buzzfeed--2020-10-14--Judge Amy Coney Barrett Won’t Say How She’d Rule On Abortion, Healthcare, Marriage Equality, Or The

Judge Amy Coney Barrett Won’t Say How She’d Rule On Abortion, Healthcare, Marriage Equality, Or The Election

WASHINGTON — Judge Amy Coney Barrett , President Donald Trump ’ s latest nominee for the US Supreme Court , declined to say Tuesday how she ’ d rule on the hot-button issues central to the political fight over her nomination — abortion access , the future of the Affordable Care Act , LGBTQ rights , and legal fights over this year ’ s presidential election .
Barrett , a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit , cited the past practices of Supreme Court nominees who declined to say how they ’ d rule in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethics rules that limit what sitting judges can say about ongoing cases and legal fights ; she said that she would go into the job of a justice with an open mind .
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy asked Barrett if she would recuse from cases related to the election , given President Donald Trump ’ s remarks that he expects the election to end up in the Supreme Court and that he was “ counting on ” the court to “ look at the ballots.
” Barrett declined to say what she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal .
...
I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not , ” Barrett said .
“ But I ca n't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.
” If confirmed , Barrett would be the third Supreme Court justice confirmed under Trump , joining Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh .
She would fill the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative majority to 6–3 .
Barrett declined to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday how she would rule in response to questions about abortion , healthcare , and the other issues that Democrats and liberal groups have focused on in opposing her nomination .
Unless at least four Republican senators break ranks , however , Democrats lack the votes to stop Barrett from being confirmed ; Sen. Amy Klobuchar said during the first day of Barrett ’ s confirmation hearings that Democrats “ don ’ t have some clever procedural way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know about Barrett ’ s views on these issues based on her past writings , speeches , and opinions .
Before her confirmation to the 7th Circuit in 2017 , Barrett spent most of her career as a law professor at Notre Dame Law School .
In that capacity and as a private citizen , she expressed her opposition to abortion and Roe v. Wade , the landmark Supreme Court decision that established a national right to abortion .
In 2006 , she was one of several hundred people who signed onto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ad in a local newspaper in Indiana that called for “ an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v .
Wade . ''
In 2013 , a campus newspaper at Notre Dame reported on remarks Barrett gave at an event about the 40th anniversary of Roe , where she talked about “ her own conviction that life begins at conception.
” Barrett addressed the 2006 ad on Tuesday , saying that she signed onto the statement “ on the way out of church — it was consistent with the views of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we support the right to life from conception to natural death.
” She drew a line between what she 'd signed and the language that appeared in the newspaper called Roe `` barbaric . ''
She defended her decision to not formally submit that 2006 statement as part of her background materials to the Senate Judiciary Committee , saying the committee questionnaire did not ask for something that she signed as a private citizen and not on behalf of any group .
Barrett contrasted that with a statement she did submit to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a member of the University Faculty for Life group at Notre Dame that called Roe `` infamous . ''
`` We faculty and staff at the University of Notre Dame reaffirm our full support for our University 's commitment to the right to life , we renew our call for the unborn to be protected in law and welcomed in life , and we voice our love and support for the mothers who bear them , '' the statement read .
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein , the ranking Democrat on the committee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice Antonin Scalia — Barrett clerked for Scalia and has said “ his judicial philosophy is mine too ” — that Roe should be overturned .
Barrett said that it would be inappropriate and violate ethics rules for her to express an opinion about an area of law that ’ s still being litigated in court .
“ I can ’ t precommit or say , ‘ Yes , I ’ m going in with some agenda , ’ because I ’ m not .
I don ’ t have any agenda .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ overrule Casey , I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come , ” Barrett said , referring to Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey , a Supreme Court decision in 1992 that clarified the standards for deciding if a state law put too much of a burden to a woman ’ s right to abortion under Roe .
“ For any issue that comes up , abortion or anything else , I ’ ll follow the law , ” Barrett said .
Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roe v. Wade “ super precedent , ” a term that Barrett had used as a law professor to refer to a small group of landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education , which ended school segregation .
Barrett said she ’ d used “ super precedent ” to describe cases that were “ so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.
” “ I 'm answering a lot of questions about Roe , which I think indicates that Roe does n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ And scholars across the spectrum say that does n't mean Roe should be overruled , but descriptively it means it 's not a case that everyone has accepted and does n't call for its overruling.
” Democrats have focused their opposition to Barrett on what her confirmation would mean for the Affordable Care Act , since the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the latest challenge to the law on Nov. 10 .
If Senate Republicans are able to move Barrett through the confirmation process as quickly as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is set to vote on Oct. 22 — she would be on the bench in time to hear that case .
In 2017 , shortly before becoming a judge , Barrett wrote a law review article that criticized Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. ’ s vote to preserve Obamacare in 2012 .
In that case , NFIB v. Sebelius , the court ruled that the law could stand because the individual mandate — requiring people to either have health insurance coverage or pay a fine — was a tax .
Barrett wrote that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.
” In the case coming before the Supreme Court next month , Republican attorneys general and the Trump administration are arguing that when Congress repealed the tax penalty for the individual mandate in 2017 , it invalidated the entire law .
On Tuesday , Barrett said it wouldn ’ t be appropriate for her to offer an opinion about a pending case .
She noted that the core issues in the latest ACA case were different from the previous cases , however — the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now unconstitutional without the tax penalty , and if so , whether the mandate could be struck down on its own or if the whole law had to fall with it .
Barrett said she hadn ’ t written about the latter issue , known as severability , in the past .
As for whether she ’ d recuse , she told Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham , “ That ’ s not a question I could answer in the abstract.
” Responding to questions from Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she was “ hostile ” to the law as a whole .
“ I think that your concern is that because I critiqued the statutory reasoning that I 'm hostile to the ACA and that because I 'm hostile to the ACA that I would decide a case a particular way , and I assure you that I am not .
I am not hostile to the ACA , I 'm not hostile to any statute that you pass , ” Barrett said .
Responding to questions from Delaware Sen. Chris Coons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion in NFIB , Barrett replied : “ I 'm not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act .
I 'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.
” Asked whether she agrees with the Supreme Court ’ s decision in 2015 establishing a nationwide right to marriage for same-sex couples , Obergefell v. Hodges , Barrett confirmed it was precedent but said she was “ not going to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to any particular precedent.
” “ I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference .
You know , like racism , I think discrimination is abhorrent , ” she said , referring to her previous answer when asked to discuss racism in the US .
“ On the questions of law , however , I just , because I 'm a sitting judge and because you ca n't answer questions without going through the judicial process , I ca n't give answers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocates objected to Barrett ’ s use of the phrase “ sexual preference ” to refer to a person ’ s sexual orientation .
Lambda Legal , an LGBTQ rights legal organization , tweeted that the term was “ a dogwhistle ... used by opponents of equality to suggest that being # LGBTQ is a choice.
” Later in the hearing , when asked about using the term `` sexual preference '' by New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker , Barrett said she did not mean to imply that a person 's sexual orientation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it 's solely a matter of preference . ''
`` I honestly did not mean any offense or to make any statement by that , '' Barrett said .
`` I fully respect all the rights of the LGBT community .
Obergefell is an important precedent of the court .
I reject any kind of discrimation on any sort of basis . ''
Barrett hasn ’ t ruled on cases involving LGBTQ rights on the 7th Circuit , but in October 2015 , a few months after the court ruled in Obergefell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in advance of an assembly of Catholic bishops that expressed support for a host of Catholic teachings , including that marriage should only be between a man and a woman and opposition to abortion .
As a 7th Circuit judge , Barrett wrote in a dissenting opinion in March 2019 that the Second Amendment had been treated as a “ second-class ” right , echoing the sentiments of other conservative judges and gun rights advocates .
In that case , Barrett wrote that she would be in favor of expanding the Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonviolent former offenders , splitting with her two colleagues in the majority .
Pressed by Durbin to explain that decision , Barrett said that based on her review of the history of gun rights in the United States , she concluded someone shouldn ’ t lose their right to have a gun solely because they were convicted of a felony crime .
“ There had to be a showing of dangerousness , ” Barrett said .
She said it was possible the government could show that a person convicted of a nonviolent felony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun , but , “ I think we could all agree that we ought to be careful of saying that because someone ’ s a felon they lose any of their individual rights.
” It ’ s been a decade since the Supreme Court took up a major gun rights case .
Earlier this year , Kavanaugh , Gorsuch , and Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas indicated they wanted the court to take up the Second Amendment again soon .
Kavanaugh wrote at the time that he had “ concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be properly applying ” some of the court ’ s previous decisions establishing an individual ’ s right to have a gun at home .

WASHINGTON — Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s latest nominee for the US Supreme Court, declined to say Tuesday how she’d rule on the hot-button issues central to the political fight over her nomination — abortion access, the future of the Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ rights, and legal fights over this year’s presidential election.
Barrett, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, cited the past practices of Supreme Court nominees who declined to say how they’d rule in any given case, as well as ethics rules that limit what sitting judges can say about ongoing cases and legal fights; she said that she would go into the job of a justice with an open mind.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy asked Barrett if she would recuse from cases related to the election, given President Donald Trump’s remarks that he expects the election to end up in the Supreme Court and that he was “counting on” the court to “look at the ballots.” Barrett declined to say what she’d do.
“I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. ... I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not,” Barrett said. “But I can't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”
If confirmed, Barrett would be the third Supreme Court justice confirmed under Trump, joining Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. She would fill the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat and deepen the court’s conservative majority to 6–3.
Barrett declined to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday how she would rule in response to questions about abortion, healthcare, and the other issues that Democrats and liberal groups have focused on in opposing her nomination. Unless at least four Republican senators break ranks, however, Democrats lack the votes to stop Barrett from being confirmed; Sen. Amy Klobuchar said during the first day of Barrett’s confirmation hearings that Democrats “don’t have some clever procedural way to stop this sham.”
Here is what we know about Barrett’s views on these issues based on her past writings, speeches, and opinions.
Abortion
Before her confirmation to the 7th Circuit in 2017, Barrett spent most of her career as a law professor at Notre Dame Law School. In that capacity and as a private citizen, she expressed her opposition to abortion and Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established a national right to abortion.
In 2006, she was one of several hundred people who signed onto a statement that ran as part of an ad in a local newspaper in Indiana that called for “an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade." In 2013, a campus newspaper at Notre Dame reported on remarks Barrett gave at an event about the 40th anniversary of Roe, where she talked about “her own conviction that life begins at conception.”
Barrett addressed the 2006 ad on Tuesday, saying that she signed onto the statement “on the way out of church — it was consistent with the views of my church and it simply said, we support the right to life from conception to natural death.” She drew a line between what she'd signed and the language that appeared in the newspaper called Roe "barbaric."
She defended her decision to not formally submit that 2006 statement as part of her background materials to the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying the committee questionnaire did not ask for something that she signed as a private citizen and not on behalf of any group. Barrett contrasted that with a statement she did submit to the committee that she signed in 2013 as a member of the University Faculty for Life group at Notre Dame that called Roe "infamous."
"We faculty and staff at the University of Notre Dame reaffirm our full support for our University's commitment to the right to life, we renew our call for the unborn to be protected in law and welcomed in life, and we voice our love and support for the mothers who bear them," the statement read.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the committee, asked if Barrett agreed with the late justice Antonin Scalia — Barrett clerked for Scalia and has said “his judicial philosophy is mine too” — that Roe should be overturned. Barrett said that it would be inappropriate and violate ethics rules for her to express an opinion about an area of law that’s still being litigated in court.
“I can’t precommit or say, ‘Yes, I’m going in with some agenda,’ because I’m not. I don’t have any agenda. I have no agenda to try to overrule Casey, I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come,” Barrett said, referring to Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a Supreme Court decision in 1992 that clarified the standards for deciding if a state law put too much of a burden to a woman’s right to abortion under Roe.
“For any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else, I’ll follow the law,” Barrett said.
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar asked if Barrett considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent,” a term that Barrett had used as a law professor to refer to a small group of landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education, which ended school segregation. Barrett said she’d used “super precedent” to describe cases that were “so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.”
“I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category,” Barrett said. “And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn't mean Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it means it's not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn't call for its overruling.”
The Affordable Care Act
Democrats have focused their opposition to Barrett on what her confirmation would mean for the Affordable Care Act, since the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the latest challenge to the law on Nov. 10. If Senate Republicans are able to move Barrett through the confirmation process as quickly as they plan to do — the committee is set to vote on Oct. 22 — she would be on the bench in time to hear that case.
In 2017, shortly before becoming a judge, Barrett wrote a law review article that criticized Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.’s vote to preserve Obamacare in 2012. In that case, NFIB v. Sebelius, the court ruled that the law could stand because the individual mandate — requiring people to either have health insurance coverage or pay a fine — was a tax. Barrett wrote that Roberts “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”
In the case coming before the Supreme Court next month, Republican attorneys general and the Trump administration are arguing that when Congress repealed the tax penalty for the individual mandate in 2017, it invalidated the entire law.
On Tuesday, Barrett said it wouldn’t be appropriate for her to offer an opinion about a pending case. She noted that the core issues in the latest ACA case were different from the previous cases, however — the case is about whether the individual mandate is now unconstitutional without the tax penalty, and if so, whether the mandate could be struck down on its own or if the whole law had to fall with it. Barrett said she hadn’t written about the latter issue, known as severability, in the past.
As for whether she’d recuse, she told Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, “That’s not a question I could answer in the abstract.”
Responding to questions from Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin about the Affordable Care Act case, Barrett denied that she was “hostile” to the law as a whole.
“I think that your concern is that because I critiqued the statutory reasoning that I'm hostile to the ACA and that because I'm hostile to the ACA that I would decide a case a particular way, and I assure you that I am not. I am not hostile to the ACA, I'm not hostile to any statute that you pass,” Barrett said.
Responding to questions from Delaware Sen. Chris Coons about her critique of Roberts’ majority opinion in NFIB, Barrett replied: “I'm not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.”
Marriage Equality
Asked whether she agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision in 2015 establishing a nationwide right to marriage for same-sex couples, Obergefell v. Hodges, Barrett confirmed it was precedent but said she was “not going to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to any particular precedent.”
“I have no agenda and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. You know, like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent,” she said, referring to her previous answer when asked to discuss racism in the US. “On the questions of law, however, I just, because I'm a sitting judge and because you can't answer questions without going through the judicial process, I can't give answers to those very specific questions.”
LGBTQ rights advocates objected to Barrett’s use of the phrase “sexual preference” to refer to a person’s sexual orientation. Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights legal organization, tweeted that the term was “a dogwhistle ... used by opponents of equality to suggest that being #LGBTQ is a choice.”
Later in the hearing, when asked about using the term "sexual preference" by New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Barrett said she did not mean to imply that a person's sexual orientation is "not an immutable characteristic or that it's solely a matter of preference."
"I honestly did not mean any offense or to make any statement by that," Barrett said. "I fully respect all the rights of the LGBT community. Obergefell is an important precedent of the court. I reject any kind of discrimation on any sort of basis."
Barrett hasn’t ruled on cases involving LGBTQ rights on the 7th Circuit, but in October 2015, a few months after the court ruled in Obergefell, she signed on to a letter in advance of an assembly of Catholic bishops that expressed support for a host of Catholic teachings, including that marriage should only be between a man and a woman and opposition to abortion.
Guns
As a 7th Circuit judge, Barrett wrote in a dissenting opinion in March 2019 that the Second Amendment had been treated as a “second-class” right, echoing the sentiments of other conservative judges and gun rights advocates. In that case, Barrett wrote that she would be in favor of expanding the Second Amendment’s gun rights protections to certain nonviolent former offenders, splitting with her two colleagues in the majority.
Pressed by Durbin to explain that decision, Barrett said that based on her review of the history of gun rights in the United States, she concluded someone shouldn’t lose their right to have a gun solely because they were convicted of a felony crime.
“There had to be a showing of dangerousness,” Barrett said. She said it was possible the government could show that a person convicted of a nonviolent felony should still lose their right to have a gun, but, “I think we could all agree that we ought to be careful of saying that because someone’s a felon they lose any of their individual rights.”
It’s been a decade since the Supreme Court took up a major gun rights case. Earlier this year, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas indicated they wanted the court to take up the Second Amendment again soon. Kavanaugh wrote at the time that he had “concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying” some of the court’s previous decisions establishing an individual’s right to have a gun at home.


buzzfeed--2020-10-13--These Are The Nightmare Scenarios For How The 2020 Election Might End

The 12th Amendment could take America to a dark place .
“ If this happens , we ’ ve crossed a line in the history of the republic.
” WASHINGTON — The 2020 presidential election could be so tight , and the result so hotly contested , that the losing party refuses to concede , triggering a chaotic free-for-all in which Congress , the courts , and , in the most extreme case , the military could determine the winner .
It may sound far-fetched , but the Constitution has major gaps when it comes to deciding a contested presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after an election has never rested so much on a rigid set of rules but on politicians being willing to admit they lost .
President Donald Trump , however , has refused to commit to giving up the White House if former vice president Joe Biden wins .
Trump is also spouting wild , unsupported conspiracy theories about how the election is being rigged through mail-in ballots at a time when the failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic is driving tens of millions of people to vote by mail .
And he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at polling locations , raising fears of voter intimidation .
So what happens if Trump claims he was robbed ?
Discussions with constitutional experts reveal how a single governor ’ s decision could spiral into each side blocking the other from seizing the White House .
It ’ s a scenario made possible by the Constitution ’ s 12th Amendment .
“ We have an advantage if we go back to Congress , ” Trump told his supporters at a rally in late September in Pennsylvania .
And he ’ s right .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possibility that a minority of Republicans in the House of Representatives could give the presidency to Trump , even if Biden wins the popular vote and Electoral College .
Such a sequence of events would be historically unprecedented and might never come to pass .
But if both sides are truly willing to fight for the White House , then wild scenarios — like states being stripped of their congressional delegations or election results from two years ago being challenged — are suddenly on the table .
Let ’ s say the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murkier by days or weeks of counting and recounting mail-in ballots .
If Biden wins , it will be because of victories in swing states with Republican-controlled state legislatures like Arizona , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
For simplicity ’ s sake , let ’ s say one single state makes up the margin of victory , and let ’ s say it ’ s Florida , for obvious reasons .
Trump could start spouting unproven theories or far-fetched conspiracies — like alleging China interfered to rig Florida for Biden with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple times .
Or that election workers threw out his votes .
Outraged Trump supporters would demand local Republicans do something .
And they would have two main options .
The president is not elected by the popular vote — just because a candidate got the most votes doesn ’ t mean they ’ ve won — as Trump and George W. Bush have recently demonstrated .
Instead , voters elect each state ’ s slate of electors , the people who cast the Electoral College votes that decide the presidency .
Electors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s executive branch ( by either the secretary of state or the governor , depending on the state .
In Florida it ’ s the secretary of state . )
Florida ’ s Republican secretary of state could declare the results fraudulent and refuse to certify the electors , blocking them from voting for Biden .
Essentially , Florida would deny Biden the 270 Electoral College votes he needs to win by refusing to send in its results .
Alternatively , the Republican-controlled legislature could cite voter fraud , vote to recall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group .
Congress would then have to decide whether to count those electors .
In either scenario , the question of who won the election lands in Congress ’ s lap .
“ I don ’ t know how plausible it is .
It seems like one of those things that would not be very likely , and yet Florida thought about it pretty seriously in the midst of the 2000 election dispute , ” said Keith Whittington , professor of politics at Princeton University .
“ Things that seem implausible can suddenly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contests.
” Under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution , if no candidate gets a majority of Electoral College votes , then the House of Representatives picks the president out of the top three finishers .
This would also happen in a 269–269 Electoral College tie .
The next Congress , which will begin in January , decides the presidency .
Democrats control the House now and are odds-on favorites to hold onto their majority after November ’ s elections .
But by the wording of the 12th Amendment , it is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president — it is a majority of state delegations .
This means the US representatives of each state get together to cast a single vote .
So California ’ s 53 representatives , 45 of whom are currently Democrats , would have the same weight as the vote cast by Wyoming ’ s single Republican representative .
This is the “ advantage ” that Trump was referencing .
There are in total fewer Republicans in the House ; Democrats outnumber them 232 to 197 .
But on a state-by-state basis , Republicans have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats control 22 .
( Pennsylvania is split , and in Michigan the balance of power comes down to Libertarian Rep. Justin Amash . )
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is using this scenario to draw support for Democrats in swing states .
“ If Trump can ’ t win at the ballot box , he wants the House to deliver him the presidency , ” she wrote in a letter to her caucus , which was obtained by BuzzFeed News .
The House electing the next president would , of course , be unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 12th Amendment decided the presidency was two centuries ago , in 1824 , when four viable candidates split the vote and no one earned a majority .
Democrats would have a rarely used tool to fight back .
Pelosi could use her majority , and Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution , to flip the situation around and ensure that the Democrats control more state delegations than Republicans do .
Here ’ s how that might work : Each chamber of Congress — the House and the Senate — has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own members .
In modern times , these fights are mostly settled by the courts , but Pelosi could reclaim that power .
Democratic candidates who lost close races could contest the results .
Their challenges would ultimately be put to a vote on the House floor , where Democrats are likely to have control .
By challenging a few key races in states like Pennsylvania , Florida , or Montana , and then ruling in their own favor , Democrats could cement their majority of the state delegations and ensure they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This maneuver was used frequently in the early 19th century to pad majorities .
But it would be a radical breach of modern norms .
Dan Carpenter , a government professor at Harvard University , argues that while this scenario would be deeply unfortunate for the country , reconstituting Congress could be justified if Republicans block a presidential candidate from an Electoral College majority .
“ If this happens , we ’ ve crossed a line in the history of the republic .
Republican government is about the will of the majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of a nuclear war if the election gets thrown to the House , ” Carpenter told BuzzFeed News .
“ Usually two wrongs don ’ t make a right — but in this case , they could.
” If the election results strip Republicans of their state delegation majority in the next Congress , the party could try to force the current Congress to decide the presidency .
But the ability to challenge election results does not expire .
Pelosi could start overturning 2018 races , removing Republican members of Congress who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two years , to give Democrats the majority of state delegations right away .
The Republican-dominated Supreme Court , which will likely include Trump ’ s nominee Amy Coney Barrett by this point , could step in to declare Pelosi ’ s actions unconstitutional .
But Pelosi could ignore them and say the Constitution rests these decisions with her branch of government , not the court ’ s .
“ At that point , we ’ re like , OK , who ’ s got the keys to the military ?
” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not want us to get there.
” Now let ’ s take the alternative scenario from above , where the Florida legislature replaces the pro-Biden slate of electors with a pro-Trump slate .
Congress oversees counting the Electoral College votes .
Both slates of electors from Florida — those ready to vote for Biden , and those for Trump — would surely show up in Washington claiming to represent the true will of the people .
Who chooses which set of votes to count ?
Some say it would be Vice President Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate .
But most experts agree that decision falls to Congress .
What happens if a split Congress can ’ t agree on which votes to count ?
The Constitution has no answer .
In a true nightmare scenario , Pelosi declares the electors invalid , refuses to count the votes , and claims , in the scenario laid out above , that the House has the power to declare Biden the winner .
Then , Senate Republicans rally behind Trump while Pelosi and the Supreme Court face off over who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a contest between Nancy Pelosi and the Supreme Court , we have no idea , ” said Lawrence Lessig , a professor of law and leadership at Harvard Law School .
“ At some point , it ’ s the military ’ s judgment — because if Trump refuses to leave , who ’ s going to show up at the White House on Inauguration Day and escort him out ?
” Fundamentally , a resolution will not come from the wording of laws but the people who make up America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if there is a close election and politicians seize on that uncertainty to try to grab power for their own party .
Modern election crises have been averted because one side agreed to step down .
In 2000 , Al Gore accepted the Supreme Court ’ s judgment in Bush v. Gore rather than take the fight to Congress .
In 1960 , Republicans alleged that voter fraud carried John F. Kennedy to his narrow victory over Richard Nixon , and they tried to overturn the results in 11 states .
But Nixon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power and is openly laying the groundwork for contesting the election .
But he can not do it on his own .
Trump would need the Republican establishment at the state and federal levels behind him to have any chance of success .
Republicans in the Senate have insisted there will be a peaceful transfer of power .
Senate Majority Whip John Thune , a Republican , even said his party would stand up to Trump if the president tried to violate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This may provide cold comfort given that Republicans have a long and colorful history of reversing their stances and capitulating to Trump , with only a few mostly symbolic exceptions .
Extreme polarization means Republicans will also face pressure from the MAGA base that equates losing this election with the possible end of democracy .
But Whittington said he doesn ’ t expect the country to go down that road because the consequences of being widely seen as stealing the election would be so disastrous .
He said the extreme scenarios of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead to unrest in the streets far more severe — and violent — than the protests already sweeping the country .
“ That ’ s one reason I think we won ’ t get there — because everyone understands how bad that would be , ” said Whittington .
“ That ’ s not something that goes away after it gets resolved .
That ’ s something that permanently damages how our constitutional system operates.
” An active Supreme Court could also shut down moves to steal the election before the battle gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be hesitant in deciding elections .
In 2000 , the Supreme Court initially tried not to get involved in the Florida recount before ultimately intervening .
But if state executives refuse to certify their slate of electors , the Supreme Court could step in and rule that they have no choice but to do so .
Lessig said he believes the courts would ultimately get involved to avoid the appearance of a stolen election .
“ These are people who think about history .
That ’ s what their whole lives are about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a time when norms are being shattered and the president is openly talking about neutering the United States Postal Service ’ s ability to count millions of mail-in ballots , Lessig says unimaginable scenarios have become very imaginable .
“ The question is not what ’ s reasonable or fair , ” he said .
“ The question is what ’ s possible.
” ●

WASHINGTON — The 2020 presidential election could be so tight, and the result so hotly contested, that the losing party refuses to concede, triggering a chaotic free-for-all in which Congress, the courts, and, in the most extreme case, the military could determine the winner.
It may sound far-fetched, but the Constitution has major gaps when it comes to deciding a contested presidential race. The peaceful transition of power after an election has never rested so much on a rigid set of rules but on politicians being willing to admit they lost. President Donald Trump, however, has refused to commit to giving up the White House if former vice president Joe Biden wins.
Trump is also spouting wild, unsupported conspiracy theories about how the election is being rigged through mail-in ballots at a time when the failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic is driving tens of millions of people to vote by mail. And he is calling on his supporters to show up at polling locations, raising fears of voter intimidation.
So what happens if Trump claims he was robbed? Discussions with constitutional experts reveal how a single governor’s decision could spiral into each side blocking the other from seizing the White House. It’s a scenario made possible by the Constitution’s 12th Amendment.
“We have an advantage if we go back to Congress,” Trump told his supporters at a rally in late September in Pennsylvania. And he’s right. The 12th Amendment paves the way for the possibility that a minority of Republicans in the House of Representatives could give the presidency to Trump, even if Biden wins the popular vote and Electoral College.
Such a sequence of events would be historically unprecedented and might never come to pass. But if both sides are truly willing to fight for the White House, then wild scenarios — like states being stripped of their congressional delegations or election results from two years ago being challenged — are suddenly on the table.


buzzfeed--2020-10-13--Experts Say Hourslong Lines In Georgia For Early Voting Are A Sign Of Voter Enthusiasm, Not Suppress

Experts Say Hourslong Lines In Georgia For Early Voting Are A Sign Of Voter Enthusiasm, Not Suppression

`` Voting should not be this difficult , '' said one voter who was unable to vote Monday because of the long wait .
When Elizabeth Brownlie showed up at Chastain Park to cast her ballot at 10:45 a.m. Monday , the 32-year-old Atlanta resident expected to wait up to two hours to vote .
But after an hour and a half of standing in line , Brownlie was still nowhere near the entrance to the polling place inside the park gym .
With an appointment to get to , she left .
`` For me , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ it was ] disheartening ... to have that experience , '' she said .
`` Voting should not be this difficult . ''
As early voting got underway in Georgia on Monday , energized voters turned out in droves across the state , resulting in long lines and wait times of up to eight hours in Gwinnett County .
A record number of 128,590 ballots were cast over the course of the day — a more than 40 % increase from the 90,688 ballots cast on the first day of early voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of State 's office .
While many expressed frustration over having to stand in line for so long to make their voices heard , experts said the agonizing wait times , while unacceptable , were not necessarily evidence of voter suppression .
`` I ’ d be concerned if I did n't see long lines , '' said David Becker , executive director and founder for the Center for Election Innovation & Research .
Rather , long lines at the beginning of early voting are a sign that voters are enthusiastic about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BuzzFeed News , adding that every person that votes early is one less person who could be stuck in line on election night .
`` We ’ re 22 days away from the election , '' he said .
`` Anyone who sees a long line and does not have the time to wait can come back tomorrow . ''
Still , in Georgia , which has a long history of voter suppression tactics that have disproportionately targeted Black voters , the long waits were a reminder of previous efforts to limit people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some of this is voter enthusiasm .
But this is just not acceptable in a modern day democracy , '' Kristen Clarke , president of the Lawyers ' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law , wrote on Twitter .
`` We need restoration of the [ Voting Rights Act ] & officials who ’ ll provide more voting opportunities during a pandemic . ''
If past early voting trends hold true , experts and local officials said they expect to see a dip in turnout after Monday 's surge before seeing numbers increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addition to voter enthusiasm , the huge turnout may have been due in part to the first day of early voting falling on the Columbus Day holiday , experts and officials said , with many people possibly choosing to vote because they were off work .
`` Today might be an anomaly because it 's the first day of early voting and people are excited and it 's a holiday , '' said Josh Douglas , an election law and voting rights professor at the University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` jump to conclusions about whether this is some sort of intentional effort at voter suppression . ''
`` I do n't think it is , '' he said .
`` I think it ’ s accurate to say both that no one should have to wait five hours and that ... we ca n't know for sure that every day of early voting in Georgia is going to have these same kind of waits . ''
In addition to the large turnout , other technical issues may have added to the wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told BuzzFeed News at least one of the county 's nine early voting locations were n't able to get all of the voting machines running early in the morning because of a `` local network issue . ''
He added that because of the coronavirus pandemic , they also were not able to operate as many voting machines as they had initially planned in order to maintain distance in between voters .
`` We have our locations maxed out and if we were n't in COVID-19 times we would have had a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sorenson said .
`` We ’ re having x divided by 2 in a lot of cases . ''
Early voting also typically takes a bit longer than voting in-person on Election Day because voting locations are open to all voters across the county , meaning that each site has to provide a larger number of ballot options to account for every voter 's local elections .
They also do n't have the benefit of downloading voter rolls in advance such as is done at precinct polling places because officials need to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have already cast a ballot at another site .
`` It 's a more complex process from the election officials ' perspective but a much more convenient , '' process for voters , Becker said .
Cobb County Elections Director Janine Eveler said it was also taking longer for poll workers to verify voters ' registration in the state 's database due to a higher than normal volume of requests .
The state saw about 20 percent more users accessing the voter registration system Monday than it handles on a typical weekday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
Eveler said they were also seeing a high number of voters who had originally requested absentee or mail-in ballots but showed up to vote in-person instead .
`` That slows things down because they have to cancel that one in order to vote in-person so there 's more steps , '' she said .
Tommy Vickers , who waited five hours to vote at George Pierce Park in Gwinnett County , was one of those voters .
Because of pandemic , Vickers and his wife requested absentee ballots but in light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting by mail and concerns about the US Postal Service 's mail delivery delays , he decided to vote early in-person .
`` I anticipated that there would probably be some lines , '' Vickers told BuzzFeed News .
`` I did not expect it would be a five-hour line . ''
Vickers , 35 , of Sugar Hill , voted early at the same location in 2018 and was in and out within minutes , he said .
He expected to return home within an hour so that his wife , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their kids , could also go vote .
`` She ’ s going to wait probably until next week , '' he said .
Vickers said that once he got through the line , it took an extra five minutes or so for him to surrender his absentee ballot because the worker who was checking him in had to get a manager to help her figure out how to cancel the mail ballot and issue him an in-person one .
`` I was exceptionally frustrated to have to wait that long , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Vickers said , adding that he would have liked more communication from the county about the wait times and the issues contributing to them .
Kathy C. said she and her husband also waited nearly five hours to vote after arriving at the George Pierce Park site at 6:50 a.m. After the doors opened at 7 a.m. , she said it took another hour for the line to move again .
Sorenson , the Gwinnett County spokesperson , acknowledged that the listed wait times were not accurate early in the day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time working with people to get those right . ''
`` Everything 's slower on the first day , '' he said .
`` You ’ ve got a lot of people who doing this for the first time .
Everyday they get more experienced , you get a little more efficiencies in the process . ''

As early voting got underway in Georgia on Monday, energized voters turned out in droves across the state, resulting in long lines and wait times of up to eight hours in Gwinnett County. A record number of 128,590 ballots were cast over the course of the day — a more than 40% increase from the 90,688 ballots cast on the first day of early voting in 2016, according to the Georgia Secretary of State's office.
While many expressed frustration over having to stand in line for so long to make their voices heard, experts said the agonizing wait times, while unacceptable, were not necessarily evidence of voter suppression.
"I’d be concerned if I didn't see long lines," said David Becker, executive director and founder for the Center for Election Innovation & Research.
Rather, long lines at the beginning of early voting are a sign that voters are enthusiastic about participating in the election, Becker told BuzzFeed News, adding that every person that votes early is one less person who could be stuck in line on election night.
"We’re 22 days away from the election," he said. "Anyone who sees a long line and does not have the time to wait can come back tomorrow."
Still, in Georgia, which has a long history of voter suppression tactics that have disproportionately targeted Black voters, the long waits were a reminder of previous efforts to limit people's access to the polls.
"Some of this is voter enthusiasm. But this is just not acceptable in a modern day democracy," Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, wrote on Twitter. "We need restoration of the [Voting Rights Act] & officials who’ll provide more voting opportunities during a pandemic."
If past early voting trends hold true, experts and local officials said they expect to see a dip in turnout after Monday's surge before seeing numbers increase again closer to Election Day.
In addition to voter enthusiasm, the huge turnout may have been due in part to the first day of early voting falling on the Columbus Day holiday, experts and officials said, with many people possibly choosing to vote because they were off work.
"Today might be an anomaly because it's the first day of early voting and people are excited and it's a holiday," said Josh Douglas, an election law and voting rights professor at the University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law.
Douglas warned voters not to "jump to conclusions about whether this is some sort of intentional effort at voter suppression."
"I don't think it is," he said. "I think it’s accurate to say both that no one should have to wait five hours and that ... we can't know for sure that every day of early voting in Georgia is going to have these same kind of waits."


buzzfeed--2020-10-13--BuzzFeed News Is Going To Court For A Quick Release Of All Russia Investigation Documents Following

BuzzFeed News Is Going To Court For A Quick Release Of All Russia Investigation Documents Following Trump's Tweets

President Trump tweeted that he had “ fully authorized ” release of the records , so BuzzFeed News went to court to ask for immediate access .
Now a judge wants an answer from the White House .
Prompted by recent tweets from the president , BuzzFeed News has asked a federal judge to order the government to declassify and release thousands of pages of documents about investigations related to Russia ’ s interference in the 2016 presidential election and allegations that President Donald Trump tried to obstruct one of the inquiries .
BuzzFeed News is requesting that the documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nov. 3 .
In an emergency motion filed Thursday in US District Court in Washington , DC , BuzzFeed News cited two tweets by Trump late Tuesday night in which he said , “ I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History , the Russia Hoax .
Likewise , the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal .
No redactions !
” Last year , BuzzFeed News , and later CNN , filed Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to gain access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation .
Since last November , the Department of Justice and FBI have turned over more than 4,000 pages of documents .
But the records are heavily redacted .
In a second tweet Tuesday night , Trump said , “ All Russia Hoax Scandal information was Declassified by me long ago.
” In response to Trump ’ s assertion , BuzzFeed News and CNN have asked the judge presiding over the case to order the government to remove the redactions and rerelease the FBI interview summaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing to discuss the matter as early as Friday afternoon .
Later Thursday , US District Judge Reggie Walton directed the Justice Department to “ confer with the White House ” and report back to the court the “ official position regarding the declassification and release to the public of information related to the Russia investigation.
” The judge gave a deadline of Tuesday .
Separately , BuzzFeed News filed emergency court papers related to two additional FOIA lawsuits it has filed that requested documents related to other aspects of the Russia investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fully unredacted copy of the Mueller report .
BuzzFeed News ’ lawyers asked federal judges presiding over those cases to also order the government to release the records before Election Day .
Judge Walton , handling the filing on the Mueller report , again responded on Thursday by requesting the Justice Department report back on the White House position on declassification .
A different judge handling a separate lawsuit gave the department until Oct. 16 to respond but didn ’ t order that it confer with the White House .
Government attorneys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these requests , despite Trump ’ s order .
Last year , Justice Department lawyers claimed the volume of records requested could total 18 billion pages and take centuries to produce .

Prompted by recent tweets from the president, BuzzFeed News has asked a federal judge to order the government to declassify and release thousands of pages of documents about investigations related to Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and allegations that President Donald Trump tried to obstruct one of the inquiries.
BuzzFeed News is requesting that the documents be released before the presidential election, Nov. 3.
In an emergency motion filed Thursday in US District Court in Washington, DC, BuzzFeed News cited two tweets by Trump late Tuesday night in which he said, “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”


buzzfeed--2020-10-14--A Flight Attendant On TikTok Revealed All The Things You Should Never Touch On An Airplane, And It's

A Flight Attendant On TikTok Revealed All The Things You Should Never Touch On An Airplane, And It's So Gross

Kat then warns viewers that sticking your hand into that seat pocket is effectively the same as sticking your hand @ @ @ @ @ `` Think of all the dirty tissues , barf bags , and garbage that has @ @ @ @ @ she says .

Kat then warns viewers that sticking your hand into that seat pocket is effectively the same as sticking your hand into a garbage bin: "Think of all the dirty tissues, barf bags, and garbage that has been in there," she says.


buzzfeed--2020-10-14--Gal Gadot Broke Her Silence On Her Controversial "Imagine" Video, Calling It "Not The Right Good Dee

Gal Gadot Broke Her Silence On Her Controversial "Imagine" Video, Calling It "Not The Right Good Deed"

In the video , she says that the pandemic has made her feel `` philosophical '' and that it `` @ @ @ @ @ are , where you 're from , we 're all in this together . ''
@ @ @ @ @ Imagine , '' and is joined by a roster of other A-list celebs , including @ @ @ @ @ , Natalie Portman , Jimmy Fallon , Leslie Odom Jr. , Zoë Kravitz , Amy @ @ @ @ @ all singing from the comforts of their big ol ' Hollywood homes .

"Sometimes it can get me in trouble," she said. “There is something that I’ve learned to say, which is, ‘I don’t disagree with you, but’ — so basically I’m disagreeing with you. So I adapted. I just came to the conclusion: I do me, you do you. I’d rather have you not liking me at this moment than not saying my truth.”


buzzfeed--2020-10-14--Truths Most People Wouldn't Dare Tell Parents-To-Be About Living With A Baby

`` If you ca n't breastfeed , it 's OK .
There is so much 'Breast is best ' pressure @ @ @ @ @ breastfeed for any reason , you feel guilty as hell .
But FORMULA FEEDING IS @ @ @ @ @ it exists ! ''
`` YOU DO N'T HAVE TO BREASTFEED .
You do n't @ @ @ @ @ if you do n't like things near your tits .
You do n't need an @ @ @ @ @ any justification .
It is no one 's business . ''
`` Not every mom @ @ @ @ @ well .
Lots of babies do n't latch on , your milk production may be @ @ @ @ @ does NOT mean you 're a failure if you have to use formula . ''

15. "If you can't breastfeed, it's OK. There is so much 'Breast is best' pressure that if you can't breastfeed for any reason, you feel guilty as hell. But FORMULA FEEDING IS FINE! That's why it exists!"
—squeezme88
"YOU DON'T HAVE TO BREASTFEED. You don't even have to try it if you don't like things near your tits. You don't need an excuse, a reason, any justification. It is no one's business."
—jacquelines2
"Not every mom and baby take to nursing well. Lots of babies don't latch on, your milk production may be slow, and it definitely does NOT mean you're a failure if you have to use formula."
—heatherbrownh


buzzfeed--2020-10-14--Kamala Harris Kept Her Questioning Of Amy Coney Barrett Laser-Focused On Healthcare

WASHINGTON — This time , instead of the sharp , prosecutorial questions that have become her trademark in the Senate , Sen. Kamala Harris said she would “ take a moment to talk directly with the American people about where we are , and how we got here.
” Harris turned her questioning of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett Tuesday into a speech defending the Affordable Care Act , encapsulating the unwavering focus on healthcare amidst the coronavirus pandemic from Democrats that has marked Barrett ’ s confirmation hearings — and Harris and Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this nominee as fast as possible because they need one more Trump judge on the bench before November 10th , to win and strike down the entire Affordable Care Act , ” Harris said at the hearing , speaking virtually from her office in the Capitol after two Republican members of the Judiciary Committee tested positive for the virus .
“ This is not a hypothetical situation .
This is happening .
Here ’ s what you have to know : people are scared .
People are scared of what will happen if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of a pandemic.
” The Judiciary Committee hearing for Barrett offered a rare moment in American politics : the questioning of a president ’ s Supreme Court nominee by one of the people on the presidential ticket running against him .
Harris held up a photograph of a Southern California woman with a litany of pre-existing conditions who Harris said was “ terrified ” that she could no longer afford treatment if the Affordable Care Act was repealed .
“ Her fears are shared by millions of Americans .
The Affordable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court and the outcome of this hearing.
” Facing Brett Kavanaugh , Jeff Sessions , and others in confirmation hearings while on the Committee , Harris became known for rapid-fire questions that sometimes left Trump administration figures stumbling .
But on Tuesday , she paused only a few times to ask Barrett a question .
Harris attempted to draw a line between an article Barrett wrote in 2017 criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts ’ upholding of the Affordable Care Act and Trump ’ s nomination of Barrett to the 7th Circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months after you published that article did President Trump nominate you to be a judge on the Court of Appeals ?
” she asked Barrett .
And Harris pressed the nominee on whether she was aware of Trump ’ s vows to nominate judges who would strike down Obama ’ s signature healthcare law .
Barrett said she “ did not recall ” having heard the statements .
Democrats see the Affordable Care Act , a case that will be heard by the Supreme Court shortly after the election , as their most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Republican-controlled Senate is , for the moment , still virtually assured .
In Biden and Harris ’ s campaign against Trump , the coronavirus and its inextricable link to healthcare has become an almost singular issue .
It dominates Biden ’ s rhetoric , and has for almost the entirety of his general election campaign since the virus emerged in March .
Talking with reporters briefly on Monday about Barrett ’ s confirmation hearings , Biden made the strategy explicit .
“ This nominee has said she wants to get rid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act , ” he said .
“ Let ’ s keep our eye on the ball .
”

WASHINGTON — This time, instead of the sharp, prosecutorial questions that have become her trademark in the Senate, Sen. Kamala Harris said she would “take a moment to talk directly with the American people about where we are and how we got here.”
Harris turned her questioning of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett Tuesday into a speech defending the Affordable Care Act, encapsulating the unwavering focus on healthcare amid the coronavirus pandemic from Democrats that has marked Barrett’s confirmation hearings — and Harris and Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.
“Republicans are planning to confirm this nominee as fast as possible because they need one more Trump judge on the bench before Nov. 10, to win and strike down the entire Affordable Care Act,” Harris said at the hearing, speaking virtually from her office in the Capitol after two Republican members of the Judiciary Committee tested positive for the virus.
“This is not a hypothetical situation. This is happening. Here’s what you have to know: People are scared. People are scared of what will happen if the Affordable Care Act is destroyed in the middle of a pandemic.”
The Judiciary Committee hearing for Barrett offered a rare moment in American politics: the questioning of a president’s Supreme Court nominee by one of the people on the presidential ticket running against him.
Harris held up a photograph of a Southern California woman with a litany of preexisting conditions who Harris said was “terrified” that she could no longer afford treatment if the Affordable Care Act was repealed.
“Her fears are shared by millions of Americans. The Affordable Care Act and its protections hinge on the Supreme Court and the outcome of this hearing.”
Facing Brett Kavanaugh, Jeff Sessions, and others in confirmation hearings while on the Committee, Harris became known for rapid-fire questions that sometimes left Trump administration figures stumbling. But on Tuesday, she paused only a few times to ask Barrett a question.
Harris attempted to draw a line between an article Barrett wrote in 2017 criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts’ upholding of the Affordable Care Act and Trump’s nomination of Barrett to the 7th Circuit.
“My question is how many months after you published that article did President Trump nominate you to be a judge on the Court of Appeals?” she asked Barrett.
And Harris pressed the nominee on whether she was aware of Trump’s vows to nominate judges who would strike down Obama’s signature healthcare law. Barrett said she “did not recall” having heard the statements.
Democrats see the Affordable Care Act, a case that will be heard by the Supreme Court shortly after the election, as their most powerful weapon against Barrett, whose confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate is, for the moment, still virtually assured.
In Biden and Harris’s campaign against Trump, the coronavirus and its inextricable link to healthcare has become an almost singular issue. It dominates Biden’s rhetoric and has for almost the entirety of his general election campaign since the virus emerged in March.
Talking with reporters briefly on Monday about Barrett’s confirmation hearings, Biden made the strategy explicit.
“This nominee has said she wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, this president wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act,” he said. “Let’s keep our eye on the ball.”


buzzfeed--2020-10-14--These Are The Nightmare Scenarios For How The 2020 Election Might End


buzzfeed--2020-10-14--This Guy Discovered Extremely Expired Cosmetic Products In Stores And Is Going Viral For Making Peop

This Guy Discovered Extremely Expired Cosmetic Products In Stores And Is Going Viral For Making People Aware

Canon said he wants to remind people to make sure they are getting the quality they are paying for .
@ @ @ @ @ on the stores and distributors for this ; however , mistakes can be made — @ @ @ @ @ ' by companies .
So we should be checking our products and holding companies accountable @ @ @ @ @ the best possible care of my skin , and I understand how sensitive it is @ @ @ @ @ `` You could have a horrible reaction from an expired product like I did — @ @ @ @ @ with the aftereffects for weeks . ''

Canon said he wants to remind people to make sure they are getting the quality they are paying for. "Normally, we rely on the stores and distributors for this; however, mistakes can be made — as well as 'money-saving efforts' by companies. So we should be checking our products and holding companies accountable. I try to take the best possible care of my skin, and I understand how sensitive it is," he said. "You could have a horrible reaction from an expired product like I did — and be left to deal with the aftereffects for weeks."


buzzfeed--2020-10-15--A Flight Attendant On TikTok Revealed All The Things You Should Never Touch On An Airplane, And It's


buzzfeed--2020-10-15--Major Public Health Groups Say A New Push For Herd Immunity Is Dangerous

Scott Atlas , member of the White House 's coronavirus task force , speaks to the press as President Donald Trump looks on .
As the Trump administration signals a willingness to build “ herd immunity ” by purposely allowing the coronavirus to spread , major scientific organizations are denouncing a plan they say would be life-threatening and practically impossible .
That plan , laid out by three scientists in a controversial document called the Great Barrington Declaration , calls for only protecting “ vulnerable ” people and letting everyone else get infected with COVID-19 .
The authors discussed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House officials last week .
This week , the head of the World Health Organization and more than a dozen groups representing thousands of infectious disease and public health experts fiercely pushed back in a series of formal denouncements .
“ Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak , let alone a pandemic .
It is scientifically and ethically problematic , ” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Monday .
And on Wednesday , a group of 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence ” in a letter published in the Lancet , a high-profile medical journal .
The Great Barrington Declaration , published on a website sponsored by a libertarian think tank , argues that the coronavirus is not that dangerous for many people , so “ those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal.
” Citing “ grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies , ” the letter calls for bringing back in-person teaching , reopening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gatherings like concerts and sport events .
So far , the letter has been signed by more than 35,000 self-identified scientists and clinicians — although some signatories , such as “ Dr .
Johnny Bananas ” and “ Professor Cominic Dummings '' — were identified as clearly fake .
All of the signatures were later made private .
The document ’ s architects are a trio of scientists from Harvard , Stanford , and Oxford universities , some of whom have been telling policymakers for months that the virus is not that deadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Azar , secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services , and Scott Atlas , a Stanford neuroradiologist on the White House coronavirus task force .
Both expressed support for the scientists ’ views .
Afterwards , Azar tweeted that they heard “ strong reinforcement of the Trump Administration ’ s strategy of aggressively protecting the vulnerable while opening schools and the workplace.
” And on a call convened by the White House on Monday , anonymous senior administration officials referenced the Great Barrington Declaration to reporters .
“ We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official said , according to the Washington Post .
“ The plan is endorsing what the president ’ s policy has been for months.
” The Great Barrington Declaration is stirring public interest months into a pandemic that the federal government has failed to control .
More than 216,000 Americans have died .
Life has been upended in virtually every sense : jobs have been lost on a massive scale , gatherings large and small canceled , and businesses , schools , and restaurants closed .
Data indicates that the pandemic is having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are putting off getting screened for cancer and treated for strokes , and more adults are having issues related to mental health and substance abuse .
As the world awaits a vaccine , “ pandemic fatigue ” is spreading in the US and elsewhere .
In the UK , where COVID cases are surging again , lawmakers are contending with public resistance as they seek to implement a second round of lockdown measures .
But the mainstream scientific community says that essentially giving up on protecting healthy people from the virus is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of the US population remains susceptible to the virus , according to recent CDC estimates .
Health experts worry that letting the pathogen spread unchecked in healthy people , in the absence of a vaccine , would sicken , hospitalize , and kill many of them , not to mention overwhelm the healthcare system .
And even if young , healthy people die at relatively lower rates , they can still transmit the virus to at-risk groups or join the “ long-haulers ” who endure debilitating symptoms for months on end .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will become immune forever : no one knows how long immunity lasts , and there have been a handful of reported re-infections .
These experts also say that it would also be next to impossible to isolate the tens to hundreds of millions of “ vulnerable ” Americans who are elderly , have pre-existing conditions , or live in multi-generational households .
The Great Barrington Declaration proposes to sequester these groups from the rest of society , but does not provide a plan for how to do so .
“ Promoting the concept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a recently circulated document as an answer to the COVID-19 pandemic is inappropriate , irresponsible and ill-informed , ” said the heads of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the HIV Medicine Association , which respectively represent more than 12,000 infectious disease experts and 6,000 HIV/AIDS specialists , in a statement Wednesday .
In another joint statement Wednesday , 14 prominent public health organizations declared that “ the suggestions put forth by the Great Barrington Declaration are NOT based in science ” and they would “ haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifice lives.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy , it is a political statement , ” wrote the groups , which included the American Public Health Association , the Association of Public Health Laboratories , and the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Security .
“ It ignores sound public health expertise .
It preys on a frustrated populace .
Instead of selling false hope that will predictably backfire , we must focus on how to manage this pandemic in a safe , responsible , and equitable way.
” And a group of 80 researchers are countering the Great Barrington Declaration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the John Snow Memorandum , named for the 19th-century physician who tracked the source of a cholera outbreak in London , and is considered a founder of modern epidemiology .
In the letter , the signatories acknowledged that there has been “ widespread demoralisation and diminishing trust ” in the face of ongoing restrictions in countries that have failed to adopt “ adequate provisions to manage the pandemic and its societal impacts.
” But society can not simply allow the virus to spread unchecked in large groups of people , argued the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers and signed by 50 others spanning public health , epidemiology , medicine , health policy , and other disciplines .
Measures such as widespread testing and contact tracing need to be implemented , “ and they must be supported by financial and social programmes that encourage community responses and address the inequities that have been amplified by the pandemic , ” they wrote .
They cited Japan , Vietnam , and New Zealand as countries that have shown that transmission can be controlled .
“ The evidence is very clear : controlling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months , ” they wrote .
“ We can not afford distractions that undermine an effective response ; it is essential that we act urgently based on the evidence .
”

As the Trump administration signals a willingness to build “herd immunity” by purposely allowing the coronavirus to spread, major scientific organizations are denouncing a plan they say would be life-threatening and practically impossible.
That plan, laid out by three scientists in a controversial document called the "Great Barrington Declaration," calls for only protecting “vulnerable” people and letting everyone else get infected with COVID-19. The authors discussed the strategy in a meeting with two top White House officials last week.
This week, top US heath official Anthony Fauci, the head of the World Health Organization, and more than a dozen groups representing thousands of infectious disease and public health experts fiercely pushed back in a series of formal denouncements.
“We just gotta look that square in the eye and say it’s nonsense,” Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told ABC News Thursday.
“Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic. It is scientifically and ethically problematic,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Monday.
And on Wednesday, a group of 80 researchers called the idea “a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence” in a letter published in the Lancet, a high-profile medical journal.
The Great Barrington Declaration, published on a website sponsored by a libertarian think tank, argues that the coronavirus is not that dangerous for many people, so “those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal.” Citing “grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies,” the letter calls for bringing back in-person teaching, reopening restaurants and businesses, and resuming large gatherings like concerts and sports events.
So far, the letter has been signed by more than 35,000 self-identified scientists and clinicians — although some signatories, such as “Dr. Johnny Bananas” and “Professor Cominic Dummings," were identified as clearly fake. All of the signatures were later made private.
The document’s architects are a trio of scientists from Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford universities, some of whom have been telling policymakers for months that the virus is not that deadly. Last week they met with Alex Azar, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and Scott Atlas, a Stanford neuroradiologist on the White House coronavirus task force.
Both expressed support for the scientists’ views. Afterward, Azar tweeted that they heard “strong reinforcement of the Trump Administration’s strategy of aggressively protecting the vulnerable while opening schools and the workplace.” And on a call convened by the White House on Monday, anonymous senior administration officials referenced the Great Barrington Declaration to reporters. “We’re not endorsing a plan,” one official said, according to the Washington Post. “The plan is endorsing what the president’s policy has been for months.”
The Great Barrington Declaration is stirring public interest months into a pandemic that the federal government has failed to control. More than 216,000 Americans have died. Life has been upended in virtually every sense: Jobs have been lost on a massive scale, gatherings large and small canceled, and businesses, schools, and restaurants closed. Data indicates that the pandemic is having non–COVID-19 health effects: People are putting off getting screened for cancer and treated for strokes, and more adults are having issues related to mental health and substance abuse.
As the world awaits a vaccine, “pandemic fatigue” is spreading in the US and elsewhere. In the UK, where COVID-19 cases are surging again, lawmakers are contending with public resistance as they seek to implement a second round of lockdown measures.
But the mainstream scientific community says that essentially giving up on protecting healthy people from the virus is not an acceptable solution.
Up to 90% of the US population remains susceptible to the virus, according to recent CDC estimates. Health experts worry that letting the pathogen spread unchecked in healthy people, in the absence of a vaccine, would sicken, hospitalize, and kill many of them, not to mention overwhelm the healthcare system. And even if young, healthy people die at relatively lower rates, they can still transmit the virus to at-risk groups or join the “long-haulers” who endure debilitating symptoms for months on end. It also is not guaranteed that survivors will become immune forever: No one knows how long immunity lasts, and there have been a handful of reported reinfections.
These experts also say that it would also be next to impossible to isolate the millions of “vulnerable” Americans who are elderly, have preexisting conditions, or live in multigenerational households. The Great Barrington Declaration proposes to sequester these groups from the rest of society but does not provide a plan for how to do so.
“Promoting the concept of ‘herd immunity’ as framed in a recently circulated document as an answer to the COVID-19 pandemic is inappropriate, irresponsible and ill-informed,” said the heads of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the HIV Medicine Association, which respectively represent more than 12,000 infectious disease experts and 6,000 HIV/AIDS specialists, in a statement Wednesday.
In another joint statement on Wednesday, 14 prominent public health organizations declared that “the suggestions put forth by the Great Barrington Declaration are NOT based in science” and they would “haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifice lives.”
“The declaration is not a strategy, it is a political statement,” wrote the groups, which included the American Public Health Association, the Association of Public Health Laboratories, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Security. “It ignores sound public health expertise. It preys on a frustrated populace. Instead of selling false hope that will predictably backfire, we must focus on how to manage this pandemic in a safe, responsible, and equitable way.”
And a group of 80 researchers is countering the Great Barrington Declaration with an open letter of its own: the John Snow Memorandum, named for the 19th-century physician who tracked the source of a cholera outbreak in London and is considered a founder of modern epidemiology.
In the letter, the signatories acknowledged that there has been “widespread demoralisation and diminishing trust” in the face of ongoing restrictions in countries that have failed to adopt “adequate provisions to manage the pandemic and its societal impacts.”
But society cannot simply allow the virus to spread unchecked in large groups of people, argued the letter, which was led by 30 researchers and signed by 50 others spanning public health, epidemiology, medicine, health policy, and other disciplines.
Measures such as widespread testing and contact tracing need to be implemented, “and they must be supported by financial and social programmes that encourage community responses and address the inequities that have been amplified by the pandemic,” they wrote. They cited Japan, Vietnam, and New Zealand as countries that have shown that transmission can be controlled.
“The evidence is very clear: controlling community spread of COVID-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months,” they wrote.
“We cannot afford distractions that undermine an effective response; it is essential that we act urgently based on the evidence.”


buzzfeed--2020-10-15--A Judge Ruled North Carolina Can Extend Its Deadline To Count Mail-In Ballots, Despite The Trump Cam

A Judge Ruled North Carolina Can Extend Its Deadline To Count Mail-In Ballots, Despite The Trump Campaign’s Objections

A federal judge reluctantly ruled on Wednesday that North Carolina can go ahead with a plan to count absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day through Nov. 12 , but denied voting rights groups ' effort to make it easier for people to fix errors on their ballots .
North Carolina , like several states , requires absentee voters to have someone witness when they sign their ballot , but those laws have been challenged in court due to the coronavirus pandemic when many more people are voting by mail and social distancing .
In late September , as part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by voting rights groups in state court , the North Carolina State Board of Elections revised its guidance to counties about what to do if a ballot arrived without a witness signature , informing local election officials that the ballot could still be counted if a voter submitted an additional form certifying that their ballot was legitimate .
As part of the same agreement reached in the state court case , North Carolina election officials agreed to extend the deadline for accepting ballots by mail .
But a series of lawsuits , appeals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have upended that guidance , even as ballots poured in .
More than 500,000 absentee ballots have already been cast , according to the North Carolina State Board of Elections .
President Donald Trump ’ s campaign , the Republican National Committee , and state Republicans had argued that the State Board of Elections ’ guidance was the result of a “ backroom deal ” with one of the voting rights groups involved in the litigation , Democracy North Carolina , that essentially eliminated the witness requirement law and would result in potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign have repeatedly , without evidence , argued that mail-voting would lead to widespread voter fraud , an argument that courts have found unconvincing in a series of cases this year ) .
Late Wednesday , US District Judge William Osteen issued two separate opinions , addressing arguments in three related lawsuits .
He upheld the extended deadline for counting ballots because he did not want to cause “ judicially created confusion ” by changing rules so close to the election , though he noted it was likely unconstitutional .
But in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s late-September guidance allowing voters to submit a form if they had not included a witness signature on their ballot was unfair to the voters who had cast their ballot prior to the state ’ s new directive .
His order reinstates the state ’ s original process , which invalidates ballots without a witness signature and requires voters to start over with a new ballot .
Multiple parties in the case have filed appeals on different issues .
North Carolina election officials appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were temporarily blocked by another federal judge , arguing that because there were conflicting court orders about missing witness signatures , election officials couldn ’ t notify voters who have already sent back ballots that have problems .
State Republicans also have a pending challenge to an earlier state court order before the North Carolina Court of Appeals .
Until those courts rule , Judge Osteen ’ s decision will be in effect .
Patrick Gannon , a spokesperson for the North Carolina State Board of Elections , did not immediately comment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told BuzzFeed News that the board was waiting to notify voters about how the board would handle ballots without a witness signature until the issue was resolved in court .

A federal judge reluctantly ruled on Wednesday that North Carolina can go ahead with a plan to count absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day through Nov. 12, but denied voting rights groups' effort to make it easier for people to fix errors on their ballots.
North Carolina, like several states, requires absentee voters to have someone witness when they sign their ballot — but those laws have been challenged in court due to the coronavirus pandemic, when many more people are voting by mail and social distancing. In late September, as part of an agreement reached in a lawsuit brought by voting rights groups in state court, the North Carolina State Board of Elections revised its guidance to counties about what to do if a ballot arrived without a witness signature, informing local election officials that it could still be counted if a voter submitted an additional form certifying that it was legitimate.
As part of the same agreement reached in the state court case, North Carolina election officials agreed to extend the deadline for accepting ballots by mail.
But a series of lawsuits, appeals, and competing court orders since then have upended that guidance, even as ballots poured in. More than 500,000 absentee ballots have already been cast, according to the North Carolina State Board of Elections.
President Donald Trump’s campaign, the Republican National Committee, and state Republicans had argued that the State Board of Elections’ guidance was the result of a “backroom deal” with one of the voting rights groups involved in the litigation, Democracy North Carolina, that essentially eliminated the witness requirement law and could result in voter fraud. (Trump and his campaign have repeatedly, without evidence, argued that mail-voting would lead to widespread voter fraud, an argument that courts have found unconvincing in a series of cases this year.)
Late Wednesday, US District Judge William Osteen issued two separate opinions, addressing arguments in three related lawsuits. He upheld the extended deadline for counting ballots because he did not want to cause “judicially created confusion” by changing rules so close to the election, though he noted it was likely unconstitutional.
But in the other case, he said the state’s guidance in late September allowing voters to submit a form if they had not included a witness signature on their ballot was unfair to the voters who had cast their ballot prior to the state’s new directive. His order reinstates the state’s original process, which invalidates ballots without a witness signature and requires voters to start over with a new ballot.
Multiple parties in the case have filed appeals on different issues. North Carolina election officials appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit after the updated election rules were temporarily blocked by another federal judge, arguing that because there were conflicting court orders about missing witness signatures, election officials couldn’t notify voters who had already sent back ballots that have problems. State Republicans also have a pending challenge to an earlier state court order before the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Until those courts rule, Judge Osteen’s decision will be in effect.
Patrick Gannon, a spokesperson for the North Carolina State Board of Elections, did not immediately comment in response to the decisions. Gannon previously told BuzzFeed News that the board was waiting to notify voters about how the board would handle ballots without a witness signature until the issue was resolved in court.


buzzfeed--2020-10-14--The US Is Heading Into A Third Wave Of COVID Hospitalizations As Election Day Nears

Coronavirus cases and hospitalizations are now rising again across most of the nation , including the northeast .
But some of the biggest surges are currently happening across the midwest and the northern plains , including Montana , Nebraska , and the Dakotas — states that escaped the worst of the previous two big surges in the spring and summer .
Less than three weeks out from an election that many see as a referendum on President Donald Trump ’ s handling of the pandemic , a “ third wave ” of COVID-19 hospitalizations is underway in the US .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ three surges .
Strictly speaking , these aren ’ t distinct waves of infection , like those seen in Western Europe .
In those countries , cases surged in the spring before dying down , and are now surging for a second time — triggering new lockdowns including a nighttime curfew in Paris and eight other cities announced today by French President Emmanuel Macron .
But the US never brought transmission of the virus back to a low level , allowing hotspots of infection to move around the country since March in what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Hospitalizations for COVID-19 show up in the data later than case counts , and it ’ s unclear whether the current surge will rise as high as those in April and July .
Those surges hit hardest in the northeast and the Sun Belt respectively , and each peaked with around 60,000 people in the hospital across the US .
The initial surge , centered on New York City and the surrounding area , plus Detroit and New Orleans , was much more deadly , as hospitals got completely overwhelmed .
Doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best to treat COVID-19 patients , lacking drugs such as the steroid dexamethasone and the antiviral remdesivir that are now used to treat the most severely ill .
But clinicians on the front line are concerned that another big rise may be on the way .
“ Clearly there are clouds on the horizon and there are some very worrisome trends , ” Mark Rupp , chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha , told BuzzFeed News .
The current wave in hospitalizations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard in Wisconsin .
Almost 1,000 people are currently hospitalized with COVID-19 in Wisconsin in a surge that shows no sign of slowing , according to data compiled by the COVID Tracking Project .
About one quarter of those patients are in the ICU .
On Wednesday , the state opened a field hospital that can house an additional 530 coronavirus patients , constructed in the Wisconsin State Fair Park outside Milwaukee to ease the pressure on the state ’ s regular hospitals .
It is intended to treat those already on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the west across the northern plains are following a similar trend .

The plot of new confirmed cases shows three surges. Strictly speaking, these aren’t distinct waves of infection, like those seen in Western Europe. In those countries, cases surged in the spring before dying down and are now surging for a second time — triggering new lockdowns, including a nighttime curfew in Paris and eight other cities, announced today by French President Emmanuel Macron.
But the US never brought transmission of the virus back to a low level, allowing hot spots of infection to move around the country since March in what some have called a “patchwork pandemic.”
Hospitalizations for COVID-19 show up in the data later than case counts, and it’s unclear whether the current surge will rise as high as those in April and July. Those surges hit hardest in the Northeast and the Sun Belt, respectively, and each peaked with around 60,000 people in the hospital across the US.
The initial surge, centered on New York City and the surrounding area, plus Detroit and New Orleans, was much more deadly. Hospitals got completely overwhelmed. Doctors also then didn’t know how best to treat COVID-19 patients, lacking drugs, such as the steroid dexamethasone and the antiviral remdesivir, that are now used to treat those who are most severely ill.
But clinicians on the front line are concerned that another big rise may be on the way. “Clearly there are clouds on the horizon, and there are some very worrisome trends,” Mark Rupp, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, told BuzzFeed News.
The current wave in hospitalizations, which began in September, hit especially hard in Wisconsin. Almost 1,000 people are currently hospitalized with COVID-19 in the state in a surge that shows no sign of slowing, according to data compiled by the COVID Tracking Project. About one-quarter of those patients are in the ICU.
On Wednesday, the state opened a field hospital that can house an additional 530 coronavirus patients, constructed in the Wisconsin State Fair Park outside Milwaukee to ease the pressure on the state’s regular hospitals. It is intended to treat those already on the road to recovery.
Worryingly, states to the west across the northern plains are following a similar trend.