry .
“ When there ’ s a disorganized transition , it hasn ’ t worked out well for the communities , or the workers , ” said Donaghy .
We can see this happening in real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not hundreds of thousands , after Tuesday ’ s crash – of shale gas employees are getting laid off due to the current crisis .
Planned declines could create new opportunities for these workers .
Megan Milliken Biven , a former program analyst at the Department of the Interior ’ s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management , is working with environmental groups on a bill that ties in not only increased enforcement for abandoned well monitoring , but also ensures that there is a moratorium on building residences on former oil and gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of nowhere , ” Biven told Truthout .
“ They are in the middle of communities .
They are in the hospitals .
They are next to schools .
They are next to houses that people own , depreciating property values , ” she said .
The bill Milliken Biven is writing also includes moratoriums on opening new sites , since prices will only continue to plummet if yet more oil is dredged up .
And , of course , the easiest way to prevent the mass of abandoned , unplugged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first place — abstinence , but for fossil fuel companies .
Environmental advocates may be hesitant to pass such bills , with fears of being seen as opportunistic in creating a climate “ wish list.
” But they need only to look to the crash course of disaster capitalism that is the unprecedented environmental rule rollbacks being passed in the name of the pandemic .
If polluters and the right wing are willing to use the pandemic to make the world dirtier and more unsafe for the sake of profits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it up and making it a better place to live .

Part of the Series Covering Climate Now
This story is published as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.
Despite the evidence that the fossil fuel industry in the U.S. is not profitable and basically a giant money pit, President Trump tweeted last Tuesday that he has directed his cabinet to come up with a bailout plan for the floundering industry. The announcement came on the heels of a historic plunge in crude oil that sent prices deep into the red.
Because of decreases in demand due to COVID-19 and a long history of being propped up solely by government funding, the fracking industry in the U.S. looks to be on the verge of collapse, with a huge wave of bankruptcies to come. As these fossil fuel companies go bankrupt or shutter completely, they shirk cleanup responsibilities – and the cost eventually falls on the taxpayer.
Instead of bailing out the moribund oil and gas industry, environmental advocates say that the federal government should take a step toward transitioning away from fossil fuels and put money into cleaning up idling or abandoned oil and gas wells. These contaminated spots dot both public and private land as, through the decades, many oil and gas companies have left wells unfilled when the companies become insolvent. Regulatory agencies also allow companies to leave a well idle for years even if they have no intention to turn back to them, providing another avenue to avoid cleaning up.
Across the country, there are millions of unplugged oil and gas wells waiting to be cleaned and sealed according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates. The numbers vary, since, due to lax regulation by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other state regulators, there aren’t many records of how many of these wells exist or even where these wells are. In Pennsylvania, according to state officials, there are anywhere from 200,000 to 750,000 sites where the operator has gone bankrupt, leaving so-called orphan wells.
As long as they remain unplugged, idling and orphan wells are an environmental hazard. They leak the potent greenhouse gas methane into the air and contaminate ground and surface water, posing risks to both wildlife and humans. “The [oil and gas] industry might view these orphaned and abandoned wells as benign,” said Nadia Steinzor, community empowerment project manager at Earthworks. But “the fact that they are, in many cases, literally falling apart, and are not being maintained or overseen is a serious environmental problem.”
Though the companies in charge of these wells are technically responsible for cleanup, “the oil and gas industry has gotten fairly clever at delaying their liability,” said Tim Donaghy, senior research specialist at Greenpeace. Companies are allowed to put off cleanup by paying small idling fees or simply slipping under the radar; some just don’t plug the wells and eventually go bankrupt.
Companies are allowed to put off cleanup by paying small idling fees or simply slipping under the radar; some just don’t plug the wells and eventually go bankrupt.
Many (if not all) of these companies, even big ones, don’t have the money to fully fund cleanup anyway. “If you ask these companies to either clean up all their wells right away, or to put up as much money as it would cost to clean up the wells now, put it in a separate account, they couldn’t,” said Steven Feit, an attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “There just isn’t enough money there.”
Though Feit admits that it’s not necessarily fair to ask them to front the cost for every well up front, “the problem, especially with fracking, is that of these companies are not producing positive cash flow” to address even the most immediate problems. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), a single well can cost anywhere from $20,000 to $150,000 to reclaim. Fracking can’t recover as much product per well as traditional oil exploration, so the cost for cleanup can add up. With many companies teetering on the edge of bankruptcy even before the current pandemic – an Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis report found that bankruptcies in 2019 alone involved $26 billion in debt – there’s not much left over to spend on an activity that doesn’t make money.
In order to ensure that these sites get plugged, the BLM and state governments set bonds to fund cleanup if the responsible company becomes defunct. But, as the GAO has reported many times over the years, bond amounts – which haven’t even been updated to count for inflation since the 1950s – set by the BLM are wholly insufficient to cover the actual cost of cleanup. State level bonds are only marginally better.
“The abandoned well issue really shines a light on the fact that this is an industry that has been unable to deal with its own pollution and its own true costs of operation,” says Steinzor. There have even been instances of companies avoiding paying their bonds altogether, even though bonds have been set so low.
Oil and gas companies that are struggling financially “will now say that [abandoning wells is] circumstantial because of COVID and the economic downturn,” says Steinzor, “but they have made choices along the way for decades to not properly shut down and abandon and plug their wells in a responsible way.”
Healthy companies may struggle after such a large crash, but could likely bounce back – the oil and gas industry, operating on razor-thin or nonexistent margins, have thus far only been solvent because of lax regulation and big bailouts from the government. As Feit co-wrote in a report for CIEL on the oil, gas and plastic industries, a massive pandemic bailout will only delay the industries’ inevitable decline. According to free-market principles that the right and other capitalists claim to love, by nearly every definition, the U.S. oil and gas industry has failed. Yet, still, the government and financial institutions seem inclined to give them a massive bailout – again! – anyways.
A massive pandemic bailout will only delay the industries’ inevitable decline.
Instead of pouring billions into another fruitless oil and gas bailout, some argue, money would be much better suited for funding orphan well cleanups instead. States like Colorado and Ohio have recently increased funding for these efforts, but without federal support, this funding will likely not be enough. With only the money allocated for cleanup now, the prospect of plugging every idle or orphan well is basically insurmountable. State officials in Pennsylvania estimate that the cost to clean up every well in the state would cost around $7 billion. “At current funding levels, this would take the [state environmental] agency somewhere around 17,000 years to complete,” said Matt Kelso, manager of data and technology at FracTracker Alliance, over email.
As the current massive downturn in the fracking industry plays out, the problem will only multiply. “The orders of magnitude of this problem,” said Kate Kelly, director of Public Lands at the Center for American Progress. “I don’t think we fully appreciate at this point.”
While using public money to clean up after oil and gas companies is not ideal – the environmental movement has been built upon a “polluter pays” principle – the sheer amount of orphan wells with no documentation, some decades old, makes it impossible to track down the likely bankrupt responsible parties. That’s why, instead, some groups are looking into ways to prevent this situation from happening in the future.
In funding existing orphan well cleanups, there are opportunities to be proactive and to pre-empt the message that the public will always end up cleaning up after fossil fuel companies. For instance, Kelly said, “you could predicate [orphan well] funding upon states and the federal government and tribes demonstrating that they have adequate bonding requirements in place going forward.” Kelly pointed out that there are also already dormant enforcement mechanisms that prevent companies from participating in lease sales if they’re neglecting their reclamation responsibilities. There’s also an existing federal orphan well program, established as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that has no funding or enforcement mechanism that could also be revamped and funded in pandemic-related packages.
Putting money toward large well cleanup mobilization efforts could also be a huge job creation and major stimulus opportunity.
Putting money toward large well cleanup mobilization efforts could also be a huge job creation and major stimulus opportunity. The millions of unplugged wells not only need plugging, but they also need locating; and the people who would be well-equipped for such surveying and cleanup jobs are the same people who may have been laid off by the oil and gas industry.
Massive recent downturns mean that abandoned wells may also be in the same places that oil and gas companies already operate, which means that many workers likely won’t even have to relocate — and legislation could ensure that job creation through well cleanup is mostly local. State and local economies that are dependent upon the industry could benefit greatly from such a stimulus that provides not only funding, but jobs.
Some advocates view a cleanup program as part of a larger plan to manage the decline of the fossil fuel industry. “When there’s a disorganized transition, it hasn’t worked out well for the communities, or the workers,” said Donaghy. We can see this happening in real time: tens of thousands — if not hundreds of thousands, after Tuesday’s crash – of shale gas employees are getting laid off due to the current crisis. Planned declines could create new opportunities for these workers.
Megan Milliken Biven, a former program analyst at the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, is working with environmental groups on a bill that ties in not only increased enforcement for abandoned well monitoring, but also ensures that there is a moratorium on building residences on former oil and gas sites. “The wells are not in the middle of nowhere,” Biven told Truthout. “They are in the middle of communities. They are in the hospitals. They are next to schools. They are next to houses that people own, depreciating property values,” she said.
The bill Milliken Biven is writing also includes moratoriums on opening new sites, since prices will only continue to plummet if yet more oil is dredged up. And, of course, the easiest way to prevent the mass of abandoned, unplugged wells is to stop creating new wells in the first place — abstinence, but for fossil fuel companies.
Environmental advocates may be hesitant to pass such bills, with fears of being seen as opportunistic in creating a climate “wish list.” But they need only to look to the crash course of disaster capitalism that is the unprecedented environmental rule rollbacks being passed in the name of the pandemic. If polluters and the right wing are willing to use the pandemic to make the world dirtier and more unsafe for the sake of profits, the climate community should not fear cleaning it up and making it a better place to live.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-04-27--Future of COVID Briefings Unclear as Trump Pushes for a Different Focus

After initially stating that there wouldn ’ t be a White House press briefing on Monday — which would have been the third straight day without one featuring the president or the coronavirus task force — Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said a briefing would happen after all .
Earlier in the day , McEnany explained that there was no need for a press briefing , as the press would be able to ask questions of the president during a separate event later in the day .
“ We ’ re not tracking a briefing for today because there will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president and retail CEOs , ” McEnany said .
“ There will be some briefings later in the week .
They might have a new look to them , a new focus to them.
” But just before 2 p.m. Eastern Time , McEnany tweeted the change in plans .
“ The White House has additional testing guidance and other announcements about safely opening up America again , ” the press secretary wrote .
“ President @ realDonaldTrump will brief the nation during a press conference this evening.
” Rumors have abounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curtailing or end to the near-daily briefings , which have gone on for over a month now as President Donald Trump has tried to control the narrative about his response to the coronavirus pandemic .
Sources close to the president on Friday told news site Axios that they had advised Trump against continuing the practice , telling him that they weren ’ t providing him much good in terms of creating a positive image for himself .
“ I told him it ’ s not helping him , ” one of those sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the spectacle of him fighting with the press isn ’ t what people want to see.
” Another source said it appears to have finally clicked for Trump that the briefings , though they were getting him large television ratings , weren ’ t doing him any good — particularly after his gaffe where he suggested that administering disinfectant could be looked at as a possible means to combat the disease .
Trump refused to answer questions from reporters last Friday .
On Saturday , the first of three days so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefing on coronavirus , Trump appeared to ruminate against holding the events in general due to his belief that the press treated him unfairly .
“ What is the purpose of having White House News Conferences when the Lamestream Media asks nothing but hostile questions , & then refuses to report the truth or facts accurately , ” Trump wrote on his Twitter account .
“ They get record ratings , & the American people get nothing but Fake News .
Not worth the time & effort !
” Time reported on Sunday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift away from daily briefings involving health experts , and put more focus on Trump ’ s plan to phase out stay-at-home orders in order to “ reopen ” the economy .
The president has been pushing this shift for several weeks in order to ensure he has a positive topic to discuss during his run for reelection , according to sources with knowledge of his thinking on the matter .
Several members of his own coronavirus task force team are skeptical about quick moves to end stay-at-home orders , or to encourage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economies at this time .
Deborah Birx , for instance , has suggested that social distancing measures will need to last through the summer in order to be effective .
Birx has also said she ’ s “ concerned ” over some states , like Georgia , ending measures too quickly .

The focus of future briefings, if they continue to happen, may be on the economy rather than the threat of coronavirus.
After initially stating that there wouldn’t be a White House press briefing on Monday — which would have been the third straight day without one featuring the president or the coronavirus task force — Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said a briefing would happen after all.
Earlier in the day, McEnany explained that there was no need for a press briefing, as the press would be able to ask questions of the president during a separate event later in the day.
“We’re not tracking a briefing for today because there will be a press avail at 4 p.m. with the president and retail CEOs,” McEnany said. “There will be some briefings later in the week. They might have a new look to them, a new focus to them.”
But just before 2 p.m. Eastern Time, McEnany tweeted the change in plans.
“The White House has additional testing guidance and other announcements about safely opening up America again,” the press secretary wrote. “President @realDonaldTrump will brief the nation during a press conference this evening.”
UPDATE: The White House has additional testing guidance and other announcements about safely opening up America again. President @realDonaldTrump will brief the nation during a press conference this evening. — Kayleigh McEnany (@PressSec) April 27, 2020
Rumors have abounded for several days now about a potential curtailing or end to the near-daily briefings, which have gone on for over a month now as President Donald Trump has tried to control the narrative about his response to the coronavirus pandemic. Sources close to the president on Friday told news site Axios that they had advised Trump against continuing the practice, telling him that they weren’t providing him much good in terms of creating a positive image for himself.
“I told him it’s not helping him,” one of those sources said. “Seniors are scared. And the spectacle of him fighting with the press isn’t what people want to see.”
Another source said it appears to have finally clicked for Trump that the briefings, though they were getting him large television ratings, weren’t doing him any good — particularly after his gaffe where he suggested that administering disinfectant could be looked at as a possible means to combat the disease.
Trump refused to answer questions from reporters last Friday. On Saturday, the first of three days so far when he did not hold a press briefing on coronavirus, Trump appeared to ruminate against holding the events in general due to his belief that the press treated him unfairly.
“What is the purpose of having White House News Conferences when the Lamestream Media asks nothing but hostile questions, & then refuses to report the truth or facts accurately,” Trump wrote on his Twitter account. “They get record ratings, & the American people get nothing but Fake News. Not worth the time & effort!”
What is the purpose of having White House News Conferences when the Lamestream Media asks nothing but hostile questions, & then refuses to report the truth or facts accurately. They get record ratings, & the American people get nothing but Fake News. Not worth the time & effort! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 25, 2020
Time reported on Sunday that the White House would begin a shift away from daily briefings involving health experts, and put more focus on Trump’s plan to phase out stay-at-home orders in order to “reopen” the economy. The president has been pushing this shift for several weeks in order to ensure he has a positive topic to discuss during his run for reelection, according to sources with knowledge of his thinking on the matter.
Several members of his own coronavirus task force team are skeptical about quick moves to end stay-at-home orders, or to encourage states to “reopen” their respective economies at this time. Deborah Birx, for instance, has suggested that social distancing measures will need to last through the summer in order to be effective. Birx has also said she’s “concerned” over some states, like Georgia, ending measures too quickly.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-04-27--As Trump Touts Dangerous “Cures,” Here’s What We Know About COVID-19 Treatments

President Trump dangerously suggested injecting disinfectants could help patients sick with the coronavirus , then said he was being “ sarcastic.
” But his remarks led to a spike in calls to helplines about taking disinfectants .
We look at “ What We Know About the Most Touted Drugs Tested for COVID-19 ” with Tanya Lewis , associate editor for health and medicine at Scientific American .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have died worldwide from COVID-19 , but there are still no drugs proven to help treat the disease .
This comes as fallout continues from President Trump ’ s dangerous suggestion last week that injecting or ingesting disinfectants could help patients get better .
AMY GOODMAN : After President Trump ’ s remarks on Thursday , governors and other state officials reported a spike in phone calls about taking disinfectants .
Trump attempted to walk back his comments , saying he was being “ sarcastic.
” But everyone saw the videotape .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people self-medicating with anti-malarial drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine — medications again President Trump also erroneously recommended — after multiple deaths and poisonings were reported .
For more , we ’ re joined by Tanya Lewis , associate editor for health and medicine at Scientific American , whose recent piece is headlined “ Here ’ s What We Know About the Most Touted Drugs Tested for COVID-19.
” Tanya , welcome to Democracy Now !
Start off by just responding to this latest presidential suggestion , and the horror of it for states around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people calling in to say , “ Is it OK to inject or ingest Clorox or Lysol ?
” TANYA LEWIS : [ inaudible ] having me .
I mean , as you mentioned , you know , the president ’ s comments really just — they were not really based in any sort of scientific evidence .
There ’ s actually a lot of danger in injecting these types of substances into the body , so I ’ m not quite sure what the president was referring to exactly .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on surfaces , not on the human body or in the human body .
AMY GOODMAN : So , Tanya Lewis , can you talk about what is being looked at right now , for people to understand ?
For example , another drug that he recommended was hydroxychloroquine , and yet the studies had not been done .
Talk about the latest round of studies that have just begun , results of which have just begun to come out .
TANYA LEWIS : Sure .
So , as you mentioned , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drugs , that are also used sometimes for rheumatoid arthritis and lupus , which are autoimmune disorders .
But they are now being tested in clinical trials for COVID-19 , because there is some suggestion that they might work as an antiviral or to prevent replication of the virus , as well as to affect the immune system and kind of prevent that sort of runaway immune reaction that we see in some of the most severe cases .
But as it stands right now , those clinical trials are ongoing .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come out , but these were not randomized clinical trials .
So , basically , in order to show any kind of benefit , you really need to have a randomized trial .
TANYA LEWIS : Sure .
So that just means that you ’ re giving a random subset of patients the drug and a random subset a placebo .
So , that way , you can kind of really compare the effect of the drug versus — AMY GOODMAN : So they don ’ t know if they ’ re getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting the placebo , like nothing , a fake .
AMY GOODMAN : And it ’ s very hard to do that , right ?
If patients are sick , and the president recommends a drug could save you , it ’ s very hard to have them be willing to join a randomized study where they might not actually get the drug .
TANYA LEWIS : Exactly .
And that ’ s the concern here , is that if you give patients the choice , most of the time they will say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug , ” because there really isn ’ t anything else available .
So , in order to really show that there ’ s a benefit or not , we really need to have these types of randomized trials .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to turn to STAT news , which recently reported that the summary of a study of the antiviral drug remdesivir was inadvertently posted to the website of the World Health Organization Thursday .
According to the results , which were quickly removed from the site , the drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the improvement of patients with Covid-19 or prevent them from dying , ” unquote .
The drug ’ s manufacturer , Gilead Sciences , which President Trump has also touted , refuted the results , saying the data suggested a potential benefit .
World Health Organization spokesperson Daniela Bagozzi told STAT news , “ A draft manuscript was provided by the authors to WHO and inadvertently posted on the website and taken down as soon as the mistake was noticed .
The manuscript is now undergoing peer review and we are waiting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it.
” Tanya Lewis , talk about remdesivir and what we know so far .
TANYA LEWIS : Sure .
So , remdesivir is another antiviral drug that is supposed to work by interfering with the virus ’ s replication .
And it was originally developed for Ebola , but was later decided — they decided not to use it , because it wasn ’ t as effective as some of the other treatments .
But it was found to be effective against many other coronaviruses , like SARS and MERS , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is a potentially promising candidate , but , as you mentioned , some of the early data that was leaked may suggest that it may not have much of a benefit and may not decrease the risk of death .
Of course , I have to say that those data have not yet been made widely available and are not peer-reviewed and vetted , so it ’ s hard to sort of comment on that data without seeing the full data .
But we ’ ll just have to wait and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the official data is released , how effective it really is or not .
AMY GOODMAN : If you could talk about what convalescent plasma is ?
TANYA LEWIS : Sure .
So , that ’ s another potential treatment that is being tested .
It ’ s basically , when you take the blood plasma , it ’ s everything except for the red blood cells .
And you take the plasma from somebody who has recovered from the disease — in this case , COVID-19 — and put that plasma into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
And then the idea is that the antibodies from that first patient will help the current patient sort of fight off the virus .
But this is still , you know , again , fairly preliminary .
There are some trials going on now .
And at this point , you know , we ’ ll just have to kind of see , but it ’ s a potentially promising avenue of treatment .
AMY GOODMAN : And can you , in the last 30 seconds we have , talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Now , are these for COVID-19 , just to test if you have it , or are they for antibodies ?
TANYA LEWIS : So , there are actually both kinds of tests .
The ones that I ’ m more familiar with are the RNA PCR-based tests , which are basically to tell whether or not you currently have COVID-19 .
And just to clarify , these at-home test kits are actually test collection kits , so you just collect a sample with a nasal swab and then send that off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AMY GOODMAN : And the reliability of this ?
We have 10 seconds .
TANYA LEWIS : Sure .
So , you know , at this point , it ’ s pretty early , but we think that they are fairly reliable .
But again , there ’ s always a risk that if you ’ re not swabbing correctly , maybe you would have a false negative .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Tanya Lewis , I want to thank you for being with us , associate editor for health and medicine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ link to your piece , “ Here ’ s What We Know About the Most Touted Drugs Tested for COVID-19.
” And that does it for our show .
Democracy Now !
is working with as few people on site as possible .
The majority of our amazing team is working from home .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
This is The Quarantine Report .
Thanks so much for joining us .

President Trump dangerously suggested injecting disinfectants could help patients sick with the coronavirus, then said he was being “sarcastic.” But his remarks led to a spike in calls to helplines about taking disinfectants. We look at “What We Know About the Most Touted Drugs Tested for COVID-19” with Tanya Lewis, associate editor for health and medicine at Scientific American.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman. More than 207,000 people have died worldwide from COVID-19, but there are still no drugs proven to help treat the disease. This comes as fallout continues from President Trump’s dangerous suggestion last week that injecting or ingesting disinfectants could help patients get better.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.
AMY GOODMAN: After President Trump’s remarks on Thursday, governors and other state officials reported a spike in phone calls about taking disinfectants. Trump attempted to walk back his comments, saying he was being “sarcastic.” But everyone saw the videotape.
Meanwhile, the FDA has issued warnings against people self-medicating with anti-malarial drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine — medications again President Trump also erroneously recommended — after multiple deaths and poisonings were reported.
For more, we’re joined by Tanya Lewis, associate editor for health and medicine at Scientific American, whose recent piece is headlined “Here’s What We Know About the Most Touted Drugs Tested for COVID-19.”
Tanya, welcome to Democracy Now! Start off by just responding to this latest presidential suggestion, and the horror of it for states around the country that reported hundreds and hundreds of people calling in to say, “Is it OK to inject or ingest Clorox or Lysol?”
TANYA LEWIS: [inaudible] having me. I mean, as you mentioned, you know, the president’s comments really just — they were not really based in any sort of scientific evidence. There’s actually a lot of danger in injecting these types of substances into the body, so I’m not quite sure what the president was referring to exactly. But those disinfectants are definitely recommended for use on surfaces, not on the human body or in the human body.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Tanya Lewis, can you talk about what is being looked at right now, for people to understand? For example, another drug that he recommended was hydroxychloroquine, and yet the studies had not been done. Talk about the latest round of studies that have just begun, results of which have just begun to come out.
TANYA LEWIS: Sure. So, as you mentioned, the drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are both anti-malarial drugs, that are also used sometimes for rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, which are autoimmune disorders. But they are now being tested in clinical trials for COVID-19, because there is some suggestion that they might work as an antiviral or to prevent replication of the virus, as well as to affect the immune system and kind of prevent that sort of runaway immune reaction that we see in some of the most severe cases. But as it stands right now, those clinical trials are ongoing. There have been a few studies that have come out, but these were not randomized clinical trials. So, basically, in order to show any kind of benefit, you really need to have a randomized trial.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain what “randomized” means.
TANYA LEWIS: Sure. So that just means that you’re giving a random subset of patients the drug and a random subset a placebo. So, that way, you can kind of really compare the effect of the drug versus —
AMY GOODMAN: So they don’t know if they’re getting the actual drug or they’re getting the placebo, like nothing, a fake.
TANYA LEWIS: Exactly.
AMY GOODMAN: And it’s very hard to do that, right? If patients are sick, and the president recommends a drug could save you, it’s very hard to have them be willing to join a randomized study where they might not actually get the drug.
TANYA LEWIS: Exactly. And that’s the concern here, is that if you give patients the choice, most of the time they will say, “Yes, give me the drug,” because there really isn’t anything else available. So, in order to really show that there’s a benefit or not, we really need to have these types of randomized trials.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to STAT news, which recently reported that the summary of a study of the antiviral drug remdesivir was inadvertently posted to the website of the World Health Organization Thursday. According to the results, which were quickly removed from the site, the drug, quote, “failed to speed the improvement of patients with Covid-19 or prevent them from dying,” unquote. The drug’s manufacturer, Gilead Sciences, which President Trump has also touted, refuted the results, saying the data suggested a potential benefit. World Health Organization spokesperson Daniela Bagozzi told STAT news, “A draft manuscript was provided by the authors to WHO and inadvertently posted on the website and taken down as soon as the mistake was noticed. The manuscript is now undergoing peer review and we are waiting for a final version before WHO comments on it.” Tanya Lewis, talk about remdesivir and what we know so far.
TANYA LEWIS: Sure. So, remdesivir is another antiviral drug that is supposed to work by interfering with the virus’s replication. And it was originally developed for Ebola, but was later decided — they decided not to use it, because it wasn’t as effective as some of the other treatments. But it was found to be effective against many other coronaviruses, like SARS and MERS, in mice and in cell culture.
So, this is a potentially promising candidate, but, as you mentioned, some of the early data that was leaked may suggest that it may not have much of a benefit and may not decrease the risk of death. Of course, I have to say that those data have not yet been made widely available and are not peer-reviewed and vetted, so it’s hard to sort of comment on that data without seeing the full data. But we’ll just have to wait and see in the coming weeks, when the official data is released, how effective it really is or not.
AMY GOODMAN: If you could talk about what convalescent plasma is?
TANYA LEWIS: Sure. So, that’s another potential treatment that is being tested. It’s basically, when you take the blood plasma, it’s everything except for the red blood cells. And you take the plasma from somebody who has recovered from the disease — in this case, COVID-19 — and put that plasma into a patient who is currently battling the virus. And then the idea is that the antibodies from that first patient will help the current patient sort of fight off the virus. But this is still, you know, again, fairly preliminary. There are some trials going on now. And at this point, you know, we’ll just have to kind of see, but it’s a potentially promising avenue of treatment.
AMY GOODMAN: And can you, in the last 30 seconds we have, talk about the FDA now just approving home kits? Now, are these for COVID-19, just to test if you have it, or are they for antibodies?
TANYA LEWIS: So, there are actually both kinds of tests. The ones that I’m more familiar with are the RNA PCR-based tests, which are basically to tell whether or not you currently have COVID-19. And just to clarify, these at-home test kits are actually test collection kits, so you just collect a sample with a nasal swab and then send that off to the lab to be tested.
AMY GOODMAN: And the reliability of this? We have 10 seconds.
TANYA LEWIS: Sure. So, you know, at this point, it’s pretty early, but we think that they are fairly reliable. But again, there’s always a risk that if you’re not swabbing correctly, maybe you would have a false negative.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Tanya Lewis, I want to thank you for being with us, associate editor for health and medicine at Scientific American. We’ll link to your piece, “Here’s What We Know About the Most Touted Drugs Tested for COVID-19.”
And that does it for our show. Democracy Now! is working with as few people on site as possible. The majority of our amazing team is working from home. I’m Amy Goodman. This is The Quarantine Report. Thanks so much for joining us.


truthout--2020-04-27--Planned Parenthood Condemns States Using Pandemic to Limit Abortion Access

As much of the U.S. remains on lockdown , abortion rights are under attack nationwide .
We get an update on the fight for abortion access with Alexis McGill Johnson , acting president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America .
“ Our bodies have literally been deemed essential , ” she says , “ and yet the control of our bodies and the right to control our own bodies has not.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : As the coronavirus continues to spread and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown , abortion rights are under attack across the country .
States , including Alabama , Iowa , Louisiana , Ohio , Oklahoma , Tennessee , Texas and more , have all attempted to restrict access to abortion as part of their response to the pandemic .
Abortions in Texas were briefly effectively banned last week , after a federal appeals court ruled Monday that the state could restrict abortion services as it responds to the pandemic .
The Washington Post called the move “ the most extreme shutdown of abortion access allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision declared access to abortion a constitutional right , ” unquote .
But Wednesday , Republican Governor Greg Abbott issued a new executive order loosening the restrictions on medical procedures and allowing abortion services to proceed .
The fight over abortion access has sparked a prolonged legal battle and for weeks forced people seeking abortions to leave the state of Texas to receive medical care .
Planned Parenthood reported a 706 % increase in abortion appointments for people crossing state lines from Texas to providers in Colorado @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at the ongoing fight for abortion access in Texas , as well as other states , we ’ re joined by Alexis McGill Johnson , the acting president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America .
She ’ s joining us from New York City from her home to stop community spread .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
, Alexis .
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON : Thank you so much for having me , Amy .
AMY GOODMAN : It ’ s great to have you with us .
Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us a nationwide survey of what ’ s happening to abortion access in the United States ?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON : Absolutely .
Look , I mean , as you talked earlier , we ’ ve already seen how COVID has laid bare the challenges in our public healthcare infrastructure , seeing how many people , particularly low-income people of color , who are experiencing the disproportionate impact of this care — and at the same time that we are all grappling with what it means to live in this pandemic , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided that this pandemic was the right time to create executive orders to restrict more access to abortion .
And what we ’ ve seen is the impact .
We ’ ve seen people continue to get in their cars to drive thousands of miles to Colorado , to California , to New Mexico , just out of Texas , to seek access to get medication abortion , which is just two pills taken over 24 hours .
And , you know , we ’ ve been in a pushback , in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , as well as with our circuit court judges , and there ’ s been an incredible emotional whiplash related to it , as our providers have been calling patients and telling them that their appointments are now canceled or that they in fact have to seek another method .
And so , this is really unconscionable , the fact that people would use a pandemic to restrict access to healthcare , when in fact we should be trying to identify ways to expand healthcare .
AMY GOODMAN : So , let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Texas , the battle that ’ s been going on in the courts — and this happens in other places , as well , in Tennessee , Alabama , Oklahoma — as the governor attempts to restrict abortion .
And what ’ s happening at the court level , one after another decisions ?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON : We were in court like over four times in the last couple of weeks with our partners on the ground .
And essentially , where we are now is that the governor is trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because he ’ s trying to open the state , which shows you that this was just a sham to begin with — right ?
— that the real concern around spreading access to — spreading COVID , using abortion as a guise for that really is not legitimate .
And so , right now we have a loosened restriction in Texas .
But there are other states where we ’ re continuing to fight .
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk about Alabama , what ’ s happening there , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical care , allowing physicians to provide abortion using their medical judgment ?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON : Yes .
I mean , you know , I ’ m not — in terms of all the specifics with respect to Alabama and with Tennessee , I think , you know , it is — we ’ re using everything at our measure , in a sense , that — right ?
— we have to be able to defend access to abortion in these various states with these executive orders coming down .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is ensure that people seeking abortion get access as immediately as they can .
And so , I think when you look back in the bigger picture , what you ’ re seeing is a number of restrictions around abortion .
Just last year , there were 300 restrictions that were introduced in 47 states across the country .
And so , what we ’ re looking at is an infrastructure that has really tried to limit access to abortion .
And when you layer a pandemic on top of that , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact of that .
Many states — there are five states now that are essentially abortion deserts , where it ’ s very difficult to access .
And we ’ re adding these additional restrictions on it , which makes it even more unsustainable .
AMY GOODMAN : And explain what you referred to as “ medication abortion.
” Explain — you ’ ve got the surgery , the procedure , and you ’ ve got the double pill .
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON : Yes .
Medication abortion is offered earlier in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just two pills that the person seeking abortion would take within a 24-hour period .
And so , this is not a procedure that requires an extensive amount of PPE .
It doesn ’ t require — you know , in many cases , we ’ re able to see a patient now , with the expansion of telehealth , via Skype , like this , intake the patient , and then drive — and that patient will come and pick up the prescription and go home and take that medication safely at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do follow-up care , again via telehealth , in much the same way that the rest of the country is operating right now on telehealth , telemedicine .
And so , you know , what we ’ re seeing is our patients are driving , again , a thousand miles .
Think about this .
Women are the majority of healthcare workers .
We ’ re the majority of people homeschooling right now .
We are the majority of essential workers .
Our bodies have literally been deemed essential , and yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bodies and the right to control our own bodies has not .
And so we ’ re seeing them drive thousands of miles to get two pills and then get back in a car and drive another thousand miles back home through these various states , in ways that are incredibly unsafe .
AMY GOODMAN : Alexis McGill Johnson , you co-authored a piece for Essence magazine last week headlined “ Your Job Is Deemed Essential , But Your Abortion Is Not : Black Low-Wage Women in Texas Are Being Robbed of Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , quote , “ Nonwhite women are more likely to hold jobs deemed ‘ essential ’ than any other demographic .
… Even though your job has been deemed essential , your humanity , your ability to earn a living wage , your ability to access health care — pandemic or not — is not .
And now in the state of Texas ( and several others ) your legal ability to access abortion is currently up in the air for a court to decide.
” Explain the demographics that you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of color accessing abortion being even more challenged .
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON : Yeah , absolutely .
And I think this is really what we ’ ve seen in the public health infrastructure around COVID , right ?
We ’ ve seen just the number of deaths , right ?
COVID is touching all of us regardless of age and class and race .
And yet the folks who are dying , the folks who are being most subjected to fatality , are largely black and Latinx in major urban areas .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our access to public healthcare infrastructure has already been challenged , and then you layer on bias , you layer on patterns and systems of discrimination over centuries , quite frankly , that have concluded , in fact , that we are — particularly women of color are the ones who are not able to get the right amount of care .
So , when you layer on other challenges around black maternal mortality , regardless of income , our bodies literally are much more subject to dying during childbirth or just thereafter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the system .
And when I look at these executive orders in states that are the same states that did not expand Medicaid , you know , states who have been layering on these restrictions largely for low — affecting low-income women of color , to me , it ’ s no surprise that we ’ re the ones being called in .
We ’ re the ones who are being asked to be essential workers , and yet our ability to actually control our own bodies and to really control our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the state .
AMY GOODMAN : And can you talk about the issue of women getting access , what you recommend , where access is challenged ?
I mean , even before the pandemic , the closing of women ’ s health clinics , so often you can have a situation where there ’ s only one or two in a state .
And this new service that you are now offering , telehealth services , offering information about sexual and reproductive health ?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON : Yes , absolutely .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this pandemic , that Planned Parenthood and many other health providers have actually been able to really lean into telehealth infrastructure and provide service .
I think the quote was something like “ We ’ ve moved 10 years in 10 days.
” And that is actually , you know , the fact that we will be in all 50 states by the end of this month to provide access to STI screenings , to family planning , to HIV PEP and PrEP , and , in much the same way as I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around getting access to abortion .
That ’ s given us a lifeline into communities , particularly areas where the shelter-in-place bans are going to continue , as well as rural areas , where there may not be access to healthcare broadly .
But again , this is a silver lining for some .
And again , in many states , the challenge to — you know , COVID is essentially accelerating a big concern that we should all have about the impact not just of Roe being overturned , but literally of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year after year after year , over the last decade , in particular .
And so , we have to think about how we ’ re going to support and how we ’ re going to get the 25 million women who live in states that are increasingly restrictive , access to safe and legal abortion , should they need it .
And that ’ s currently the planning that we ’ re working on right now .
AMY GOODMAN : Alexis McGill Johnson , we want to ask you to stay with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ segment .
Alexis McGill Johnson is the acting president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America .
When we come back , as multiple states try to restrict access to abortion during the pandemic , we ’ re going to look at a powerful new dramatic film that follows a 17-year-old girl as she travels from her small town in Pennsylvania to New York City to get an abortion without having to notify her parents .
The film is called Never Rarely Sometimes Always .
Stay with us .
AMY GOODMAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Orchestra .
That ’ s the orchestra of the Metropolitan Opera in New York , which performed remotely together over the weekend as part of their “ At-Home Gala .
”

As much of the U.S. remains on lockdown, abortion rights are under attack nationwide. We get an update on the fight for abortion access with Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “Our bodies have literally been deemed essential,” she says, “and yet the control of our bodies and the right to control our own bodies has not.”
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: As the coronavirus continues to spread and much of the United States remains on lockdown, abortion rights are under attack across the country. States, including Alabama, Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and more, have all attempted to restrict access to abortion as part of their response to the pandemic. Abortions in Texas were briefly effectively banned last week, after a federal appeals court ruled Monday that the state could restrict abortion services as it responds to the pandemic. The Washington Post called the move “the most extreme shutdown of abortion access allowed by federal courts since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision declared access to abortion a constitutional right,” unquote. But Wednesday, Republican Governor Greg Abbott issued a new executive order loosening the restrictions on medical procedures and allowing abortion services to proceed.
The fight over abortion access has sparked a prolonged legal battle and for weeks forced people seeking abortions to leave the state of Texas to receive medical care. Planned Parenthood reported a 706% increase in abortion appointments for people crossing state lines from Texas to providers in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada.
To look at the ongoing fight for abortion access in Texas, as well as other states, we’re joined by Alexis McGill Johnson, the acting president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. She’s joining us from New York City from her home to stop community spread.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Alexis.
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Thank you so much for having me, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. Well, why don’t you just give us a nationwide survey of what’s happening to abortion access in the United States?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Absolutely. Look, I mean, as you talked earlier, we’ve already seen how COVID has laid bare the challenges in our public healthcare infrastructure, seeing how many people, particularly low-income people of color, who are experiencing the disproportionate impact of this care — and at the same time that we are all grappling with what it means to live in this pandemic, a number of governors across the country have decided that this pandemic was the right time to create executive orders to restrict more access to abortion. And what we’ve seen is the impact. We’ve seen people continue to get in their cars to drive thousands of miles to Colorado, to California, to New Mexico, just out of Texas, to seek access to get medication abortion, which is just two pills taken over 24 hours.
And, you know, we’ve been in a pushback, in a legal pushback, with a number of states, as well as with our circuit court judges, and there’s been an incredible emotional whiplash related to it, as our providers have been calling patients and telling them that their appointments are now canceled or that they in fact have to seek another method. And so, this is really unconscionable, the fact that people would use a pandemic to restrict access to healthcare, when in fact we should be trying to identify ways to expand healthcare.
AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s talk, for example, about Texas, the battle that’s been going on in the courts — and this happens in other places, as well, in Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma — as the governor attempts to restrict abortion. And what’s happening at the court level, one after another decisions?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: We were in court like over four times in the last couple of weeks with our partners on the ground. And essentially, where we are now is that the governor is trying to loosen the restriction, in fact, because he’s trying to open the state, which shows you that this was just a sham to begin with — right? — that the real concern around spreading access to — spreading COVID, using abortion as a guise for that really is not legitimate. And so, right now we have a loosened restriction in Texas. But there are other states where we’re continuing to fight.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about Alabama, what’s happening there, the preliminary injunction that treats abortion like all medical care, allowing physicians to provide abortion using their medical judgment?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Yes. I mean, you know, I’m not — in terms of all the specifics with respect to Alabama and with Tennessee, I think, you know, it is — we’re using everything at our measure, in a sense, that — right? — we have to be able to defend access to abortion in these various states with these executive orders coming down. And what we’re trying to do is ensure that people seeking abortion get access as immediately as they can.
And so, I think when you look back in the bigger picture, what you’re seeing is a number of restrictions around abortion. Just last year, there were 300 restrictions that were introduced in 47 states across the country. And so, what we’re looking at is an infrastructure that has really tried to limit access to abortion. And when you layer a pandemic on top of that, we’re feeling, obviously, the impact of that. Many states — there are five states now that are essentially abortion deserts, where it’s very difficult to access. And we’re adding these additional restrictions on it, which makes it even more unsustainable.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain what you referred to as “medication abortion.” Explain — you’ve got the surgery, the procedure, and you’ve got the double pill.
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Yes. Medication abortion is offered earlier in the gestational period, and it really requires just two pills that the person seeking abortion would take within a 24-hour period. And so, this is not a procedure that requires an extensive amount of PPE. It doesn’t require — you know, in many cases, we’re able to see a patient now, with the expansion of telehealth, via Skype, like this, intake the patient, and then drive — and that patient will come and pick up the prescription and go home and take that medication safely at home. And then we are able to do follow-up care, again via telehealth, in much the same way that the rest of the country is operating right now on telehealth, telemedicine.
And so, you know, what we’re seeing is our patients are driving, again, a thousand miles. Think about this. Women are the majority of healthcare workers. We’re the majority of people homeschooling right now. We are the majority of essential workers. Our bodies have literally been deemed essential, and yet our bodies — the control of our bodies and the right to control our own bodies has not. And so we’re seeing them drive thousands of miles to get two pills and then get back in a car and drive another thousand miles back home through these various states, in ways that are incredibly unsafe.
AMY GOODMAN: Alexis McGill Johnson, you co-authored a piece for Essence magazine last week headlined “Your Job Is Deemed Essential, But Your Abortion Is Not: Black Low-Wage Women in Texas Are Being Robbed of Their Humanity.” In it, you wrote, quote, “Nonwhite women are more likely to hold jobs deemed ‘essential’ than any other demographic. … Even though your job has been deemed essential, your humanity, your ability to earn a living wage, your ability to access health care — pandemic or not — is not. And now in the state of Texas (and several others) your legal ability to access abortion is currently up in the air for a court to decide.” Explain the demographics that you’re talking about, and talk about women of color accessing abortion being even more challenged.
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Yeah, absolutely. And I think this is really what we’ve seen in the public health infrastructure around COVID, right? We’ve seen just the number of deaths, right? COVID is touching all of us regardless of age and class and race. And yet the folks who are dying, the folks who are being most subjected to fatality, are largely black and Latinx in major urban areas. And this challenge — right? — that our access to public healthcare infrastructure has already been challenged, and then you layer on bias, you layer on patterns and systems of discrimination over centuries, quite frankly, that have concluded, in fact, that we are — particularly women of color are the ones who are not able to get the right amount of care. So, when you layer on other challenges around black maternal mortality, regardless of income, our bodies literally are much more subject to dying during childbirth or just thereafter because of the bias built into discrimination in the system.
And when I look at these executive orders in states that are the same states that did not expand Medicaid, you know, states who have been layering on these restrictions largely for low — affecting low-income women of color, to me, it’s no surprise that we’re the ones being called in. We’re the ones who are being asked to be essential workers, and yet our ability to actually control our own bodies and to really control our own futures and freedom is being denied by the state.
AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about the issue of women getting access, what you recommend, where access is challenged? I mean, even before the pandemic, the closing of women’s health clinics, so often you can have a situation where there’s only one or two in a state. And this new service that you are now offering, telehealth services, offering information about sexual and reproductive health?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Yes, absolutely. It is actually a silver lining in this pandemic, that Planned Parenthood and many other health providers have actually been able to really lean into telehealth infrastructure and provide service. I think the quote was something like “We’ve moved 10 years in 10 days.” And that is actually, you know, the fact that we will be in all 50 states by the end of this month to provide access to STI screenings, to family planning, to HIV PEP and PrEP, and, in much the same way as I said, to provide some wraparound service around getting access to abortion. That’s given us a lifeline into communities, particularly areas where the shelter-in-place bans are going to continue, as well as rural areas, where there may not be access to healthcare broadly. But again, this is a silver lining for some.
And again, in many states, the challenge to — you know, COVID is essentially accelerating a big concern that we should all have about the impact not just of Roe being overturned, but literally of watching it being gutted by these restrictions year after year after year, over the last decade, in particular. And so, we have to think about how we’re going to support and how we’re going to get the 25 million women who live in states that are increasingly restrictive, access to safe and legal abortion, should they need it. And that’s currently the planning that we’re working on right now.
AMY GOODMAN: Alexis McGill Johnson, we want to ask you to stay with us as we move into our next segment. Alexis McGill Johnson is the acting president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When we come back, as multiple states try to restrict access to abortion during the pandemic, we’re going to look at a powerful new dramatic film that follows a 17-year-old girl as she travels from her small town in Pennsylvania to New York City to get an abortion without having to notify her parents. The film is called Never Rarely Sometimes Always. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Intermezzo” by the Met Orchestra. That’s the orchestra of the Metropolitan Opera in New York, which performed remotely together over the weekend as part of their “At-Home Gala.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.