dailysignal--2020-06-03--What Do We Know About Status of Pandemic? Here’s Some Data to Put It in Perspective

As states reopen across the country , it ’ s important to understand both where the COVID-19 pandemic has spread and where it is progressing or receding .
To further that effort , my colleagues and I at The Heritage Foundation built a tracker that uses publicly available data to provide some basic information , on a county-by-county basis , about the disease .
By tracking case data , we can learn several basic truths about the disease .
For example , we expected to find that cases would be concentrated in the most populous areas , with the East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that out .
But the tracker reveals that certain areas have seen a disproportionate amount of cases .
The 30 counties registering the most deaths from COVID-19 account for 45.7 % of total cases , but only 15.4 % of the population .
Of those 30 counties , 24 are between Philadelphia and Boston .
Pockets of concentration can be found within states as well .
For example , as of May 24 , Wayne County , Michigan , with only 17.5 % of the state ’ s population , accounted for 39 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that nursing homes have been ravaged by the pandemic .
But the Kaiser Family Foundation notes that only 36 states report this data , and many of them fail to report case counts or provide daily updates .
Somewhere between 30 % and 50 % of all deaths from COVID-19 have occurred in nursing homes , so tracking this issue should be a priority .
States should work to closely examine their nursing homes so resources and policy changes can be directed appropriately .
Similarly , state-level data about COVID cases in prisons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggregates and tracks this data .
For example , Lakeland Correctional Facility in Branch County , Michigan , has 793 confirmed inmate cases , yet the county has reported only 101 .
Lakeland also has 34 confirmed cases in its staff .
Similarly , Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Lenawee County , Michigan , has 727 cases but the county reports just 177 , inmates and staff combined .
There are two issues here .
Michigan leads in prison testing ; as of May 22 , it claimed to have tested every prisoner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently ranks high among the states in terms of prisoners testing positive for COVID-19 , many states have not conducted similar testing .
Second , it is not clear how prison infection counts enter the summary data for a state .
It is unclear whether staff counts are placed in the unallocated count or if it is attributed at the county level .
Examining the data , it seems prison data generally is not attributed to county data .
Moving forward , testing data will become important to contextualize infection rates .
Currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We found only 10 states that provided useable , county-level testing data .
As states reopen , we must be able to separate the effects of increased testing from the possibility of new outbreaks .
For example , if a state conducts many new tests on one day , this will appear as accelerating new cases in the data and general trackers but might warrant concern .
States should be encouraged to release this data alongside their county level case data to help individuals understand their current situation .
The availability of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states reopen—especially for vulnerable populations .
Public officials need that information to guide policy decisions on how best to protect them .
The basic case and demographic data provided by Heritage ’ s Tracker can help the public find information about the disease ’ s progress in their county and state , but it can only go so far .
Vital county-level testing data are still lacking , as are explanations for how jurisdictions treat data for some of the populations hit hardest by the pandemic .
These deficiencies must be addressed .

As states reopen across the country, it’s important to understand both where the COVID-19 pandemic has spread and where it is progressing or receding. To further that effort, my colleagues and I at The Heritage Foundation built a tracker that uses publicly available data to provide some basic information, on a county-by-county basis, about the disease.
By tracking case data, we can learn several basic truths about the disease. For example, we expected to find that cases would be concentrated in the most populous areas, with the East Coast hardest hit. The data bear that out.
But the tracker reveals that certain areas have seen a disproportionate amount of cases. The 30 counties registering the most deaths from COVID-19 account for 45.7% of total cases, but only 15.4% of the population. Of those 30 counties, 24 are between Philadelphia and Boston.
Pockets of concentration can be found within states as well. For example, as of May 24, Wayne County, Michigan, with only 17.5% of the state’s population, accounted for 39% of its cases.
We know that nursing homes have been ravaged by the pandemic. But the Kaiser Family Foundation notes that only 36 states report this data, and many of them fail to report case counts or provide daily updates.
Somewhere between 30% and 50% of all deaths from COVID-19 have occurred in nursing homes, so tracking this issue should be a priority. States should work to closely examine their nursing homes so resources and policy changes can be directed appropriately.
Similarly, state-level data about COVID cases in prisons is sadly lacking. The Marshall Project aggregates and tracks this data.
For example, Lakeland Correctional Facility in Branch County, Michigan, has 793 confirmed inmate cases, yet the county has reported only 101. Lakeland also has 34 confirmed cases in its staff. Similarly, Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Lenawee County, Michigan, has 727 cases but the county reports just 177, inmates and staff combined.
There are two issues here. Michigan leads in prison testing; as of May 22, it claimed to have tested every prisoner in its system. So while Michigan currently ranks high among the states in terms of prisoners testing positive for COVID-19, many states have not conducted similar testing.
Second, it is not clear how prison infection counts enter the summary data for a state. It is unclear whether staff counts are placed in the unallocated count or if it is attributed at the county level. Examining the data, it seems prison data generally is not attributed to county data.
Moving forward, testing data will become important to contextualize infection rates. Currently, testing data are incomplete and inconsistent. We found only 10 states that provided useable, county-level testing data.
As states reopen, we must be able to separate the effects of increased testing from the possibility of new outbreaks. For example, if a state conducts many new tests on one day, this will appear as accelerating new cases in the data and general trackers but might warrant concern. States should be encouraged to release this data alongside their county level case data to help individuals understand their current situation.
The availability of reliable county-level data will be essential as states reopen—especially for vulnerable populations. Public officials need that information to guide policy decisions on how best to protect them.
The basic case and demographic data provided by Heritage’s Tracker can help the public find information about the disease’s progress in their county and state, but it can only go so far.
Vital county-level testing data are still lacking, as are explanations for how jurisdictions treat data for some of the populations hit hardest by the pandemic. These deficiencies must be addressed.
Originally published by The Washington Times


dailysignal--2020-05-28--How Big Abortion Has Circumnavigated State Restrictions Amid COVID-19

If there were a fire in your house , what would you save ?
It ’ s a timeless question , and one that ’ s been relevant in the COVID-19 pandemic .
State officials have been forced to ask : To prevent loss of life from the novel coronavirus in our state , what should stay open ?
What is “ essential ” ?
As state officials asked those questions this spring , one thing became clear : Preserving lives and medical resources was the priority .
Elective surgeries—including abortion—could wait .
> > > When can America reopen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a project of The Heritage Foundation , is gathering America ’ s top thinkers together to figure that out .
Learn more here .
But the big abortion industry kept going .
The list of states with ban orders on elective surgeries grew , with some states explicitly clarifying that abortions were included in the list of banned surgeries .
And yet , big abortion kept going .
It has the makings of an inspirational story— “ a little engine that could ” —except in this case , it was a well-oiled machine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing innocent children and using desperately-needed medical supplies to do it .
While COVID-19 swept the world , the abortion industry made sure to defend its bottom line and to proactively advance its agenda at every turn .
As America turns to a new phase in its pandemic response , here ’ s a recap on what big abortion did in the states amid the worst of COVID-19—and what to expect next .
Early Responses From States and the Abortion Industry Two months ago , when COVID-19 restrictions were just starting to become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary focus was on social distancing .
Places both public and private were still open , but the general population was encouraged to maintain safe distances , avoid large crowds , and stay home if they were sick .
As those recommendations grew into guidelines and even orders , there was an increased focus on personal protective equipment , particularly for doctors on the front lines fighting COVID-19 , because of its contagious nature .
While the orders to preserve personal protective equipment evolved , at least two Planned Parenthood locations in Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support , asking for donations of personal protective equipment , including masks and hand sanitizer .
At a time when states nationwide were doing all in their power to preserve medical supplies for the front lines , Planned Parenthood was asking for a share of the same supplies to perform abortions .
Bans on Elective Surgery in the States About the same time , some states decided to start restricting or banning non-urgent elective surgeries .
That was a highly unusual measure designed in large part to preserve personal protective equipment for front-line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the states issued those kinds of orders .
In the end , 36 states would end up with some variation on a ban on elective surgeries , or at least a guidance recommending it .
The orders varied in how they defined what surgeries could continue ; specifically , what was “ essential.
” Some used exclusive lists : Certain enumerated services could remain , and everything else was temporarily halted .
Others took a definitional approach : If the surgery met certain criteria , it would be considered “ essential ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
In one respect , they varied significantly ; namely , whether states permitted abortion as an essential service .
Some states—such as Oregon and Virginia—explicitly permitted abortions to continue .
Others , among them Texas and Ohio , explicitly clarified—either in their orders or in subsequent official statements—that abortion would not be permitted to continue in most or all circumstances as long as other surgeries were banned .
The Abortion Industry ’ s Early Response to the Bans As the largest provider of abortions in America , Planned Parenthood had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bans treated abortion .
Initially , Planned Parenthood ’ s response to these bans varied , based on the location and the specifics of the order .
Early on , Ohio Planned Parenthood locations insisted they would continue performing abortions on the basis that they could comply with health orders and that they saw abortion as an essential procedure .
Among abortion centers in states where abortions were openly permitted to continue , some clinics—including non-Planned Parenthood facilities—saw an increase in the volume of women from out of state at their clinics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraged women to travel to receive an abortion , an ironic action in the midst of states shutting down to contain the spread of COVID-19 .
By encouraging interstate travel , the abortion industry may have risked the spread of the disease even further .
In Texas , where the attorney general clarified that abortions were temporarily proscribed , Planned Parenthood was swift to respond with a lawsuit .
That was quickly followed by lawsuits in other states , each led by Planned Parenthood , the ACLU , the Lawyering Project , and/or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big-name abortion advocates filed lawsuits over the temporary abortion restrictions , either together or separately , in at least nine states as of this writing .
How the Abortion Lobby Won in Court Abortion providers claimed that closing abortion clinics , even for a short time , was a violation of “ a woman ’ s fundamental right to abortion.
” They claimed that even a couple of weeks ’ cessation was unacceptable , even if the orders permitted abortion in certain circumstances .
Any restriction was a burden , they claimed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is always essential .
With the notable exceptions of Texas and Arkansas , the abortion lobby consistently received favorable court rulings in these cases—even in instances like in Alabama , where the government made huge concessions allowing certain abortions to proceed .
In that case , because the state limits the gestational age at which abortion is legal , if waiting for the order to expire would have pushed the abortion past the legal gestational age , a woman could still get the abortion right away .
Nonetheless , Alabama lost in court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stipulate that chemical abortions could continue to occur because they did not require as much in-person contact or personal protective equipment .
However , many courts saw even a temporary restriction on surgical abortions as an undue burden and therefore unconstitutional .
Planned Parenthood cried foul , claiming governors and state attorneys general were targeting the abortion industry .
At face value , though , the orders did not single out clinics , and state executives only spoke out to clarify that the orders did indeed apply to the abortion industry—just as with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , about the same time as these neutral health orders were issued and debated , several states issued meeting bans on churches that were not neutral and , in fact , targeted religious entities .
Some of those orders were held to unconstitutionally single out church attendees while allowing other groups that had been deemed essential to continue operating .
However , other , similar orders that were implemented in an arbitrary way were allowed to remain .
That has caused many to wonder : Why is it that governors can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
As states begin to reopen , most of the restrictions on elective surgeries are also being lifted .
Medical centers are still being required to take precautions , but in many states procedures are being allowed to resume .
What does that mean for abortion ?
Because much of the concern about overwhelming the medical community or using precious personal protective equipment has lessened , things are gradually moving “ back to normal ” for the abortion industry .
The return to normalcy is happening in states such as Colorado , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and even in Texas , which succeeded in its effort to temporarily halt abortions as an emergency measure .
Meanwhile , the states that are choosing to remain predominantly closed are generally left-leaning states .
In those states , temporary restrictions on abortion were minor or nonexistent anyway , so continued closures will not uniquely affect abortion clinics in most cases .
But a “ return to normalcy ” does not mean the abortion industry is done taking advantage of the current crisis .
As the lawsuits began to slow down , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion giant announced that it was making telehealth available in all 50 states in light of ongoing social distancing guidelines .
Depending on state laws , Planned Parenthood ’ s telehealth could mean abortion counseling , or it could mean abortionists actually prescribing medication abortions to women during a video consultation .
While telehealth can be a huge benefit to treat certain conditions and to provide access to needed health care services for vulnerable populations , abortion poses a serious threat to women and its track record suggests it should not be eligible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2018 , there were reports of 24 deaths of women associated with the abortion pill since the product was approved in September 2000 .
That includes women who , unbeknownst to the abortionist , had an ectopic pregnancy or sepsis .
Those are conditions that are difficult to evaluate if the woman is not physically examined .
Planned Parenthood is not only advocating against temporary rules that protect the lives of women and children , preserve medical supplies , and hurt its business model .
It ’ s also using the novel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and push for a boost to its bottom line .
As with the lawsuits , the broader abortion lobby has joined in the fight .
Several pro-abortion state attorneys general wrote to federal officials asking that they lift safeguards currently in place for the abortion pill .
Those safeguards—including prohibiting an abortionist from sending abortion medications directly to a woman in the mail—are meant to protect women from serious health risks from the abortion pill .
But the pro-life movement is fighting back .
The organization we represent , Family Policy Alliance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who called on the Trump administration to prevent emergency funds from going to abortionists and to maintain existing safeguards around the abortion pill .
That was followed by an effort from 32 state-based family policy groups , who wrote a letter to federal officials that affirmed important safeguards to protect women .
More than 200 state legislators sent a similar letter asking that the Food and Drug Administration continue to help women through existing protections .
This isn ’ t a fight that pro-life America can afford to lose because the lives of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the abortion lobby succeeds in its attempts to expand virtual abortion counseling and services , it would open a new frontier of opportunities for the industry .
For example , women who currently live far from an abortion clinic ( and may need to take additional steps to procure an abortion ) could now simply order an online visit with an abortionist to get a prescription , which she would then be taking far away from trained medical personnel .
If complications occur , she would be left alone to deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives of children , as well as the health and safety of women .
Although lawsuits might be wrapping up , now is the time for pro-life advocates to work with extra diligence and wariness .
What We Learned and Where We Go Next For the abortion industry and the pro-life movement alike , this season of pandemic and recovery is a critical moment to show where each group really stands .
With the series of lawsuits and the push for “ telebortions , ” the abortion industry has shown itself to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public need and even above women ’ s safety .
At this critical juncture , the pro-life movement has an opportunity to show that it is holistically pro-life .
The shutdowns themselves were at least in part about preserving life .
During this time , pro-life leaders protected lives in two ways by including abortion in elective surgery bans .
Now , they can save the lives of women and children by preventing the expansion of telemedicine abortions .
Pro-life leaders can also save lives by considering ways to responsibly reopen their states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begin to get a handle on the pandemic , it ’ s important to remember that reopening states is not a simple equation .
It ’ s easy to think of reopening as a question of lives versus money , but with suicide rates and unemployment skyrocketing , remaining closed for too long could mean pitting lives against lives .
There are multiple ways to affirm the value of all human life , and leaders should take into account both the medically at-risk and those at risk of dying from mental health issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an opportunity for the pro-life community to demonstrate its holistic commitment to preserving life at all stages of development .
One way to do that is by engaging with our local life-affirming pregnancy resource centers , which provide the emotional and physical support women need when facing an unexpected pregnancy .
Another way to help is to engage with pro-life lawmakers and organizations working at the state level , where most abortion decisions are made .
That ’ s the kind of work that our organization does every day , together with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a unique time for America and for the pro-life movement .
As leaders reflect on this time and what they deemed essential—what was worth saving in the fire—we hope that that the answer will be clear : We saved human life .

If there were a fire in your house, what would you save?
It’s a timeless question, and one that’s been relevant in the COVID-19 pandemic. State officials have been forced to ask: To prevent loss of life from the novel coronavirus in our state, what should stay open? What is “essential”?
As state officials asked those questions this spring, one thing became clear: Preserving lives and medical resources was the priority. Elective surgeries—including abortion—could wait.
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
But the big abortion industry kept going. The list of states with ban orders on elective surgeries grew, with some states explicitly clarifying that abortions were included in the list of banned surgeries. And yet, big abortion kept going.
It has the makings of an inspirational story—“a little engine that could”—except in this case, it was a well-oiled machine determined to bolster its bottom line by killing innocent children and using desperately-needed medical supplies to do it.
While COVID-19 swept the world, the abortion industry made sure to defend its bottom line and to proactively advance its agenda at every turn.
As America turns to a new phase in its pandemic response, here’s a recap on what big abortion did in the states amid the worst of COVID-19—and what to expect next.
Early Responses From States and the Abortion Industry
Two months ago, when COVID-19 restrictions were just starting to become relevant in the United States, the primary focus was on social distancing. Places both public and private were still open, but the general population was encouraged to maintain safe distances, avoid large crowds, and stay home if they were sick.
As those recommendations grew into guidelines and even orders, there was an increased focus on personal protective equipment, particularly for doctors on the front lines fighting COVID-19, because of its contagious nature.
While the orders to preserve personal protective equipment evolved, at least two Planned Parenthood locations in Pennsylvania and California turned to the public for support, asking for donations of personal protective equipment, including masks and hand sanitizer.
At a time when states nationwide were doing all in their power to preserve medical supplies for the front lines, Planned Parenthood was asking for a share of the same supplies to perform abortions.
Bans on Elective Surgery in the States
About the same time, some states decided to start restricting or banning non-urgent elective surgeries. That was a highly unusual measure designed in large part to preserve personal protective equipment for front-line medical professionals.
Initially, half of the states issued those kinds of orders. In the end, 36 states would end up with some variation on a ban on elective surgeries, or at least a guidance recommending it.
The orders varied in how they defined what surgeries could continue; specifically, what was “essential.”
Some used exclusive lists: Certain enumerated services could remain, and everything else was temporarily halted. Others took a definitional approach: If the surgery met certain criteria, it would be considered “essential” or “nonessential,” depending on the state.
In one respect, they varied significantly; namely, whether states permitted abortion as an essential service.
Some states—such as Oregon and Virginia—explicitly permitted abortions to continue. Others, among them Texas and Ohio, explicitly clarified—either in their orders or in subsequent official statements—that abortion would not be permitted to continue in most or all circumstances as long as other surgeries were banned.
A majority of states left the issue unclear.
The Abortion Industry’s Early Response to the Bans
As the largest provider of abortions in America, Planned Parenthood had a vested interest in the way these state bans treated abortion. Initially, Planned Parenthood’s response to these bans varied, based on the location and the specifics of the order.
Early on, Ohio Planned Parenthood locations insisted they would continue performing abortions on the basis that they could comply with health orders and that they saw abortion as an essential procedure.
Among abortion centers in states where abortions were openly permitted to continue, some clinics—including non-Planned Parenthood facilities—saw an increase in the volume of women from out of state at their clinics.
In some states, abortion clinics even encouraged women to travel to receive an abortion, an ironic action in the midst of states shutting down to contain the spread of COVID-19. By encouraging interstate travel, the abortion industry may have risked the spread of the disease even further.
In Texas, where the attorney general clarified that abortions were temporarily proscribed, Planned Parenthood was swift to respond with a lawsuit.
That was quickly followed by lawsuits in other states, each led by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the Lawyering Project, and/or the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Those big-name abortion advocates filed lawsuits over the temporary abortion restrictions, either together or separately, in at least nine states as of this writing.
How the Abortion Lobby Won in Court
Abortion providers claimed that closing abortion clinics, even for a short time, was a violation of “a woman’s fundamental right to abortion.”
They claimed that even a couple of weeks’ cessation was unacceptable, even if the orders permitted abortion in certain circumstances. Any restriction was a burden, they claimed, because, in their view, abortion is always essential.
With the notable exceptions of Texas and Arkansas, the abortion lobby consistently received favorable court rulings in these cases—even in instances like in Alabama, where the government made huge concessions allowing certain abortions to proceed.
In that case, because the state limits the gestational age at which abortion is legal, if waiting for the order to expire would have pushed the abortion past the legal gestational age, a woman could still get the abortion right away. Nonetheless, Alabama lost in court.
Most states were even willing to stipulate that chemical abortions could continue to occur because they did not require as much in-person contact or personal protective equipment. However, many courts saw even a temporary restriction on surgical abortions as an undue burden and therefore unconstitutional.
Planned Parenthood cried foul, claiming governors and state attorneys general were targeting the abortion industry. At face value, though, the orders did not single out clinics, and state executives only spoke out to clarify that the orders did indeed apply to the abortion industry—just as with other industries providing elective surgeries.
Ironically, about the same time as these neutral health orders were issued and debated, several states issued meeting bans on churches that were not neutral and, in fact, targeted religious entities.
Some of those orders were held to unconstitutionally single out church attendees while allowing other groups that had been deemed essential to continue operating. However, other, similar orders that were implemented in an arbitrary way were allowed to remain.
That has caused many to wonder: Why is it that governors can’t target abortion when they can target religion?
Going Forward: How Reopening Strategies Impact Abortion
As states begin to reopen, most of the restrictions on elective surgeries are also being lifted. Medical centers are still being required to take precautions, but in many states procedures are being allowed to resume.
What does that mean for abortion? Because much of the concern about overwhelming the medical community or using precious personal protective equipment has lessened, things are gradually moving “back to normal” for the abortion industry.
The return to normalcy is happening in states such as Colorado, which never included abortion in its surgery restrictions, and even in Texas, which succeeded in its effort to temporarily halt abortions as an emergency measure.
Meanwhile, the states that are choosing to remain predominantly closed are generally left-leaning states. In those states, temporary restrictions on abortion were minor or nonexistent anyway, so continued closures will not uniquely affect abortion clinics in most cases.
But a “return to normalcy” does not mean the abortion industry is done taking advantage of the current crisis.
The Battle Over Abortion Telehealth Expansion
As the lawsuits began to slow down, Planned Parenthood went on offense. The abortion giant announced that it was making telehealth available in all 50 states in light of ongoing social distancing guidelines.
Depending on state laws, Planned Parenthood’s telehealth could mean abortion counseling, or it could mean abortionists actually prescribing medication abortions to women during a video consultation.
While telehealth can be a huge benefit to treat certain conditions and to provide access to needed health care services for vulnerable populations, abortion poses a serious threat to women and its track record suggests it should not be eligible for telemedicine.
As of Dec. 31, 2018, there were reports of 24 deaths of women associated with the abortion pill since the product was approved in September 2000. That includes women who, unbeknownst to the abortionist, had an ectopic pregnancy or sepsis. Those are conditions that are difficult to evaluate if the woman is not physically examined.
Planned Parenthood is not only advocating against temporary rules that protect the lives of women and children, preserve medical supplies, and hurt its business model. It’s also using the novel coronavirus as an opportunity to ignore safeguards and push for a boost to its bottom line.
As with the lawsuits, the broader abortion lobby has joined in the fight.
Several pro-abortion state attorneys general wrote to federal officials asking that they lift safeguards currently in place for the abortion pill. Those safeguards—including prohibiting an abortionist from sending abortion medications directly to a woman in the mail—are meant to protect women from serious health risks from the abortion pill.
But the pro-life movement is fighting back.
The organization we represent, Family Policy Alliance, joined in unity with other pro-life organizations who called on the Trump administration to prevent emergency funds from going to abortionists and to maintain existing safeguards around the abortion pill.
That was followed by an effort from 32 state-based family policy groups, who wrote a letter to federal officials that affirmed important safeguards to protect women. More than 200 state legislators sent a similar letter asking that the Food and Drug Administration continue to help women through existing protections.
This isn’t a fight that pro-life America can afford to lose because the lives of mothers and babies are at risk.
If the abortion lobby succeeds in its attempts to expand virtual abortion counseling and services, it would open a new frontier of opportunities for the industry.
For example, women who currently live far from an abortion clinic (and may need to take additional steps to procure an abortion) could now simply order an online visit with an abortionist to get a prescription, which she would then be taking far away from trained medical personnel.
If complications occur, she would be left alone to deal with them.
That expansion directly risks the lives of children, as well as the health and safety of women. Although lawsuits might be wrapping up, now is the time for pro-life advocates to work with extra diligence and wariness.
What We Learned and Where We Go Next
For the abortion industry and the pro-life movement alike, this season of pandemic and recovery is a critical moment to show where each group really stands.
With the series of lawsuits and the push for “telebortions,” the abortion industry has shown itself to be primarily concerned with preserving its bottom line—above public need and even above women’s safety.
At this critical juncture, the pro-life movement has an opportunity to show that it is holistically pro-life. The shutdowns themselves were at least in part about preserving life. During this time, pro-life leaders protected lives in two ways by including abortion in elective surgery bans. Now, they can save the lives of women and children by preventing the expansion of telemedicine abortions.
Pro-life leaders can also save lives by considering ways to responsibly reopen their states.
As governments and the medical community begin to get a handle on the pandemic, it’s important to remember that reopening states is not a simple equation. It’s easy to think of reopening as a question of lives versus money, but with suicide rates and unemployment skyrocketing, remaining closed for too long could mean pitting lives against lives.
There are multiple ways to affirm the value of all human life, and leaders should take into account both the medically at-risk and those at risk of dying from mental health issues or other effects of closure.
This is an opportunity for the pro-life community to demonstrate its holistic commitment to preserving life at all stages of development. One way to do that is by engaging with our local life-affirming pregnancy resource centers, which provide the emotional and physical support women need when facing an unexpected pregnancy.
Another way to help is to engage with pro-life lawmakers and organizations working at the state level, where most abortion decisions are made. That’s the kind of work that our organization does every day, together with partners from around the nation.
This is a unique time for America and for the pro-life movement. As leaders reflect on this time and what they deemed essential—what was worth saving in the fire—we hope that that the answer will be clear: We saved human life.


dailysignal--2020-05-27--Why Beating COVID-19 Will Require Strong Public-Private Partnership

Leading biopharmaceutical research and development companies , in the United States and in other countries , are working nonstop to develop a vaccine to combat the COVID-19 pandemic .
In this crisis , government policy must be especially supportive of the research community .
In short , public policy must not only ensure that any such vaccine is safe and effective , but also facilitate its rapid development and timely deployment .
For the private sector , collaboration and cooperation among research and manufacturing firms are also critical .
In that vein , my own company , Pfizer , released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is committed to making the vital tools that we develop widely available to the broader scientific community on an open-source platform .
> > > When can America reopen ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , is gathering America ’ s top thinkers together to figure that out .
Learn more here .
We are also pledging to share data and our findings with researchers in other companies in real time to advance therapies for patients .
Because Pfizer is one of the world ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are committed to using any excess manufacturing capacity , including potentially shifting production , to support other research organizations in order to get these lifesaving breakthroughs into the hands of patients as quickly as possible .
For government policy , the good news is that America ’ s federal regulatory authorities are cooperating with private sector research and manufacturing companies to spur innovation in new therapeutics and vaccines .
Novel approaches to clinical trials , such as telemedicine , and digital remote monitoring , along with a new , streamlined federal regulatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ During a national medical emergency , a strong private and public sector partnership is the key to advancing innovation .
In the United States , that ’ s now happening .
In this crisis , developing medicine is obviously of paramount importance .
But that ’ s only the critical first step .
It ’ s also necessary to improve patient access to innovative therapies .
One way to encourage rapid and widespread adult vaccination is for the states to review their laws and make sure that community-based pharmacists can administer vaccines .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ within 5 miles of a pharmacy that provides vaccination services to patients without an appointment .
When pharmacists are allowed to immunize patients , that not only benefits patients , but it also relieves the pressure on the rest of the health care delivery system .
Moreover , allowing pharmacists to administer vaccines is the lowest-cost alternative for providing this essential public health service .
Community-based pharmacies are excellent means of securing rapid vaccination , particularly in large population centers .
They offer extended hours of service compared with other provider sites .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthier adults for whom immunization rates are exceptionally low .
For America ’ s seniors—those most vulnerable to COVID-19—there ’ s an additional reason to use pharmacies .
A majority of family physicians either aren ’ t stocking , or are unable to bill for , all available vaccines , especially those reimbursed under Medicare Part D. In combating COVID-19 , collaboration and cooperation will be the key to a successful vaccination program .
Pharmaceutical , health care , and trade organizations , including Pfizer , have formed the American Disease Prevention Coalition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The coalition supports the expansion and harmonization of state laws that would allow pharmacists to immunize the public .
Moreover , pharmacists should be allowed to administer all adult vaccines approved by the Food and Drug Administration and recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices .
Beyond ensuring patient access , we must also make sure that the medicines are affordable .
Private companies ( including Pfizer ) often provide patient-assistance programs .
Fortunately , seniors enrolled in the competitive Medicare Part D prescription-drug program have experienced a decrease ( in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the past decade .
However , while per capita out-of-pocket spending has dropped for the general population , the averages are deceiving .
Some seniors still find themselves faced with the burden of unsustainable drug spending .
The Progressive Policy Institute , a Washington-based think tank , found that 2.9 % of Americans 65 and over have more than $ 2,000 of out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs .
One of the best ways to lower out-of-pocket costs for patients is to ensure that concessions provided to insurers and pharmacy benefit managers go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of sale .
Last year , Optum , a pharmacy benefit manager in the UnitedHealth Group , found that when negotiated discounts are passed on as part of their drug-discount program , patients saved an average of $ 130 per eligible prescription .
In addition , prescription drug adherence improved by up to 16 % .
Americans are going to win the race for a vaccine and beat this coronavirus .
The best way to do that is to maintain a strong public-private sector partnership .
That ’ s not only true in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be necessary in the battle against future diseases , epidemics , and pandemics .
The private sector will do the hard work of scientific research .
For their part , public officials must champion policies that encourage private sector investment in the development of new and innovative lifesaving treatments while securing the widest possible access and affordability for these therapies for the patients who need them .

Leading biopharmaceutical research and development companies, in the United States and in other countries, are working nonstop to develop a vaccine to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
In this crisis, government policy must be especially supportive of the research community. In short, public policy must not only ensure that any such vaccine is safe and effective, but also facilitate its rapid development and timely deployment.
For the private sector, collaboration and cooperation among research and manufacturing firms are also critical. In that vein, my own company, Pfizer, released a five-point plan last month.
Pfizer is committed to making the vital tools that we develop widely available to the broader scientific community on an open-source platform.
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
We are also pledging to share data and our findings with researchers in other companies in real time to advance therapies for patients.
Because Pfizer is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of vaccines and therapeutics, we are committed to using any excess manufacturing capacity, including potentially shifting production, to support other research organizations in order to get these lifesaving breakthroughs into the hands of patients as quickly as possible.
For government policy, the good news is that America’s federal regulatory authorities are cooperating with private sector research and manufacturing companies to spur innovation in new therapeutics and vaccines.
Novel approaches to clinical trials, such as telemedicine, and digital remote monitoring, along with a new, streamlined federal regulatory process can expedite research and development.
During a national medical emergency, a strong private and public sector partnership is the key to advancing innovation.
In the United States, that’s now happening.
In this crisis, developing medicine is obviously of paramount importance. But that’s only the critical first step. It’s also necessary to improve patient access to innovative therapies.
One way to encourage rapid and widespread adult vaccination is for the states to review their laws and make sure that community-based pharmacists can administer vaccines.
Roughly 9 out of 10 Americans live within 5 miles of a pharmacy that provides vaccination services to patients without an appointment. When pharmacists are allowed to immunize patients, that not only benefits patients, but it also relieves the pressure on the rest of the health care delivery system.
Moreover, allowing pharmacists to administer vaccines is the lowest-cost alternative for providing this essential public health service.
Community-based pharmacies are excellent means of securing rapid vaccination, particularly in large population centers. They offer extended hours of service compared with other provider sites. They are especially advantageous for younger, healthier adults for whom immunization rates are exceptionally low.
For America’s seniors—those most vulnerable to COVID-19—there’s an additional reason to use pharmacies. A majority of family physicians either aren’t stocking, or are unable to bill for, all available vaccines, especially those reimbursed under Medicare Part D.
In combating COVID-19, collaboration and cooperation will be the key to a successful vaccination program. Pharmaceutical, health care, and trade organizations, including Pfizer, have formed the American Disease Prevention Coalition to help increase vaccination of American adults.
The coalition supports the expansion and harmonization of state laws that would allow pharmacists to immunize the public. Moreover, pharmacists should be allowed to administer all adult vaccines approved by the Food and Drug Administration and recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
Beyond ensuring patient access, we must also make sure that the medicines are affordable. Private companies (including Pfizer) often provide patient-assistance programs. Fortunately, seniors enrolled in the competitive Medicare Part D prescription-drug program have experienced a decrease (in real dollars) in average out-of-pocket spending over the past decade.
However, while per capita out-of-pocket spending has dropped for the general population, the averages are deceiving. Some seniors still find themselves faced with the burden of unsustainable drug spending.
The Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank, found that 2.9% of Americans 65 and over have more than $2,000 of out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs.
One of the best ways to lower out-of-pocket costs for patients is to ensure that concessions provided to insurers and pharmacy benefit managers go directly to the patients at the point of sale.
Last year, Optum, a pharmacy benefit manager in the UnitedHealth Group, found that when negotiated discounts are passed on as part of their drug-discount program, patients saved an average of $130 per eligible prescription. In addition, prescription drug adherence improved by up to 16%.
Americans are going to win the race for a vaccine and beat this coronavirus. The best way to do that is to maintain a strong public-private sector partnership. That’s not only true in the fight against COVID-19. It will be necessary in the battle against future diseases, epidemics, and pandemics.
The private sector will do the hard work of scientific research. For their part, public officials must champion policies that encourage private sector investment in the development of new and innovative lifesaving treatments while securing the widest possible access and affordability for these therapies for the patients who need them.


dailysignal--2020-05-26--The UN Is Using COVID-19 to Push Abortion. The US Is Rightly Pushing Back.

One would think that key international organizations responding to the COVID-19 pandemic would maintain a laserlike focus on the physical and economic damage it has done .
But just last week , the acting administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development had to write to U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to urge that the United Nations stay focused on saving lives and not be promoting abortion .
It became necessary to make this seemingly obvious point because the U.N. ’ s Global Humanitarian Response Plan currently includes the provision of “ sexual and reproductive health services ” —the U.N. euphemism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that includes abortion—as an essential service on par with such necessities as food security and sanitation .
> > > When can America reopen ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , is gathering America ’ s top thinkers together to figure that out .
Learn more here .
This is not an isolated instance of the U.N. ’ s promotion of abortion and its many partnerships with abortion industry leaders .
The unsavory history of the United Nations Population Fund ’ s support of China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best known such instance , but it ’ s far from the only example of U.N. entities participating in or advancing a progressive abortion agenda .
The World Health Organization has a well-documented history of promoting abortion , even in countries where it ’ s illegal or restricted .
The organization insists that “ legal and safe abortion ” is a prerequisite for achieving the goals of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development , which explicitly rejected abortion as a human right .
The WHO ’ s guidance to countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outreach and campaigns , in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic ” includes a specific link to its guidance on self-care for sexual and reproductive health and rights , which envisions “ self-managed medical abortion in countries where abortion is illegal or restricted.
” The Trump administration should go beyond this letter as it continues to advance the pro-life , pro-woman agenda that has taken shape under the Protecting Life in Global Health Policy initiative in its broader foreign policy and humanitarian aid efforts .
It should also consider creating an office within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at large to protect unborn life .
This individual could further elevate the priority this administration rightly has given to partnering with other countries to defend life and family in the promotion of sustainable development and improved health .
The World Health Organization has been criticized over its deferential treatment of China and its inadequate response in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic , and it stands to lose U.S. funds permanently if it fails to meet criteria the Trump administration is setting forth .
That reevaluation of U.S. support for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. to go a step further and insist that the WHO return to the non-political focus on disease prevention and stopping the spread of epidemics that it was created for , and withdraw from its involvement in promoting controversial issues that do not enjoy support from many U.N. member states .
As the U.S. statement at the just-concluded World Health Assembly meeting appropriately said , “ [ t ] here is no international right to abortion , nor is there any duty on the part of States to finance or facilitate abortion @ @

One would think that key international organizations responding to the COVID-19 pandemic would maintain a laserlike focus on the physical and economic damage it has done.
But just last week, the acting administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development had to write to U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to urge that the United Nations stay focused on saving lives and not be promoting abortion.
It became necessary to make this seemingly obvious point because the U.N.’s Global Humanitarian Response Plan currently includes the provision of “sexual and reproductive health services”—the U.N. euphemism for a range of services and procedures that includes abortion—as an essential service on par with such necessities as food security and sanitation.
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
This is not an isolated instance of the U.N.’s promotion of abortion and its many partnerships with abortion industry leaders. The unsavory history of the United Nations Population Fund’s support of China’s coercive family planning policies may be the best known such instance, but it’s far from the only example of U.N. entities participating in or advancing a progressive abortion agenda.
The World Health Organization has a well-documented history of promoting abortion, even in countries where it’s illegal or restricted. The organization insists that “legal and safe abortion” is a prerequisite for achieving the goals of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which explicitly rejected abortion as a human right.
The WHO’s guidance to countries on “community-based health care, including outreach and campaigns, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic” includes a specific link to its guidance on self-care for sexual and reproductive health and rights, which envisions “self-managed medical abortion in countries where abortion is illegal or restricted.”
The Trump administration should go beyond this letter as it continues to advance the pro-life, pro-woman agenda that has taken shape under the Protecting Life in Global Health Policy initiative in its broader foreign policy and humanitarian aid efforts.
It should also consider creating an office within the U.S. State Department for an ambassador at large to protect unborn life. This individual could further elevate the priority this administration rightly has given to partnering with other countries to defend life and family in the promotion of sustainable development and improved health.
The World Health Organization has been criticized over its deferential treatment of China and its inadequate response in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it stands to lose U.S. funds permanently if it fails to meet criteria the Trump administration is setting forth.
That reevaluation of U.S. support for the WHO would be a good opportunity for the U.S. to go a step further and insist that the WHO return to the non-political focus on disease prevention and stopping the spread of epidemics that it was created for, and withdraw from its involvement in promoting controversial issues that do not enjoy support from many U.N. member states.
As the U.S. statement at the just-concluded World Health Assembly meeting appropriately said, “[t]here is no international right to abortion, nor is there any duty on the part of States to finance or facilitate abortion.”


dailysignal--2020-05-26--A Decade After Obamacare Became Law, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Is Working to Fix Issues It Created

The Affordable Care Act , or Obamacare , was supposed to cut insurance premiums , reduce the uninsured population , and provide the option to keep your plan and your doctor , but it has fallen short in all these areas .
“ We have 30 million Americans today that will tell you that they can not afford their health insurance , ” says Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers on today ’ s podcast .
McMorris Rodgers , R-Wash. , joins the show to share how lawmakers are seeking to improve our health care system , bring medical costs down , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Also on today ’ s show , we remember those who have given their lives to defend our freedom with President Ronald Reagan ’ s 1986 Memorial Day speech delivered from Arlington National Cemetery .
Plus , we read your letters to the editor and share a good news story about how one California church is meeting both physical and spiritual needs during COVID-19 .
The Daily Signal Podcast is available on Ricochet , Apple Podcasts , Pippa , Google Play , or Stitcher .
All of our podcasts can be found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you hear , please leave a review .
You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [ email protected ] Enjoy the show !

The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, was supposed to cut insurance premiums, reduce the uninsured population, and provide the option to keep your plan and your doctor, but it has fallen short in all these areas.
“We have 30 million Americans today that will tell you that they cannot afford their health insurance,” says Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers on today’s podcast. McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., joins the show to share how lawmakers are seeking to improve our health care system, bring medical costs down, and remedy the issues created by Obamacare.
Also on today’s show, we remember those who have given their lives to defend our freedom with President Ronald Reagan’s 1986 Memorial Day speech delivered from Arlington National Cemetery.
Plus, we read your letters to the editor and share a good news story about how one California church is meeting both physical and spiritual needs during COVID-19.
The Daily Signal Podcast is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!


dailysignal--2020-05-22--How 3 Olympians Are Dealing With Postponed Summer Games

The 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games have been postponed until next year due to the COVID-19 pandemic , but for pistol shooter Alexis “ Lexi ” Lagan , the delay is not unwelcome news , as the year ’ s postponement provides more opportunity to hone her skills .
“ I would not have had the best opportunity to compete at the Olympics had the Olympics not been postponed , ” Lagan , 27 , told The Daily Signal in a phone interview .
The International Olympic Committee and the Tokyo 2020 Organizing Committee released a joint statement on March 23 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
> > > When can America reopen ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , is gathering America ’ s top thinkers together to figure that out .
Learn more here .
“ In order to safeguard the health of the Olympic athletes and everybody involved in the Olympic Games , and to make a contribution to the containment of the coronavirus , we agreed to postpone the Olympic Games 2020 to ’ 21 , [ at the ] latest , summer ’ 21 , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video message .
The IOC subsequently announced on March 30 that the Summer Games are now scheduled to take place July 23-Aug. 8 , 2021 .
The Paralympics will run from Aug. 28 to Sept. 5 , 2021 .
Despite the postponement , the IOC says the games still will be held in Tokyo and referred to as the “ Olympic and Paralympic Games Tokyo 2020.
” American racing cyclist Chloe Dygert Owen , who took silver in team pursuit at the Summer Games in Rio de Janeiro in 2016 , likewise is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest and train .
Dygert Owen , 23 , said the postponement is “ disappointing , ” but noted the additional time is allowing her to recover from a series of injuries .
Since 2017 , I had a hip injury .
I was out the whole season .
[ In ] 2018 , I had a concussion .
I was out [ for ] the end of the season .
And last year , I had a knee surgery in December , and so , I raced the entire season , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed to be until the end of the season , and so , I basically only had two races where I was at the level I needed to be at … .
Having this full year to—knock on wood—hopefully stay healthy and strong is giving me that one more year of strength , and I think that ’ s going to make a huge difference for me .
Lagan , the pistol shooter , said the postponement “ was kind of expected.
” But she added that unlike her and the other 73 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Owen , who have already qualified and can now adjust their training schedules accordingly , the postponement of not only the games , but also the qualifying competitions , put many other athletes in a difficult position .
“ The Olympic trials are so very different from competing at the Olympics , ” Lagan explained .
“ … The training is different , the mental prep is different , so now these athletes that were expecting to be on a bit of a downslope right now … they have to maintain at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ postponement does take some of the pressure off athletes who were trying to continue their training at gyms and other public facilities amid the coronavirus pandemic .
Olympic-qualifying climber Kyra Condie told The Daily Signal in a phone interview that training became a challenge for many athletes because of COVID-19 .
“ It ’ s kind of rough .
You know people were trying to train , because the Olympics were in four months … that ’ s really hard to keep social distance while keeping your training up , ” Condie said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climbing in 2008 , said she was relieved that the Summer Games were not canceled altogether .
“ I was really worried about it getting canceled , and that would be really devastating , especially for climbing , because it ’ s the first time it is going to be in [ the Olympics ] , ” she said .
Condie , like Lagan and Dygert Owen , hopes to take advantage of the extra time to prepare for the competition .
“ I am kind of trying to look at it as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better prepared to represent the U.S. and my sport as best as I can , ” Condie said .

The 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games have been postponed until next year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but for pistol shooter Alexis “Lexi” Lagan, the delay is not unwelcome news, as the year’s postponement provides more opportunity to hone her skills.
“I would not have had the best opportunity to compete at the Olympics had the Olympics not been postponed,” Lagan, 27, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.
The International Olympic Committee and the Tokyo 2020 Organizing Committee released a joint statement on March 23 explaining their decision to postpone the games.
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
“In order to safeguard the health of the Olympic athletes and everybody involved in the Olympic Games, and to make a contribution to the containment of the coronavirus, we agreed to postpone the Olympic Games 2020 to ’21, [at the] latest, summer ’21,” IOC President Thomas Bach said in a video message.
The IOC subsequently announced on March 30 that the Summer Games are now scheduled to take place July 23-Aug. 8, 2021. The Paralympics will run from Aug. 28 to Sept. 5, 2021. Despite the postponement, the IOC says the games still will be held in Tokyo and referred to as the “Olympic and Paralympic Games Tokyo 2020.”
American racing cyclist Chloe Dygert Owen, who took silver in team pursuit at the Summer Games in Rio de Janeiro in 2016, likewise is taking advantage of the additional time to rest and train.
Dygert Owen, 23, said the postponement is “disappointing,” but noted the additional time is allowing her to recover from a series of injuries.
Since 2017, I had a hip injury. I was out the whole season. [In] 2018, I had a concussion. I was out [for] the end of the season. And last year, I had a knee surgery in December, and so, I raced the entire season, but I was not fit for where I needed to be until the end of the season, and so, I basically only had two races where I was at the level I needed to be at … . Having this full year to—knock on wood—hopefully stay healthy and strong is giving me that one more year of strength, and I think that’s going to make a huge difference for me.
Lagan, the pistol shooter, said the postponement “was kind of expected.” But she added that unlike her and the other 73 Team USA athletes, such as Dygert Owen, who have already qualified and can now adjust their training schedules accordingly, the postponement of not only the games, but also the qualifying competitions, put many other athletes in a difficult position.
“The Olympic trials are so very different from competing at the Olympics,” Lagan explained. “ … The training is different, the mental prep is different, so now these athletes that were expecting to be on a bit of a downslope right now … they have to maintain at this really high training level.”
But the postponement does take some of the pressure off athletes who were trying to continue their training at gyms and other public facilities amid the coronavirus pandemic.
Olympic-qualifying climber Kyra Condie told The Daily Signal in a phone interview that training became a challenge for many athletes because of COVID-19.
“It’s kind of rough. You know people were trying to train, because the Olympics were in four months … that’s really hard to keep social distance while keeping your training up,” Condie said.
Condie, 23, who began climbing in 2008, said she was relieved that the Summer Games were not canceled altogether.
“I was really worried about it getting canceled, and that would be really devastating, especially for climbing, because it’s the first time it is going to be in [the Olympics],” she said.
Condie, like Lagan and Dygert Owen, hopes to take advantage of the extra time to prepare for the competition.
“I am kind of trying to look at it as just more time to train and be better prepared to represent the U.S. and my sport as best as I can,” Condie said.


dailysignal--2020-05-21--Phased Reopenings in California, Minnesota Discriminate Against Religious Services

Feeling tired ?
Worn out ?
Getting cabin fever after being stuck inside for the past two or three months ?
As many states move to reopen , in the coming weeks you likely can begin to return to work , go out to eat , or even go to a bar .
Unfortunately , do you know what you still can ’ t do in some of these states ?
Go to church .
At least not in California and Minnesota .
> > > When can America reopen ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s top thinkers together to figure that out .
Learn more here .
Regardless of their intentions , states that are restricting in-person religious services more aggressively than other , similarly situated in-person gatherings are acting unconstitutionally .
Attorney General William Barr highlighted that problem late last month when he issued a memo , “ Balancing Public Safety With the Preservation of Civil Rights , ” to all 94 U.S. attorneys and the head of the Justice Department ’ s Civil Rights Division , urging them to be on the lookout for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ First Amendment rights .
He emphasized that “ even in times of emergency , when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights , the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers.
” In a separate memo , he made clear : “ Religious institutions must not be singled out for special burdens.
” Yet , it ’ s clear that ’ s exactly what some states , among them California and Minnesota , have done .
As a result , Eric Dreiband , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Civil Rights Division , sent a letter earlier this week to California Gov .
Gavin Newsom highlighting his concerns with California ’ s plan to reopen .
While Dreiband recognized that Newsom and other governors are facing an unprecedented task in balancing competing interests while moving to reopen their states , he reiterated Barr ’ s position that “ there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
” Specifically , he highlighted that both California ’ s stay-at-home order and its four-stage plan to reopen treat religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said , “ facially discriminates against religious exercise.
” “ California has not shown why interactions in offices and studios of the entertainment industry , and in-person operations to facilitate nonessential ecommerce , are included on the list as being allowed with social distancing where telework is not practical , while gatherings with social distancing for purposes of religious worship are forbidden , regardless of whether remote worship is practical or not , ” Dreiband wrote .
The four-stage reopening plan , he said , has an “ [ e ] ven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Specifically , he wrote , “ Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3 .
However , in Stage 2 , schools , restaurants , factories , offices , shopping malls , swap meets , and others are permitted to operate with social distancing.
” So , if you ’ re searching for a good deal at the flea market , that ’ s OK. Communing with God and your fellow believers , not so much .
The Justice Department got it right .
That likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the Constitution .
Regrettably , California isn ’ t alone , and in fact , it looks like a bastion of religious liberty compared with some other states , notably Minnesota .
There , Gov .
Tim Walz ’ s orders allow malls , pet groomers , restaurants , bars , and even casinos to begin reopening .
But not churches We can only assume—and hope—that a letter from the Justice Department to Minnesota ’ s governor will be issued in short order .
Until then , Catholic and Lutheran churches in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsibly resume in-person services despite the governor ’ s edict against them and other religious institutions .
While it ’ s always prudent to proceed cautiously when contemplating undertaking acts of civil disobedience such as this , this may be one of those rare instances where such actions are warranted .
While a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order against the governor ’ s actions—like the successful one brought by Kentucky parishioners against Louisville city officials—might have been preferable , it ’ s clear that religious leaders have thoughtfully weighed their options and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking these steps to safely reopen .
In fact , in his letter to the governor , the Catholic archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis told him that “ [ w ] e do not take this step lightly ” and that they “ sought all along to engage you and your administration in a proactive way , and continue to be willing to do so.
” Additionally , the archbishop highlighted that the governor “ seems to have taken a step backward , imposing an explicit prohibition on faith-based gatherings where none @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is the governor really going to send in police officers to arrest priests and parishioners who are practicing the same , or similar , social distancing policies as those sitting at craps or blackjack tables ?
If so , sign me up to personally deliver the Justice Department ’ s letter to Walz .
While it ’ s unfortunate that some faith communities are not receiving equal treatment at the hands of government officials , it ’ s heartening that Barr and the Justice Department are working to protect the fundamental rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unequal treatment .
Even more heartening is the fact that in the face of a pandemic , America ’ s religious communities continue to be vibrant , providing light even during these otherwise dark times .

Feeling tired? Worn out? Getting cabin fever after being stuck inside for the past two or three months?
Good news!
As many states move to reopen, in the coming weeks you likely can begin to return to work, go out to eat, or even go to a bar.
Unfortunately, do you know what you still can’t do in some of these states? Go to church. At least not in California and Minnesota.
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
Regardless of their intentions, states that are restricting in-person religious services more aggressively than other, similarly situated in-person gatherings are acting unconstitutionally.
Attorney General William Barr highlighted that problem late last month when he issued a memo, “Balancing Public Safety With the Preservation of Civil Rights,” to all 94 U.S. attorneys and the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, urging them to be on the lookout for violations of citizens’ constitutional rights—especially citizens’ First Amendment rights.
He emphasized that “even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers.”
In a separate memo, he made clear: “Religious institutions must not be singled out for special burdens.”
Yet, it’s clear that’s exactly what some states, among them California and Minnesota, have done. As a result, Eric Dreiband, the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, sent a letter earlier this week to California Gov. Gavin Newsom highlighting his concerns with California’s plan to reopen.
While Dreiband recognized that Newsom and other governors are facing an unprecedented task in balancing competing interests while moving to reopen their states, he reiterated Barr’s position that “there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.”
Specifically, he highlighted that both California’s stay-at-home order and its four-stage plan to reopen treat religious groups unfavorably.
The stay-at-home order, he said, “facially discriminates against religious exercise.”
“California has not shown why interactions in offices and studios of the entertainment industry, and in-person operations to facilitate nonessential ecommerce, are included on the list as being allowed with social distancing where telework is not practical, while gatherings with social distancing for purposes of religious worship are forbidden, regardless of whether remote worship is practical or not,” Dreiband wrote.
The four-stage reopening plan, he said, has an “[e]ven more pronounced unequal treatment of faith communities.”
Specifically, he wrote, “Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3. However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets, and others are permitted to operate with social distancing.”
So, if you’re searching for a good deal at the flea market, that’s OK. Communing with God and your fellow believers, not so much. The Justice Department got it right. That likely violates one of our most fundamental freedoms under the Constitution.
Regrettably, California isn’t alone, and in fact, it looks like a bastion of religious liberty compared with some other states, notably Minnesota. There, Gov. Tim Walz’s orders allow malls, pet groomers, restaurants, bars, and even casinos to begin reopening. But not churches
We can only assume—and hope—that a letter from the Justice Department to Minnesota’s governor will be issued in short order. Until then, Catholic and Lutheran churches in Minnesota have taken steps to safely and responsibly resume in-person services despite the governor’s edict against them and other religious institutions.
While it’s always prudent to proceed cautiously when contemplating undertaking acts of civil disobedience such as this, this may be one of those rare instances where such actions are warranted.
While a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order against the governor’s actions—like the successful one brought by Kentucky parishioners against Louisville city officials—might have been preferable, it’s clear that religious leaders have thoughtfully weighed their options and tried to engage with the governor before taking these steps to safely reopen.
In fact, in his letter to the governor, the Catholic archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis told him that “[w]e do not take this step lightly” and that they “sought all along to engage you and your administration in a proactive way, and continue to be willing to do so.”
Additionally, the archbishop highlighted that the governor “seems to have taken a step backward, imposing an explicit prohibition on faith-based gatherings where none had existed.”
Given all of this, is the governor really going to send in police officers to arrest priests and parishioners who are practicing the same, or similar, social distancing policies as those sitting at craps or blackjack tables?
If so, sign me up to personally deliver the Justice Department’s letter to Walz.
While it’s unfortunate that some faith communities are not receiving equal treatment at the hands of government officials, it’s heartening that Barr and the Justice Department are working to protect the fundamental rights of American citizens and to rectify this unequal treatment.
Even more heartening is the fact that in the face of a pandemic, America’s religious communities continue to be vibrant, providing light even during these otherwise dark times.


dailysignal--2020-05-21--With Cuomo Under Scrutiny, New York Switched to Undercounting Deaths in Nursing Homes

The New York State Department of Health ’ s quiet switch to a reporting method that undercounts deaths of nursing home and other long-term care facility residents followed the administration facing criticism over skyrocketing deaths in such facilities .
New York knowingly omitted an unknown number of coronavirus deaths in recent reports regarding residents of nursing home and adult care facilities as a result of a quiet rule change , the agency acknowledged to The Daily Caller News Foundation .
The state changed the rules for counting nursing home deaths between April 28 and May 3 , after several days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requiring nursing homes and other long-term care facilities to admit or re-admit positive coronavirus patients .
Democratic New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo was asked on April 20 what the state policy was for readmitting nursing home patients who tested positive for COVID-19 .
“ That ’ s a good question , I don ’ t know , ” the governor said .
The question came nearly four weeks after the Cuomo administration ordered nursing homes and other long-term facilities to accept positive COVID-19 patients on March 25 .
On April 21 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ television that he didn ’ t know what his own policy was , New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin excoriated the governor ’ s handling of the nursing home issue .
Goodwin wrote that “ it was well known that the elderly were easy targets for the coronavirus before New York adopted its Health Department directive on March 25 requiring nursing homes to accept those with the disease.
” The next day , April 22 , two state lawmakers , a Republican and a Democrat , demanded Cuomo nix the requirement that nursing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order , which Cuomo waited roughly six weeks to reverse , has been blamed for the decimation of nursing homes across New York .
“ We know that coronavirus spreads like wildfire among the most vulnerable and it is nonsensical to import cases of COVID to a place where community spread could lead to grave consequences for residents , ” Republican state Sen. Joseph A. Griffo said at the time .
He begged Cuomo to “ put an end to this dangerous and potentially deadly practice.
” Democratic Assemblywoman Marianne Buttenschon called it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put [ nursing home residents ’ ] lives at risk by continuing this ill-advised practice.
” “ Governor Cuomo must act immediately to put an end to this , ” she said .
On April 23 , Cuomo was asked about the policy and insisted that care facilities “ don ’ t have a right to object ” to the requirement that they receive positive coronavirus patients .
“ That is the rule and that is the regulation and they have to comply with that , ” he said .
That same day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes told the Post that body bags were sent to them along with the nursing home patients they were forced to accept .
On April 28 , the Post ’ s editorial board slammed Cuomo for refusing “ to face facts ” on the “ horrors ” taking place at nursing homes across the state .
The governor was “ refusing to admit his team has made a mistake in forcing nursing homes to take in patients infected with the deadly coronavirus , ” the op-ed charged .
Before Cuomo reversed the much-maligned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began knowingly undercounting the nursing home death toll as a result of a quiet rule change .
Until at least April 28 , the Health Department was disclosing coronavirus deaths of all nursing home and adult care facility residents , regardless of whether the patient died at their long-term care facility or at a hospital .
By May 3 , the department had made a subtle change to its disclosures , according to web archives .
The agency now only discloses coronavirus deaths of long-term care patients who died while physically present at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nursing home resident , who becomes sick at their nursing home and then dies an hour after arriving at a hospital isn ’ t counted in New York ’ s tally of nursing home deaths .
The end result is a sharp reduction in the official number of deaths at many such facilities .
New York is the only state with a major outbreak in nursing homes to report those fatalities that way .
The state Health Department did not return a request for comment for this story .
Content created by The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities for this original content , email [ email protected ] .

The New York State Department of Health’s quiet switch to a reporting method that undercounts deaths of nursing home and other long-term care facility residents followed the administration facing criticism over skyrocketing deaths in such facilities.
New York knowingly omitted an unknown number of coronavirus deaths in recent reports regarding residents of nursing home and adult care facilities as a result of a quiet rule change, the agency acknowledged to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The state changed the rules for counting nursing home deaths between April 28 and May 3, after several days of scrutiny of a Health Department order requiring nursing homes and other long-term care facilities to admit or re-admit positive coronavirus patients.
Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was asked on April 20 what the state policy was for readmitting nursing home patients who tested positive for COVID-19.
“That’s a good question, I don’t know,” the governor said. The question came nearly four weeks after the Cuomo administration ordered nursing homes and other long-term facilities to accept positive COVID-19 patients on March 25.
On April 21, the day after Cuomo admitted on live television that he didn’t know what his own policy was, New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin excoriated the governor’s handling of the nursing home issue.
Goodwin wrote that “it was well known that the elderly were easy targets for the coronavirus before New York adopted its Health Department directive on March 25 requiring nursing homes to accept those with the disease.”
The next day, April 22, two state lawmakers, a Republican and a Democrat, demanded Cuomo nix the requirement that nursing homes accept positive coronavirus patients. That order, which Cuomo waited roughly six weeks to reverse, has been blamed for the decimation of nursing homes across New York.
“We know that coronavirus spreads like wildfire among the most vulnerable and it is nonsensical to import cases of COVID to a place where community spread could lead to grave consequences for residents,” Republican state Sen. Joseph A. Griffo said at the time. He begged Cuomo to “put an end to this dangerous and potentially deadly practice.”
Democratic Assemblywoman Marianne Buttenschon called it “unconscionable that the State continues to put [nursing home residents’] lives at risk by continuing this ill-advised practice.”
“Governor Cuomo must act immediately to put an end to this,” she said.
On April 23, Cuomo was asked about the policy and insisted that care facilities “don’t have a right to object” to the requirement that they receive positive coronavirus patients. “That is the rule and that is the regulation and they have to comply with that,” he said.
That same day, unnamed administrators in New York nursing homes told the Post that body bags were sent to them along with the nursing home patients they were forced to accept.
On April 28, the Post’s editorial board slammed Cuomo for refusing “to face facts” on the “horrors” taking place at nursing homes across the state. The governor was “refusing to admit his team has made a mistake in forcing nursing homes to take in patients infected with the deadly coronavirus,” the op-ed charged.
Before Cuomo reversed the much-maligned order on May 11, his administration began knowingly undercounting the nursing home death toll as a result of a quiet rule change.
Until at least April 28, the Health Department was disclosing coronavirus deaths of all nursing home and adult care facility residents, regardless of whether the patient died at their long-term care facility or at a hospital. By May 3, the department had made a subtle change to its disclosures, according to web archives.
The agency now only discloses coronavirus deaths of long-term care patients who died while physically present at their facility.
Put differently: A nursing home resident, who becomes sick at their nursing home and then dies an hour after arriving at a hospital isn’t counted in New York’s tally of nursing home deaths. The end result is a sharp reduction in the official number of deaths at many such facilities.
New York is the only state with a major outbreak in nursing homes to report those fatalities that way.
The state Health Department did not return a request for comment for this story.
Andrew Kerr contributed to this report.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-05-21--What’s the Real Data? A Look at the Relevant Statistics of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Would you believe that over half of the counties in the U.S. have had no COVID-19 deaths ?
This , as it turns out , happens to be true .
Drew Gonshorowski , a research fellow in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation , and Kevin Dayaratna , a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation , join The Daily Signal Podcast to talk about the data behind the coronavirus pandemic .
You can track COVID-19 cases here with The Heritage Foundation interactive map .
We also cover these stories : • President Donald Trump said he might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail-in voting .
• Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says he made the recommendation to Trump to fire Inspector General Steve Linick .
• Senate Republicans have issued a subpoena to a company affiliated with the Ukrainian company Burisma Holdings , which Hunter Biden , the son of Former Vice President Joe Biden , sat on the board of .
The Daily Signal Podcast is available on Ricochet , Apple Podcasts , Pippa , Google Play , or Stitcher .
All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts .
If you like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review .
You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [ email protected ] .
Enjoy the show !

Would you believe that over half of the counties in the U.S. have had no COVID-19 deaths? This, as it turns out, happens to be true. Drew Gonshorowski, a research fellow in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, and Kevin Dayaratna, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, join The Daily Signal Podcast to talk about the data behind the coronavirus pandemic.
You can track COVID-19 cases here with The Heritage Foundation interactive map.
We also cover these stories:
President Donald Trump said he might keep funding from Michigan and Nevada over mail-in voting.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says he made the recommendation to Trump to fire Inspector General Steve Linick.
Senate Republicans have issued a subpoena to a company affiliated with the Ukrainian company Burisma Holdings, which Hunter Biden, the son of Former Vice President Joe Biden, sat on the board of.
The Daily Signal Podcast is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!