truthout--2020-12-13--ICE Is Targeting Women in Sanctuary With Obscure Laws and Retaliatory Fines

Around Thanksgiving , another letter from Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) arrived for Hilda Ramirez at Austin , Texas ’ , St. Andrew ’ s Presbyterian Church .
The federal immigration agency ’ s latest correspondence informed Ramirez that she was being fined $ 59,126 as a “ civil penalty pursuant to section 274D of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( INA ) .
” Essentially , the federal immigration agency was once again warning the Indigenous Guatemalan asylum-seeker of a gigantic fine for not complying with their order that she leave the United States .
This was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that began in July 2019 .
As Prism reported last year , Ramirez is one of seven high profile women who have emerged as leaders in the nationwide sanctuary movement , and ICE has spent more than a year relentlessly working to hit them with exorbitant fines .
The women being targeted share some similarities : All are outspoken asylum-seekers , have appeals or motions to reopen their cases , and have actively and publicly tried to find legal avenues to stay in the United States as part of a sanctuary collective led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ICE are significantly less than previous amounts , which the agency was forced to withdraw after failing to follow appropriate procedures for issuing them .
For example , Edith Espinal , a Mexican asylum-seeker in sanctuary in Ohio , was improperly issued a $ 497,777 fine in July .
Like Ramirez , Espinal received a new notice over Thanksgiving weekend informing her of ICE ’ s latest fine , which her attorney Lizbeth Mateo told Prism was nearly $ 60,000 .
At least two other women in sanctuary received similar notices from ICE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Prism , Ramirez said this entire ordeal has left her feeling sad and upset .
“ Immigration continues to threaten me , ” Ramirez wrote the morning of Dec. 1 .
“ This is very difficult for me .
Immigration keeps attacking me.
” Ramirez ’ s only defense against ongoing attacks from the federal government comes through community support provided by organizers , legal advocates , and Austin ’ s faith community , which provides her with food , clothes , and shelter .
There are lingering questions about what ICE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency knows that the women it is targeting with exorbitant fines have no way of paying the debt .
All of them are stuck in their sanctuary churches , unable to leave the grounds without risking detainment and deportation .
All are also undocumented , which means it is illegal for employers to hire them .
There is virtually no way for these women to earn money , let alone the amount of money ICE is fining them .
“ I don ’ t know how they expect me to pay this fine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legally in this country , ” Ramirez told Prism .
“ Are they trapping me into breaking the law ?
” Earlier iterations of the fines threatened criminal prosecution , leading sanctuary leaders , attorneys , and advocates in the sanctuary movement to believe that federal agencies were laying the groundwork to enter churches , schools , and hospitals to apprehend sanctuary leaders , in violation of a 2011 memo that advises ICE field officers and agents to avoid carrying out enforcement in “ sensitive locations.
” However , recently-released documents reveal that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raising serious free speech concerns for immigrants like Ramirez , who fled gender-based violence only to be targeted and penalized as an asylum-seeking woman for engaging in her right to publicly speak out about the state violence she experiences .
Advocates say the timeline of events surrounding sanctuary leaders ’ ongoing litigation against ICE illustrates the agency ’ s retaliatory use of fines .
Austin Sanctuary Network , Free Migration Project , Grassroots Leadership , and the Center for Constitutional Rights ( CCR ) are organizations representing sanctuary leaders , and CCR held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year announcing the litigation .
The very next day , letters from ICE went out to sanctuary leaders informing them of fines .
Months later , the virtually same sequence played out again .
On October 28 , sanctuary leaders held a virtual press conference asking Joe Biden to commit to freeing them if he is elected and announcing they were delivering a petition and letters of support from organizations and elected officials to the Biden campaign .
Less than a week later , ICE mailed out its latest notice of tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spokesperson from ICE told Prism that the federal immigration agency “ does not target unlawfully present aliens based on advocacy positions they hold or in retaliation for critical comments they make.
” “ However , ICE does have an obligation to pursue anyone breaking our nation ’ s immigration laws , ” the spokesperson wrote in an email statement .
“ ICE continues to issue civil fines to aliens who have been ordered removed or granted voluntary departure and fail to depart the United States , including those who seek sanctuary in churches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s orders of removal .
All individuals in violation of U.S. immigration laws may be subject to arrest , detention , fines , and if found removable by final order , removal from the U.S. ” Advocates working with sanctuary leaders said they were aware of instances outside of sanctuary in which ICE has issued civil fines to immigrants with final orders of removal , however those fines were significantly less than those issued to sanctuary leaders .
ICE did not respond to Prism ’ s request for additional information regarding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been fined .
Documents that sanctuary leaders and their attorneys obtained through the litigation revealed that the practice of imposing retaliatory fines can be traced back to policies established in June 2018 under former ICE acting director Thomas Homan .
In a June 19 , 2018 order , the director delegated authority to “ administer and enforce provisions relating to civil penalties for failure to depart ” to a number of lower-level ICE officials , citing a 2004 Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) Delegation Order and statutory provisions from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Code of Federal Regulations .
Homan also issued a directive outlining the agency ’ s policy for assessing and collecting civil fines , essentially giving field offices and local-level ICE officers complete discretion in deciding whom to fine .
When combined , Homan ’ s order and directive enabled ICE to weaponize an obscure , never-before-used immigration statute to levy hefty civil fines against immigrants in sanctuary .
With discretion to target whomever they wanted , the agency settled on outspoken asylum-seeking women — many of them mothers who fear death if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obtained as part of the litigation showed that in April 2019 , ICE set in motion its plan to target sanctuary leaders with fines .
ICE field offices were notified if they had at least one sanctuary case within their area of responsibility and the heavily redacted correspondence referenced a “ civil fines working group , ” indicating to attorneys “ that ICE , and perhaps other government actors , undertook a concerted , long-term effort to craft and rationalize the civil fines policy starting as early as 2017.
” Broadly speaking , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said it should concern the American public that obscure laws and policies are being weaponized — especially because these decisions seem to be coming from high-ranking officials in the Trump administration , including Stephen Miller , President Donald Trump ’ s top adviser on immigration .
Retaliatory civil fines aren ’ t the only way existing laws have been put to new uses to target immigrants .
Once the pandemic started , Miller and the Trump administration took the opportunity to weaponize Title 42 , a section of the Public Health Safety Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block noncitizens from entering the U.S. “ when doing so is required in the interest of public health.
” Last month , U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan “ found that the Trump administration illegally invoked the pandemic to achieve its longstanding goal of keeping out asylum seekers , ” Vox ’ s Nicole Narea reported .
However , by that time more than 13,000 children had been deported under the policy .
Documents published by American Oversight in July illustrated another ploy to weaponize existing law , which would ultimately affect immigrants in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , Miller began requesting information from Justice Department lawyer Gene Hamilton regarding statutes that could be used to restrict immigration .
On March 25 , 2018 , Miller emailed Hamilton asking him about a “ Fine/Penalties Statute ” — the same statute cited in ICE ’ s November letter to Ramirez charging her with a $ 59,126 fine .
Hamilton explained that the “ Immigration Enforcement Account ” that includes money collected from civil penalties “ can be refunded to enforcement activities like removal operations , tracking systems , or ‘ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States border wall , ’ ” American Oversight reported .
In other words , the federal government intended for Ramirez and other asylum seekers to pay for the immigration enforcement terrorizing their communities .
Ramirez told Prism that each letter from ICE feels like “ another blow ” against asylum-seeking women .
“ I think that they ’ re only attacking us women , trying to silence us so we don ’ t speak up , because we have been in the media , ” Ramirez said .
But she has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Her teenage son Ivan lives in the Austin , Texas , church with her and she is committed to getting them out so they can live freely in the United States , no matter how long it takes .
It is not clear if the fines will continue into the new administration , but sanctuary leaders seem optimistic and are looking forward to January when President-elect Joe Biden takes office .
After last month ’ s contentious election , immigrants in sanctuary released a video with a series of demands : They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and discuss their cases ; they want the president-elect to remove their deportation orders ; and they want to be freed from their churches .
When Trump took office , immigrants nationwide were forced to take sanctuary in record numbers .
These same people now appear cautiously optimistic that Biden will provide some relief from the relentless attacks they have experienced over the last four years .
“ Our trust is in you , ” the sanctuary leaders say to Biden in their video .
“ We await your response.
” The Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s request for comment regarding sanctuary leaders ’ appeal or the administration ’ s plan for immigrants living in sanctuary .
Prism is a BIPOC-led nonprofit news outlet that centers the people , places and issues currently underreported by national media.
” Include a link to Prism ’ s homepage ( www.prismreports.org ) .
If you share the story on social media , please mention Prism : @ prismreports

Around Thanksgiving, another letter from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrived for Hilda Ramirez at Austin, Texas’, St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church. The federal immigration agency’s latest correspondence informed Ramirez that she was being fined $59,126 as a “civil penalty pursuant to section 274D of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).” Essentially, the federal immigration agency was once again warning the Indigenous Guatemalan asylum-seeker of a gigantic fine for not complying with their order that she leave the United States.
This was the latest threat in an ongoing saga that began in July 2019. As Prism reported last year, Ramirez is one of seven high profile women who have emerged as leaders in the nationwide sanctuary movement, and ICE has spent more than a year relentlessly working to hit them with exorbitant fines. The women being targeted share some similarities: All are outspoken asylum-seekers, have appeals or motions to reopen their cases, and have actively and publicly tried to find legal avenues to stay in the United States as part of a sanctuary collective led by immigrants.
The latest fines from ICE are significantly less than previous amounts, which the agency was forced to withdraw after failing to follow appropriate procedures for issuing them. For example, Edith Espinal, a Mexican asylum-seeker in sanctuary in Ohio, was improperly issued a $497,777 fine in July. Like Ramirez, Espinal received a new notice over Thanksgiving weekend informing her of ICE’s latest fine, which her attorney Lizbeth Mateo told Prism was nearly $60,000. At least two other women in sanctuary received similar notices from ICE last month.
In a text message to Prism, Ramirez said this entire ordeal has left her feeling sad and upset. “Immigration continues to threaten me,” Ramirez wrote the morning of Dec. 1. “This is very difficult for me. Immigration keeps attacking me.” Ramirez’s only defense against ongoing attacks from the federal government comes through community support provided by organizers, legal advocates, and Austin’s faith community, which provides her with food, clothes, and shelter.
There are lingering questions about what ICE’s ultimate goal is. The agency knows that the women it is targeting with exorbitant fines have no way of paying the debt. All of them are stuck in their sanctuary churches, unable to leave the grounds without risking detainment and deportation. All are also undocumented, which means it is illegal for employers to hire them. There is virtually no way for these women to earn money, let alone the amount of money ICE is fining them.
“I don’t know how they expect me to pay this fine when I can’t even work legally in this country,” Ramirez told Prism. “Are they trapping me into breaking the law?”
Earlier iterations of the fines threatened criminal prosecution, leading sanctuary leaders, attorneys, and advocates in the sanctuary movement to believe that federal agencies were laying the groundwork to enter churches, schools, and hospitals to apprehend sanctuary leaders, in violation of a 2011 memo that advises ICE field officers and agents to avoid carrying out enforcement in “sensitive locations.” However, recently-released documents reveal that the fines may be purely retaliatory, raising serious free speech concerns for immigrants like Ramirez, who fled gender-based violence only to be targeted and penalized as an asylum-seeking woman for engaging in her right to publicly speak out about the state violence she experiences.
ICE’s Discretion
Advocates say the timeline of events surrounding sanctuary leaders’ ongoing litigation against ICE illustrates the agency’s retaliatory use of fines. Austin Sanctuary Network, Free Migration Project, Grassroots Leadership, and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) are organizations representing sanctuary leaders, and CCR held a press conference Feb. 26 of this year announcing the litigation. The very next day, letters from ICE went out to sanctuary leaders informing them of fines.
Months later, the virtually same sequence played out again. On October 28, sanctuary leaders held a virtual press conference asking Joe Biden to commit to freeing them if he is elected and announcing they were delivering a petition and letters of support from organizations and elected officials to the Biden campaign. Less than a week later, ICE mailed out its latest notice of tens of thousands of dollars in fines.
A spokesperson from ICE told Prism that the federal immigration agency “does not target unlawfully present aliens based on advocacy positions they hold or in retaliation for critical comments they make.”
“However, ICE does have an obligation to pursue anyone breaking our nation’s immigration laws,” the spokesperson wrote in an email statement. “ICE continues to issue civil fines to aliens who have been ordered removed or granted voluntary departure and fail to depart the United States, including those who seek sanctuary in churches, and fail to comply with judge’s orders of removal. All individuals in violation of U.S. immigration laws may be subject to arrest, detention, fines, and if found removable by final order, removal from the U.S.”
Advocates working with sanctuary leaders said they were aware of instances outside of sanctuary in which ICE has issued civil fines to immigrants with final orders of removal, however those fines were significantly less than those issued to sanctuary leaders. ICE did not respond to Prism’s request for additional information regarding the number of immigrants outside of sanctuary who have been fined.
Documents that sanctuary leaders and their attorneys obtained through the litigation revealed that the practice of imposing retaliatory fines can be traced back to policies established in June 2018 under former ICE acting director Thomas Homan. In a June 19, 2018 order, the director delegated authority to “administer and enforce provisions relating to civil penalties for failure to depart” to a number of lower-level ICE officials, citing a 2004 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation Order and statutory provisions from the INA, the U.S. Code, and the Code of Federal Regulations. Homan also issued a directive outlining the agency’s policy for assessing and collecting civil fines, essentially giving field offices and local-level ICE officers complete discretion in deciding whom to fine.
When combined, Homan’s order and directive enabled ICE to weaponize an obscure, never-before-used immigration statute to levy hefty civil fines against immigrants in sanctuary. With discretion to target whomever they wanted, the agency settled on outspoken asylum-seeking women — many of them mothers who fear death if returned to their home countries.
Emails obtained as part of the litigation showed that in April 2019, ICE set in motion its plan to target sanctuary leaders with fines. ICE field offices were notified if they had at least one sanctuary case within their area of responsibility and the heavily redacted correspondence referenced a “civil fines working group,” indicating to attorneys “that ICE, and perhaps other government actors, undertook a concerted, long-term effort to craft and rationalize the civil fines policy starting as early as 2017.”
Weaponizing Laws
Broadly speaking, attorneys and advocates who spoke to Prism said it should concern the American public that obscure laws and policies are being weaponized — especially because these decisions seem to be coming from high-ranking officials in the Trump administration, including Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump’s top adviser on immigration.
Retaliatory civil fines aren’t the only way existing laws have been put to new uses to target immigrants. Once the pandemic started, Miller and the Trump administration took the opportunity to weaponize Title 42, a section of the Public Health Safety Act that allows the U.S. government to temporarily block noncitizens from entering the U.S. “when doing so is required in the interest of public health.” Last month, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan “found that the Trump administration illegally invoked the pandemic to achieve its longstanding goal of keeping out asylum seekers,” Vox’s Nicole Narea reported. However, by that time more than 13,000 children had been deported under the policy.
Documents published by American Oversight in July illustrated another ploy to weaponize existing law, which would ultimately affect immigrants in sanctuary. Beginning in the spring of 2018, Miller began requesting information from Justice Department lawyer Gene Hamilton regarding statutes that could be used to restrict immigration. On March 25, 2018, Miller emailed Hamilton asking him about a “Fine/Penalties Statute” — the same statute cited in ICE’s November letter to Ramirez charging her with a $59,126 fine. Hamilton explained that the “Immigration Enforcement Account” that includes money collected from civil penalties “can be refunded to enforcement activities like removal operations, tracking systems, or ‘the repair, maintenance, or construction on the United States border wall,’” American Oversight reported. In other words, the federal government intended for Ramirez and other asylum seekers to pay for the immigration enforcement terrorizing their communities.
“Our Trust Is in You”
Ramirez told Prism that each letter from ICE feels like “another blow” against asylum-seeking women. “I think that they’re only attacking us women, trying to silence us so we don’t speak up, because we have been in the media,” Ramirez said. But she has no choice but to keep on fighting. Her teenage son Ivan lives in the Austin, Texas, church with her and she is committed to getting them out so they can live freely in the United States, no matter how long it takes.
It is not clear if the fines will continue into the new administration, but sanctuary leaders seem optimistic and are looking forward to January when President-elect Joe Biden takes office.
After last month’s contentious election, immigrants in sanctuary released a video with a series of demands: They want to meet with Biden over Zoom and discuss their cases; they want the president-elect to remove their deportation orders; and they want to be freed from their churches.
When Trump took office, immigrants nationwide were forced to take sanctuary in record numbers. These same people now appear cautiously optimistic that Biden will provide some relief from the relentless attacks they have experienced over the last four years.
“Our trust is in you,” the sanctuary leaders say to Biden in their video. “We await your response.”
The Biden transition team did not respond to Prism’s request for comment regarding sanctuary leaders’ appeal or the administration’s plan for immigrants living in sanctuary.
Prism is a BIPOC-led nonprofit news outlet that centers the people, places and issues currently underreported by national media.” Include a link to Prism’s homepage (www.prismreports.org). If you share the story on social media, please mention Prism: @prismreports
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.


truthout--2020-12-13--Paper Ballots Played a Key Role in Defending the Integrity of the 2020 Election

If Donald Trump ever does leave the White House , we can in large part thank paper ballots .
Trump ’ s desperate assault on 2020 ’ s popular vote has drawn justifiable contempt .
But had this election predominantly been conducted on the computerized touchscreen machines that have dominated our electoral process since Florida in 2000 , Trump could well be headed for a stolen second term .
Hand-marked and hand-counted paper ballots have long been at the core of the U.S. ’ s rising election protection movement .
They were largely scorned after the disastrous 2000 campaign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ hanging chads ” undermined Florida ’ s election , giving George W. Bush an Electoral College victory despite losing the nationwide popular vote .
In response , Congress voted for the $ 2 billion Help America Vote Act ( HAVA ) .
Deeming them a clean , efficient way to vote , HAVA spread computerized touch screen machines throughout the country .
However , the push to spread the machines was tainted after their main backer , Ohio Congressman Bob Ney , went to prison on unrelated corruption charges .
High-profile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also helped to damage their credibility .
For example , one professor hacked a “ secure ” touchscreen and got it to play the University of Michigan fight song .
According to the highly respected Verified Voting website , in 2006 less than half the nation ’ s votes ( 47.7 percent ) were cast in jurisdictions using mostly hand-marked paper ballots .
In 2020 it was 70 percent .
Another 18.1 percent were cast on ballot-marking devices used to mark paper ballots .
Thus , this year , nearly 9 out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were marked on paper .
Virtually all were counted with digital scanners , leaving the preserved original ballots intact for Trump ’ s bitterly contested recounts .
By contrast , the use of direct recording electronic ( DRE ) “ black box ” touchscreen machines dropped from 43.9 percent in 2006 to just 11.9 percent in 2020 .
Some of those DRE machines allow the voter to view a poorly printed , usually fragile paper record to confirm how one voted , but others do not .
In either case , the paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have relied entirely on the electronic equipment itself , making them virtually meaningless .
Over the years , frequent breakdowns and critical shortages of those DRE machines have led to long Election Day lines .
Lights on the touchscreens have often gone haywire , falsely indicating voters had chosen one candidate when in fact they ’ d chosen another .
Critics have branded the process “ push and pray.
” Since they fail to create a usable paper trail , these machines turn recounts into a bitter charade .
And when the official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jibed with exit polls ( as has happened often ) , those unhappy with the results have had an easier time deeming the election “ stolen.
” Another major risk involved with computerized touch screen machines is that nearly all are privately owned by companies like Diebold , Dominion and ES & S , which have been unwilling to make public their source codes .
The courts have ruled in their favor , calling the codes that have decided our elections “ proprietary.
” With their operational cores hidden , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outcome of an election conducted on electronic touchscreens .
Had the 2020 election been predominantly run on those machines , there ’ d be no reliable way to deter Trump ’ s incredible claims of widespread fraud .
He has predictably attacked results from Dominion ballot marking devices in Georgia .
But his attacks couldn ’ t change the Georgia result because the preserved paper ballots were available for essentially unassailable recounts .
Had touchscreen machines with black box counting devices been as prevalent nationwide as they were in 2006 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , and Trump could skate through the confusion .
But with carefully preserved paper ballots in use throughout the U.S. , and with the whole world watching , recounts reliably done in key swing states like Georgia , Wisconsin , Michigan and Pennsylvania have protected this election , undercutting Trump ’ s attempts to steal it .
In recent years , scanning devices have been installed to read inserted ballots , producing digital images that can be tallied almost instantly .
When the machines ’ coding is open to public scrutiny , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with the ballots , the system can be remarkably fast , reliable and secure .
Since the 1980s , Oregon , Washington State , Utah , Colorado and Hawaii have been voting almost entirely by mail , with great success .
This year ’ s pandemic made voting in person risky .
With enthusiastic support from election protection activists , California , Nevada , Vermont , New Jersey and Washington , D.C. , also mailed ballots to all eligible voters .
Many other states required an application to be filled out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots that were mailed in , walked in or put in drop boxes .
But this year was also characterized by blatant acts of voter suppression on a very large scale .
The demand came straight from the top , as Trump complained that if voting rights are expanded , “ you ’ d never have a Republican elected in this country again.
” Indeed , fearing a diverse tsunami of young voters — many of them subsequently mobilized by the mass anti-racism marches sparked by the murder of George Floyd — Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s motives for strictly limiting the number of people who actually receive ballots .
Thus , according to the federal Election Assistance Commission , more than 17 million citizens nationwide were stripped from the registration rolls between the 2016 and 2018 elections .
Many in-person voting centers required citizens to vote on hackable touchscreens , or to use unreliable marking devices , or to accept provisional ballots whose fates were often unknown .
Through his appointed crony , Louis DeJoy , Trump also assaulted the U.S .
Postal Service in a blatant attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ballots sent out late , to wrong addresses or not at all .
Thousands were found in mail centers undelivered on and after Election Day .
Estimates of the percentage of mailed-out ballots that never made it back to voting centers generally range up to 6 percent , numbers far beyond many electoral margins .
There were plenty of other problems .
But the bottom line remains that tens of millions of paper ballots still reside in the archives .
Where their scanned images are preserved , most are easily trackable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Wisconsin and Arizona have withstood critical Trump assaults .
In the bigger picture , in the face of Trump ’ s massive attack on voter registrations , a concerted , well-informed movement to restore the right to vote to millions of disenfranchised citizens became a major factor in the 2020 vote .
Grassroots efforts to get newly registered and re-registered citizens to actually cast their ballot also had an impact .
In fact , those efforts may have been decisive , especially among young millennial Generation Z citizens who voted in record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them voted against Trump , possibly providing Biden with his margin of victory .
Yet , also decisive has been the 20-year campaign for hand-marked paper ballots .
The 2020 pandemic was a prime mover in getting these ballots mailed out .
But movement pressure had already helped vastly expand their overall use .
With their scanned electronic images , paper ballots have provided 2020 ’ s vital bulwark against an anti-electoral coup .
Without them , we would be buried in electronic chaos — an intractable mess — the perfect swamp for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registration rolls , safe places to vote , and long windows to do so , and with hand-marked , digitally scanned paper ballots , we have a proven , workable road map toward a real democracy — a safe , transparent , reliable way to cast , count and verify our votes .
Getting there on a permanent basis will take every ounce of our commitment .
But the potential payback is beyond measure .

If Donald Trump ever does leave the White House, we can in large part thank paper ballots.
Trump’s desperate assault on 2020’s popular vote has drawn justifiable contempt. But had this election predominantly been conducted on the computerized touchscreen machines that have dominated our electoral process since Florida in 2000, Trump could well be headed for a stolen second term.
Hand-marked and hand-counted paper ballots have long been at the core of the U.S.’s rising election protection movement. They were largely scorned after the disastrous 2000 campaign, when badly designed “butterfly ballots” and “hanging chads” undermined Florida’s election, giving George W. Bush an Electoral College victory despite losing the nationwide popular vote.
In response, Congress voted for the $2 billion Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Deeming them a clean, efficient way to vote, HAVA spread computerized touch screen machines throughout the country. However, the push to spread the machines was tainted after their main backer, Ohio Congressman Bob Ney, went to prison on unrelated corruption charges.
High-profile hackers’ mockery of the machines has also helped to damage their credibility. For example, one professor hacked a “secure” touchscreen and got it to play the University of Michigan fight song.
According to the highly respected Verified Voting website, in 2006 less than half the nation’s votes (47.7 percent) were cast in jurisdictions using mostly hand-marked paper ballots. In 2020 it was 70 percent. Another 18.1 percent were cast on ballot-marking devices used to mark paper ballots. Thus, this year, nearly 9 out of every 10 votes cast in the U.S. were marked on paper. Virtually all were counted with digital scanners, leaving the preserved original ballots intact for Trump’s bitterly contested recounts.
By contrast, the use of direct recording electronic (DRE) “black box” touchscreen machines dropped from 43.9 percent in 2006 to just 11.9 percent in 2020. Some of those DRE machines allow the voter to view a poorly printed, usually fragile paper record to confirm how one voted, but others do not. In either case, the paper has been unusable for recounts, which have relied entirely on the electronic equipment itself, making them virtually meaningless.
Over the years, frequent breakdowns and critical shortages of those DRE machines have led to long Election Day lines. Lights on the touchscreens have often gone haywire, falsely indicating voters had chosen one candidate when in fact they’d chosen another. Critics have branded the process “push and pray.” Since they fail to create a usable paper trail, these machines turn recounts into a bitter charade. And when the official results tabulated by the machines have not jibed with exit polls (as has happened often), those unhappy with the results have had an easier time deeming the election “stolen.”
Another major risk involved with computerized touch screen machines is that nearly all are privately owned by companies like Diebold, Dominion and ES&S, which have been unwilling to make public their source codes. The courts have ruled in their favor, calling the codes that have decided our elections “proprietary.” With their operational cores hidden, there’s thus been no reliable way to confirm the outcome of an election conducted on electronic touchscreens.
With their scanned electronic images, paper ballots have provided 2020’s vital bulwark against an anti-electoral coup. Without them, we would be buried in electronic chaos — the perfect swamp for a would-be tyrant.
Had the 2020 election been predominantly run on those machines, there’d be no reliable way to deter Trump’s incredible claims of widespread fraud. He has predictably attacked results from Dominion ballot marking devices in Georgia. But his attacks couldn’t change the Georgia result because the preserved paper ballots were available for essentially unassailable recounts.
Had touchscreen machines with black box counting devices been as prevalent nationwide as they were in 2006, the 2020 outcome would be impossible to sort out, and Trump could skate through the confusion.
But with carefully preserved paper ballots in use throughout the U.S., and with the whole world watching, recounts reliably done in key swing states like Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania have protected this election, undercutting Trump’s attempts to steal it.
In recent years, scanning devices have been installed to read inserted ballots, producing digital images that can be tallied almost instantly. When the machines’ coding is open to public scrutiny, and when the digital images are preserved along with the ballots, the system can be remarkably fast, reliable and secure.
Since the 1980s, Oregon, Washington State, Utah, Colorado and Hawaii have been voting almost entirely by mail, with great success. This year’s pandemic made voting in person risky. With enthusiastic support from election protection activists, California, Nevada, Vermont, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., also mailed ballots to all eligible voters. Many other states required an application to be filled out. All saw huge increases in hand-marked paper ballots that were mailed in, walked in or put in drop boxes.
But this year was also characterized by blatant acts of voter suppression on a very large scale.
The demand came straight from the top, as Trump complained that if voting rights are expanded, “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”
Indeed, fearing a diverse tsunami of young voters — many of them subsequently mobilized by the mass anti-racism marches sparked by the murder of George Floyd — Trump understood all too well his party’s motives for strictly limiting the number of people who actually receive ballots.
Thus, according to the federal Election Assistance Commission, more than 17 million citizens nationwide were stripped from the registration rolls between the 2016 and 2018 elections. Many in-person voting centers required citizens to vote on hackable touchscreens, or to use unreliable marking devices, or to accept provisional ballots whose fates were often unknown.
Through his appointed crony, Louis DeJoy, Trump also assaulted the U.S. Postal Service in a blatant attempt to sabotage vote-by-mail. Reports were widespread of ballots sent out late, to wrong addresses or not at all. Thousands were found in mail centers undelivered on and after Election Day. Estimates of the percentage of mailed-out ballots that never made it back to voting centers generally range up to 6 percent, numbers far beyond many electoral margins.
There were plenty of other problems. But the bottom line remains that tens of millions of paper ballots still reside in the archives. Where their scanned images are preserved, most are easily trackable. Recounts in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Arizona have withstood critical Trump assaults.
In the bigger picture, in the face of Trump’s massive attack on voter registrations, a concerted, well-informed movement to restore the right to vote to millions of disenfranchised citizens became a major factor in the 2020 vote. Grassroots efforts to get newly registered and re-registered citizens to actually cast their ballot also had an impact.
In fact, those efforts may have been decisive, especially among young millennial Generation Z citizens who voted in record numbers. More than 60 percent of them voted against Trump, possibly providing Biden with his margin of victory.
Yet, also decisive has been the 20-year campaign for hand-marked paper ballots. The 2020 pandemic was a prime mover in getting these ballots mailed out. But movement pressure had already helped vastly expand their overall use.
With their scanned electronic images, paper ballots have provided 2020’s vital bulwark against an anti-electoral coup. Without them, we would be buried in electronic chaos — an intractable mess — the perfect swamp for a would-be tyrant.
With protected voter registration rolls, safe places to vote, and long windows to do so, and with hand-marked, digitally scanned paper ballots, we have a proven, workable road map toward a real democracy — a safe, transparent, reliable way to cast, count and verify our votes.
Getting there on a permanent basis will take every ounce of our commitment. But the potential payback is beyond measure.
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--2020-12-13--New Book Highlights Need for Solidarity for Humans to Survive Global Collapse

Is this the end ?
The end of capitalism ?
The end of the human species ?
Anyone who has closely observed developments of the last 10 years can be forgiven a quick affirmative response .
In a decade that has seen startling discoveries in climate science ( none positive ) , unprecedented fires , and increasingly frequent and far more destructive tropical storms and hurricanes , the evidence is clearer than ever that our economic plunder of the planet ’ s natural bounty has gone too far .
Add to that the emergence of a deadly worldwide pandemic with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does seem to answer itself .
Similarly , rampant police brutality and the oppression of Black , Brown , queer and transgender populations would indicate that centuries of racism and oppression are not only alive and well but are growing in vehemence .
These questions have become especially popular topics in leftist literature .
From Paul Mason ’ s Postcapitalism : A Guide to Our Future to Naomi Klein ’ s This Changes Everything to more esoteric offerings such as McKenzie Wark ’ s Capital Is Dead : Is This Something Worse ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of humanity itself are up for discussion .
A new entry into this crowded space is Mark Schuller ’ s forthcoming book , Humanity ’ s Last Stand : Confronting Global Catastrophe .
What makes Schuller ’ s book notable is its focus on strategies to confront global collapse .
Schuller is a professor of anthropology and nonprofit and nongovernmental organization studies at Northern Illinois University , and affiliate at the Faculté d ’ Ethnologie , l ’ Université d ’ État d ’ Haïti .
( Full disclosure : Schuller is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understands that the course we are on as a society and as a planet is unsustainable , and he has no illusions about the difficult task we face in changing course .
It will require dramatic reversals in our approach to the economy , and a reconfiguration of our attitudes toward other inhabitants of our planet .
Schuller creatively articulates that the present movements to control climate change , to erase the enduring legacies of colonialism and racism , and to restructure our economic life to provide a decent and humane life for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if this might not be apparent at the moment .
“ Our destinies are already intertwined , connected by legacies of colonialism , patriarchy , slavery and capitalism , ” he writes .
That grossly unequal system , one based on endless growth , has reached its limits , and now is the moment of reckoning –– the moment wherein these limits have come back to bite us .
Informing all of Schuller ’ s thinking is his background as an anthropologist and his experience working in Haiti , one of the poorest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Last Stand , he offers what he refers to as an “ Anthropological Imagination.
” He explains this as looking at the complex problems through the lens of anthropology , which involves the study of lived lives ; how human beings relate to each other and form communities .
Schuller offers this not as a replacement for more traditional world systems theories ( such as Marxism ) but as a complement , one meant to guide the way to understanding that all struggles for a just world are tied to one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the others ; understanding from the bottom up , if you will , to complement analysis from the top down .
The result of following one ’ s Anthropological Imagination is what Schuller refers to as a “ radical empathy.
” What is radical empathy ?
It is the ability to identify with struggles for justice that do not impact upon your own community .
It is the willingness to recognize not just the legitimacy of these struggles but also the centrality of all of them in the struggle for a survivable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a call for those of us who live in privileged positions in highly developed societies to understand that “ it might just be our way of life that is strange , that needs to change.
” This radical empathy guides Schuller as he winds through three core chapters addressing major issues confronting us today : dismantling white supremacy , climate change and issues of immigration .
He tries to develop an understanding of the way vast regions of the world have been laid waste by decades of oppression ; how the prosperity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long history of colonialism and slavery , brutal institutions whose immense damages continue to reverberate today .
Schuller wants us to understand that we in the West bear the primary responsibility for climate change , while the poorest and weakest lands bear the brunt of the damage .
Any decent theory of justice should inform us of our need to be in solidarity with the movements of the victims and understand that changes in Western lifestyles are the price to be paid for a more just and livable world .
Schuller elegantly sums @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the book ’ s concluding chapter : Human beings evolved from being prey to predator ; from living in the forest to the savannah to ever growing concrete jungles .
We are now our own primary threat .
As Agent Smith mused while interrogating Morpheus in the movie The Matrix , “ Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment , but you humans do not .
You move to an area and multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed , and the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to another area.
” We ’ re out of space ; running out of time .
Indeed , we are .
As I mentioned before , there is no shortage of literature aimed at convincing us of that fact .
What matters now is how we respond .
The great strength of Humanity ’ s Last Stand is in pointing us to the way forward : uniting the disparate movements for social , economic and climate justice through a radical empathy that understands and feels the deep connections between all of those issues @ @ @ @ @ @

Is this the end? The end of capitalism? The end of the human species?
Anyone who has closely observed developments of the last 10 years can be forgiven a quick affirmative response. In a decade that has seen startling discoveries in climate science (none positive), unprecedented fires, and increasingly frequent and far more destructive tropical storms and hurricanes, the evidence is clearer than ever that our economic plunder of the planet’s natural bounty has gone too far. Add to that the emergence of a deadly worldwide pandemic with devastating economic consequences, and the question does seem to answer itself.
Similarly, rampant police brutality and the oppression of Black, Brown, queer and transgender populations would indicate that centuries of racism and oppression are not only alive and well but are growing in vehemence.
These questions have become especially popular topics in leftist literature. From Paul Mason’s Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future to Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything to more esoteric offerings such as McKenzie Wark’s Capital Is Dead: Is This Something Worse?, the futures of both capitalism and of humanity itself are up for discussion.
A new entry into this crowded space is Mark Schuller’s forthcoming book, Humanity’s Last Stand: Confronting Global Catastrophe. What makes Schuller’s book notable is its focus on strategies to confront global collapse. Schuller is a professor of anthropology and nonprofit and nongovernmental organization studies at Northern Illinois University, and affiliate at the Faculté d’Ethnologie, l’Université d’État d’Haïti. (Full disclosure: Schuller is an acquaintance of the author.)
Schuller understands that the course we are on as a society and as a planet is unsustainable, and he has no illusions about the difficult task we face in changing course. It will require dramatic reversals in our approach to the economy, and a reconfiguration of our attitudes toward other inhabitants of our planet.
Schuller creatively articulates that the present movements to control climate change, to erase the enduring legacies of colonialism and racism, and to restructure our economic life to provide a decent and humane life for all are intrinsically bound together, even if this might not be apparent at the moment.
“Our destinies are already intertwined, connected by legacies of colonialism, patriarchy, slavery and capitalism,” he writes. That grossly unequal system, one based on endless growth, has reached its limits, and now is the moment of reckoning –– the moment wherein these limits have come back to bite us.
Changes in Western lifestyles are the price to be paid for a more just and livable world.
Informing all of Schuller’s thinking is his background as an anthropologist and his experience working in Haiti, one of the poorest nations on the planet. Throughout Humanity’s Last Stand, he offers what he refers to as an “Anthropological Imagination.” He explains this as looking at the complex problems through the lens of anthropology, which involves the study of lived lives; how human beings relate to each other and form communities.
Schuller offers this not as a replacement for more traditional world systems theories (such as Marxism) but as a complement, one meant to guide the way to understanding that all struggles for a just world are tied to one another and all are mutually dependent upon all the others; understanding from the bottom up, if you will, to complement analysis from the top down.
The result of following one’s Anthropological Imagination is what Schuller refers to as a “radical empathy.” What is radical empathy? It is the ability to identify with struggles for justice that do not impact upon your own community. It is the willingness to recognize not just the legitimacy of these struggles but also the centrality of all of them in the struggle for a survivable society. And finally, it is a call for those of us who live in privileged positions in highly developed societies to understand that “it might just be our way of life that is strange, that needs to change.”
This radical empathy guides Schuller as he winds through three core chapters addressing major issues confronting us today: dismantling white supremacy, climate change and issues of immigration. He tries to develop an understanding of the way vast regions of the world have been laid waste by decades of oppression; how the prosperity of the West was built upon on a long history of colonialism and slavery, brutal institutions whose immense damages continue to reverberate today.
Schuller wants us to understand that we in the West bear the primary responsibility for climate change, while the poorest and weakest lands bear the brunt of the damage. Any decent theory of justice should inform us of our need to be in solidarity with the movements of the victims and understand that changes in Western lifestyles are the price to be paid for a more just and livable world.
Schuller elegantly sums up our present dilemma in one paragraph in the book’s concluding chapter:
Human beings evolved from being prey to predator; from living in the forest to the savannah to ever growing concrete jungles. We are now our own primary threat. As Agent Smith mused while interrogating Morpheus in the movie The Matrix, “Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed, and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.” We’re out of space; running out of time.
Indeed, we are. As I mentioned before, there is no shortage of literature aimed at convincing us of that fact. What matters now is how we respond. The great strength of Humanity’s Last Stand is in pointing us to the way forward: uniting the disparate movements for social, economic and climate justice through a radical empathy that understands and feels the deep connections between all of those issues and between all of us.
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--2020-12-14--More Than 1 Million Voters in Georgia Request Absentee Ballots for Runoff Races

Millions of voters in Georgia have already requested absentee ballots for next month ’ s Senate runoff races , with around 1-in-6 ballots having already been returned , indicating that the race will see a historic voter turnout .
The races pit Republican incumbents Sens .
Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue against Democratic challengers Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff , respectively .
The outcome of the races could determine which political party controls the United States Senate .
If both Warnock and Ossoff win their respective races , the “ upper chamber ” of Congress will be split evenly between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala Harris providing a tie-breaking vote .
Around 1.2 million mail-in ballots for the runoff races have already been requested by voters .
Of those requested , around 200,000 ballots have already been returned .
In-person voting in Georgia for the runoff races also began on Monday .
In the general election , around 1.78 million residents in Georgia requested absentee ballots .
Nearly 2.7 million also voted in person early , prior to Election Day in November .
While the count for the runoff races is currently lower than the general election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the January 5 races will likely increase until voting day , as voters in Georgia have until January 1 to request such ballots ( although advocates recommend that voters make the request well before that date ) .
Ballots must be returned by January 5 , Election Day for the runoffs , by 7 p.m .
Turnout for the runoffs is expected to be lower than it was for the general election , which is typically the case for runoff races .
In 2018 , for example , the contest for secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the general election race , while the runoff for that year ’ s election only saw 1.47 million voters take part — a dropoff in participation of about 62 percent .
However , the participation rate is expected to be higher for this year ’ s runoff than it was in 2018 .
Emory University professor Bernard Fraga , who spoke to the Associated Press about the matter , predicted that the total number of voters for both runoff races could reach around 4 million voters .
Nearly 5 million voted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 45,000 fewer votes coming in for the Perdue-Ossoff race .
In the Warnock-Loeffler matchup , around 4.91 million voted .
“ It looks like we ’ re going to have a high-turnout election , ” Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said .
“ I would encourage all the candidates to make sure that they run hard , because we don ’ t have a runoff after the runoff .
This is it.
” Turnout for the races will be critical for both political parties , as polling has shown tight numbers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slight advantage at the moment .
Republicans are worried that President Donald Trump ’ s unsubstantiated claims of election fraud will discourage some Republican-leaning voters from voting , as they may view the runoff elections as rigged .

Around 200,000 of the 1.2 million ballots requested so far have already been mailed back in.
Millions of voters in Georgia have already requested absentee ballots for next month’s Senate runoff races, with around 1-in-6 ballots having already been returned, indicating that the race will see a historic voter turnout.
The races pit Republican incumbents Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue against Democratic challengers Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, respectively. The outcome of the races could determine which political party controls the United States Senate. If both Warnock and Ossoff win their respective races, the “upper chamber” of Congress will be split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris providing a tie-breaking vote.
Around 1.2 million mail-in ballots for the runoff races have already been requested by voters. Of those requested, around 200,000 ballots have already been returned. In-person voting in Georgia for the runoff races also began on Monday.
In the general election, around 1.78 million residents in Georgia requested absentee ballots. Nearly 2.7 million also voted in person early, prior to Election Day in November.
While the count for the runoff races is currently lower than the general election numbers, total requests for absentee ballots for the January 5 races will likely increase until voting day, as voters in Georgia have until January 1 to request such ballots (although advocates recommend that voters make the request well before that date). Ballots must be returned by January 5, Election Day for the runoffs, by 7 p.m.
Turnout for the runoffs is expected to be lower than it was for the general election, which is typically the case for runoff races. In 2018, for example, the contest for secretary of state saw 3.88 million votes cast in the general election race, while the runoff for that year’s election only saw 1.47 million voters take part — a dropoff in participation of about 62 percent.
However, the participation rate is expected to be higher for this year’s runoff than it was in 2018. Emory University professor Bernard Fraga, who spoke to the Associated Press about the matter, predicted that the total number of voters for both runoff races could reach around 4 million voters.
Nearly 5 million voted in the presidential election in November, with about 45,000 fewer votes coming in for the Perdue-Ossoff race. In the Warnock-Loeffler matchup, around 4.91 million voted.
“It looks like we’re going to have a high-turnout election,” Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said. “I would encourage all the candidates to make sure that they run hard, because we don’t have a runoff after the runoff. This is it.”
Turnout for the races will be critical for both political parties, as polling has shown tight numbers in both contests, with Democrats having a slight advantage at the moment.
Republicans are worried that President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of election fraud will discourage some Republican-leaning voters from voting, as they may view the runoff elections as rigged.
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--2020-12-14--As Vaccine Gains Approval, Hospitals Scramble Over Which Workers to Prioritize

If there ’ s such a thing as a date with destiny , it ’ s marked on Dr. Taison Bell ’ s calendar .
At noon Tuesday , Bell , a critical care physician , is scheduled to be one of the first health care workers at the University of Virginia Health System to roll up his sleeve for a shot to ward off the coronavirus .
“ This is a long time coming , ” said Bell , 37 , who signed up via hospital email last week .
“ The story of this crisis is that each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is really the first time that there ’ s genuine hope that we can turn the corner on this.
” For now , that hope is limited to a chosen few .
Bell provides direct care to some of the sickest COVID-19 patients at the UVA Health hospital in Charlottesville , Virginia .
But he is among some 12,000 “ patient-facing ” workers at his hospital who could be eligible for about 3,000 early doses of vaccine , said Dr. Costi Sifri , director of hospital epidemiology .
“ We ’ re trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , those who really spend a significant amount of time taking care of patients , ” Sifri said .
“ It doesn ’ t account for everybody.
” Even as the federal Food and Drug Administration engaged in intense deliberations ahead of Friday ’ s authorization of the Pfizer and BioNTech COVID vaccine , and days before the initial 6.4 million doses were to be released , hospitals across the country have been grappling with how to distribute the first scarce shots .
An advisory committee of the Centers for Disease Control and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to long-term care facilities and front-line health care workers , but the early allocation was always expected to fall far short of the need and require selective screening even among critical hospital workers .
Hospitals in general are advised to target the members of their workforce at highest risk , but the institutions are left on their own to decide exactly who that will be , Colin Milligan , a spokesperson for the American Hospital Association , said in an email .
“ It is clear that the hospitals will not receive enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their staff , so decisions had to be made , ” Milligan wrote .
At Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City , the first shots will go to staff members “ with the highest risk of contact with COVID-positive patients or their waste , ” said Dr. Kristin Dascomb , medical director of infection prevention and employee health .
Within that group , managers will determine which caregivers are first in line .
At UW Medicine in Seattle , which includes Harborview Medical Center , one early plan called for high-risk staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doses , said Dr. Shireesha Dhanireddy , medical director of the infectious disease clinic .
But the University of Washington hospital system expects to receive enough doses to vaccinate everyone in that high-risk tier within two weeks , so randomization isn ’ t necessary — for now .
“ We are allowing people to schedule themselves , ” Dhanireddy said , and encouraging staffers to be vaccinated near the end of their workweeks in case they have reactions to the new vaccine .
Trial results have shown the shots frequently produce side effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause symptoms such as fever , muscle aches or fatigue that might keep someone home for a day or two .
“ We want to make sure that not everybody has the vaccine on the same day so that if there are some side effects , we don ’ t end up being short-staffed , ” said Sifri , of UVA Health , noting that guidelines call for no more than 25 % of any unit to be vaccinated at once .
At UVA Health , once the initial 3,000 doses are distributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Sifri described as “ a very strong honor code ” to allow staff members to decide where they should be in line .
They ’ ve been asked to consider professional factors , like the type of work they do , as well as personal risks , such as age or underlying conditions like diabetes .
“ We ’ re going to ask team members , using the honor code , to determine what their risk is for COVID and to determine whether they need to have an early vaccine sign-up time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
That plan was chosen after health care staff members soundly rejected other options .
For instance , few favored a proposal to allocate dosages via a lottery , like the chaotic birthday-based system depicted in the 2011 pandemic horror film “ Contagion.
” “ That was the biggest loser , ” he said .
Hospital officials also stressed they are trying to devise distribution plans that ensure vaccines are allocated equitably among health care workers , including the social , racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately harmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond front-line doctors and nurses .
At UVA Health , for example , one of the first groups invited to get shots will be 17 workers whose job is to clean rooms in the special pathogens unit where severe COVID cases are treated .
“ We acknowledge that everybody is at risk for COVID , everybody is deserving of a vaccine , ” Sifri said .
In many cases , it will be clear who should go first .
For instance , although Dhanireddy is an infectious disease doctor who consults on COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be vaccinated .
“ I wouldn ’ t put myself in the first group at all , ” she said .
“ I think that we need to protect our staff that are really right there with them most of the day — and that ’ s not me.
” But hospitals must remain vigilant about relying on workers to prioritize their own access , Dhanireddy cautioned .
“ Sometimes , self-selection works more for self-advocacy , ” she said .
“ It ’ s great that some individuals say they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not actually the case.
” For some health care workers , not being first in line for vaccination is fine .
Because the vaccine initially has been authorized only for emergency use , hospitals won ’ t require employees to be inoculated as part of this first round .
Between 70 % and 75 % of health care staff at UVA Health and Intermountain Health would accept a COVID vaccine , internal surveys showed .
The rest are unsure — or unwilling .
“ There are some that will be immediate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch and wait , ” Dascomb said .
Still , hospital officials say they ’ re confident that those who want the vaccine won ’ t have to wait long .
Enough doses for roughly 21 million health care personnel should be available by early January , according to CDC officials .
Bell , the critical care doctor , said he ’ s grateful to be among the first to receive the vaccine , especially after his parents , who live in Boston , both contracted COVID-19 .
He has posted about his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other health care workers who are among the first in line should be public about the process .
“ We ’ ll serve as an example that this is a safe and effective vaccine , ” he said .
“ We ’ re letting it go into our bodies .
You should let it go into yours , too .
”

Still, hospital officials say they’re confident that those who want the vaccine won’t have to wait long.
If there’s such a thing as a date with destiny, it’s marked on Dr. Taison Bell’s calendar.
At noon Tuesday, Bell, a critical care physician, is scheduled to be one of the first health care workers at the University of Virginia Health System to roll up his sleeve for a shot to ward off the coronavirus.
“This is a long time coming,” said Bell, 37, who signed up via hospital email last week. “The story of this crisis is that each week feels like a year. This is really the first time that there’s genuine hope that we can turn the corner on this.”
For now, that hope is limited to a chosen few. Bell provides direct care to some of the sickest COVID-19 patients at the UVA Health hospital in Charlottesville, Virginia. But he is among some 12,000 “patient-facing” workers at his hospital who could be eligible for about 3,000 early doses of vaccine, said Dr. Costi Sifri, director of hospital epidemiology.
“We’re trying to come up with the highest-risk categories, those who really spend a significant amount of time taking care of patients,” Sifri said. “It doesn’t account for everybody.”
Even as the federal Food and Drug Administration engaged in intense deliberations ahead of Friday’s authorization of the Pfizer and BioNTech COVID vaccine, and days before the initial 6.4 million doses were to be released, hospitals across the country have been grappling with how to distribute the first scarce shots.
An advisory committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that top priority go to long-term care facilities and front-line health care workers, but the early allocation was always expected to fall far short of the need and require selective screening even among critical hospital workers.
Hospitals in general are advised to target the members of their workforce at highest risk, but the institutions are left on their own to decide exactly who that will be, Colin Milligan, a spokesperson for the American Hospital Association, said in an email.
“It is clear that the hospitals will not receive enough in the first weeks to vaccinate everyone on their staff, so decisions had to be made,” Milligan wrote.
At Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, the first shots will go to staff members “with the highest risk of contact with COVID-positive patients or their waste,” said Dr. Kristin Dascomb, medical director of infection prevention and employee health. Within that group, managers will determine which caregivers are first in line.
At UW Medicine in Seattle, which includes Harborview Medical Center, one early plan called for high-risk staff to be selected randomly to receive first doses, said Dr. Shireesha Dhanireddy, medical director of the infectious disease clinic. But the University of Washington hospital system expects to receive enough doses to vaccinate everyone in that high-risk tier within two weeks, so randomization isn’t necessary — for now.
“We are allowing people to schedule themselves,” Dhanireddy said, and encouraging staffers to be vaccinated near the end of their workweeks in case they have reactions to the new vaccine.
Trial results have shown the shots frequently produce side effects that, while not debilitating, could cause symptoms such as fever, muscle aches or fatigue that might keep someone home for a day or two.
“We want to make sure that not everybody has the vaccine on the same day so that if there are some side effects, we don’t end up being short-staffed,” said Sifri, of UVA Health, noting that guidelines call for no more than 25% of any unit to be vaccinated at once.
At UVA Health, once the initial 3,000 doses are distributed, the hospital plans to rely on what Sifri described as “a very strong honor code” to allow staff members to decide where they should be in line. They’ve been asked to consider professional factors, like the type of work they do, as well as personal risks, such as age or underlying conditions like diabetes.
“We’re going to ask team members, using the honor code, to determine what their risk is for COVID and to determine whether they need to have an early vaccine sign-up time or a later vaccine sign-up time,” he said.
That plan was chosen after health care staff members soundly rejected other options. For instance, few favored a proposal to allocate dosages via a lottery, like the chaotic birthday-based system depicted in the 2011 pandemic horror film “Contagion.” “That was the biggest loser,” he said.
Hospital officials also stressed they are trying to devise distribution plans that ensure vaccines are allocated equitably among health care workers, including the social, racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately harmed by COVID-19 infections. That requires thinking beyond front-line doctors and nurses.
At UVA Health, for example, one of the first groups invited to get shots will be 17 workers whose job is to clean rooms in the special pathogens unit where severe COVID cases are treated.
“We acknowledge that everybody is at risk for COVID, everybody is deserving of a vaccine,” Sifri said.
In many cases, it will be clear who should go first. For instance, although Dhanireddy is an infectious disease doctor who consults on COVID cases, she is happy to wait to be vaccinated. “I wouldn’t put myself in the first group at all,” she said. “I think that we need to protect our staff that are really right there with them most of the day — and that’s not me.”
But hospitals must remain vigilant about relying on workers to prioritize their own access, Dhanireddy cautioned. “Sometimes, self-selection works more for self-advocacy,” she said. “It’s great that some individuals say they would defer to others, but sometimes that’s not actually the case.”
For some health care workers, not being first in line for vaccination is fine. Because the vaccine initially has been authorized only for emergency use, hospitals won’t require employees to be inoculated as part of this first round. Between 70% and 75% of health care staff at UVA Health and Intermountain Health would accept a COVID vaccine, internal surveys showed. The rest are unsure — or unwilling.
“There are some that will be immediate acceptors and some who will want to watch and wait,” Dascomb said.
Still, hospital officials say they’re confident that those who want the vaccine won’t have to wait long. Enough doses for roughly 21 million health care personnel should be available by early January, according to CDC officials.
Bell, the critical care doctor, said he’s grateful to be among the first to receive the vaccine, especially after his parents, who live in Boston, both contracted COVID-19. He has posted about his upcoming appointment on Twitter and said he and other health care workers who are among the first in line should be public about the process.
“We’ll serve as an example that this is a safe and effective vaccine,” he said. “We’re letting it go into our bodies. You should let it go into yours, too.”
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.