hotair--2020-03-21--COVID-19 border shutdown: Illegal crossers will get immediately deported to home countries

Do not pass “ go , ” do not get $ 200 , do not even get a hearing .
Anyone crossing a US national border illegally will get immediately sent back to their home country for the next 30 days , at least , part of the ban on all border traffic except trade and other essential business .
To do otherwise , the White House argued in its announcement last night , would be to put the entire immigration system at risk .
This includes those seeking asylum — if they cross the border first : In addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ essential travel ” and citing concerns over the spread of the novel coronavrius , the Trump administration announced Friday that unauthorized immigrants accused of crossing illegally will face immediate return to their home countries .
The unprecedented announcement raised major questions about the fate of refugees and asylum seekers who regularly cross the southern border without travel documents .
Administration officials sent a resounding message that detention protocols — even for those with valid claims to stay in the U.S. — pose a health risk to immigrants and Border Patrol agents alike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cripple our immigration system , overwhelm our healthcare system and severely damage our national security , ” Trump said on Friday .
The rule change took place yesterday and has already taken effect .
It won ’ t affect legal immigration or asylum seekers who process normally , apparently , but those who try to cross the border first .
The only exemption will be unaccompanied children , the New York Times reports .
Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf told reporters that he was acting on recommendations from the CDC to limit contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the acting secretary of homeland security , said the United States would also close the legal entry points along the border with Mexico and Canada to tourism .
American citizens , lawful permanent residents and those crossing a border to seek medical treatment or attend educational institutions would not be affected .
Commercial traffic would remain open , but port officers would stop processing those without legal authority to be in the United States , including asylum seekers .
Mr. Wolf said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had issued the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crossed the southwestern border illegally instead of taking them to a detention center where they could ask for asylum in the United States .
President Trump has sought such a restrictive policy for years , but the courts have blocked it as a violation of due process .
“ We ’ re trying to limit the amount of contact we have with these individuals , ” said Mr. Wolf , adding that many migrants who cross the border often lack documents to prove their medical history .
“ It ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule , set to take effect Saturday , Border Patrol agents will be issued biometric tools to process migrants in the field .
Migrants who have a criminal history will still be detained , but agents are being directed to take others to the nearest port of entry or airfield , where they are to be returned to their home countries .
Unaccompanied children will be exempt from the rule , a Customs and Border Protection official said .
It ’ s true that courts have intervened to stop these policies before .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ change some judicial minds , but if so , it won ’ t be because the law has changed .
Nothing in the Stafford Act provides any new or expanded border authority .
The word “ immigration ” only appears four times in the entire text , and then only in job titles .
The word “ deport ” doesn ’ t appear at all .
Perhaps no one will want to test this out in court , and maybe the White House assumes that will be the case .
I ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the earlier cases are already working on their briefs and arguments for the next lawsuit , though .
If so , they had better prepare to be much less popular in the coronavirus era .
Governors are ordering Americans to shelter in place and avoid all unnecessary contact with families and friends .
In that environment , people are bound to be a lot less sympathetic to uninvited visitors wandering around .
By the way , the judges who will hear these challenges live in places like California , New York , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think their mindsets might not have changed in this crisis as well .
This country , and the entire world , will have a much different idea of the use , purpose , and value of national borders at the other end of the COVID-19 pandemic , with far-reaching consequences not just in North and Central America but also in Europe .
The US isn ’ t the only country looking to give an immediate boot to uninvited guests , either .
Canada announced yesterday that they ’ ll be handing some folks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer accept irregular migrants trying to cross the shared border with the United States and will instead return them to U.S. authorities , Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday .
The move marks a significant change in tactics from the Liberal government , which earlier this week had said those traversing the frontier would be put into quarantine .
“ This is a temporary measure which we ’ ll put in place for as long as the coronavirus crisis lasts .
These are exceptional measures to protect citizens , ” Trudeau told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who crossed up until today will be in isolation … but in future those trying to cross will be turned back to U.S. authorities , ” said Trudeau .
That ’ s fine , and that ’ s as it should be .
We can quarantine border-violating Americans on our side , and deport everyone who shouldn ’ t be in this country either .
That is precisely the way it should have been all along .
No one is owed entry to the US except those who apply for and receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Andrew McCarthy ’ s excellent disposition today on the limit of law in crisis and the necessity of political decision relates to this issue .
It might be even better in the context of Jazz ’ s post earlier today : We miss that in normal times of peace and prosperity , when the rule of law governs .
But in crisis , we see the limits of law .
In essence , these questions call for political determinations .
They turn on the perception of peril at a given time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can not be forecast with precision .
The law also works best when we are confident we know enough about a topic to regulate for all future conditions .
The law works well for bank transactions , and especially for bank robbery .
For infectious disease outbreaks .
.
.
maybe not so much .
… This is , and has to be , the pattern of political determinations : Err on the side of safety , but abate if , with the context of better information , living more realistically with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the alternatives .
Here , the coronavirus shutdown may have been an understandable first reaction , even a justifiable one .
But it has to be weighed against the catastrophic consequences .
And it has to factor in our improving understanding of the threats and the behaviors that mitigate it — hand washing , other rudimentary hygiene , social distancing , avoiding large crowds for now , extra safeguards for the elderly and people with preexisting health problems , and so on .
If we do these things , many fewer people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed .
Even with all that , and even if we can minimize the number infected and eventually reduce the fatality rate , it is entirely conceivable that thousands more people will die from COVID-19 than die from flu .
But tragic as that outcome would be , it would pale in comparison to the ruin that looms if we do not resume a semblance of normal life .
14 No matter what happens , the law — i.e.
, the Trump administration ’ s conclusions about its DPA , Stafford Act , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say about it .
The history of this country is one of ceding authority to the chief executive , to an extent commensurate with the public ’ s sense of real threat , particularly lethal threat on a mass scale .
Later , Congress and the courts push back , but only once the perception of peril ebbs .
They push back with law .
Yet , the extent to which law is a real barrier against to future presidential muscle-flexing , for good or ill , depends not on what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how scared we are .

Do not pass “go,” do not get $200, do not even get a hearing. Anyone crossing a US national border illegally will get immediately sent back to their home country for the next 30 days, at least, part of the ban on all border traffic except trade and other essential business. To do otherwise, the White House argued in its announcement last night, would be to put the entire immigration system at risk.
This includes those seeking asylum — if they cross the border first:
In addition to closing U.S. borders to all but “essential travel” and citing concerns over the spread of the novel coronavrius, the Trump administration announced Friday that unauthorized immigrants accused of crossing illegally will face immediate return to their home countries. The unprecedented announcement raised major questions about the fate of refugees and asylum seekers who regularly cross the southern border without travel documents. Administration officials sent a resounding message that detention protocols — even for those with valid claims to stay in the U.S. — pose a health risk to immigrants and Border Patrol agents alike. “Left unchecked, this would cripple our immigration system, overwhelm our healthcare system and severely damage our national security,” Trump said on Friday.
The rule change took place yesterday and has already taken effect. It won’t affect legal immigration or asylum seekers who process normally, apparently, but those who try to cross the border first. The only exemption will be unaccompanied children, the New York Times reports. Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf told reporters that he was acting on recommendations from the CDC to limit contact as much as possible:
Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of homeland security, said the United States would also close the legal entry points along the border with Mexico and Canada to tourism. American citizens, lawful permanent residents and those crossing a border to seek medical treatment or attend educational institutions would not be affected. Commercial traffic would remain open, but port officers would stop processing those without legal authority to be in the United States, including asylum seekers. Mr. Wolf said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had issued the order to turn away any people who crossed the southwestern border illegally instead of taking them to a detention center where they could ask for asylum in the United States. President Trump has sought such a restrictive policy for years, but the courts have blocked it as a violation of due process. “We’re trying to limit the amount of contact we have with these individuals,” said Mr. Wolf, adding that many migrants who cross the border often lack documents to prove their medical history. “It’s going to be very rapid.” Under the new rule, set to take effect Saturday, Border Patrol agents will be issued biometric tools to process migrants in the field. Migrants who have a criminal history will still be detained, but agents are being directed to take others to the nearest port of entry or airfield, where they are to be returned to their home countries. Unaccompanied children will be exempt from the rule, a Customs and Border Protection official said.
It’s true that courts have intervened to stop these policies before. Will they now? The crisis might change some judicial minds, but if so, it won’t be because the law has changed. Nothing in the Stafford Act provides any new or expanded border authority. The word “immigration” only appears four times in the entire text, and then only in job titles. The word “deport” doesn’t appear at all.
Perhaps no one will want to test this out in court, and maybe the White House assumes that will be the case. I’d bet the ACLU and other organizations involved in the earlier cases are already working on their briefs and arguments for the next lawsuit, though. If so, they had better prepare to be much less popular in the coronavirus era. Governors are ordering Americans to shelter in place and avoid all unnecessary contact with families and friends. In that environment, people are bound to be a lot less sympathetic to uninvited visitors wandering around.
By the way, the judges who will hear these challenges live in places like California, New York, and Illinois too. Don’t think their mindsets might not have changed in this crisis as well. This country, and the entire world, will have a much different idea of the use, purpose, and value of national borders at the other end of the COVID-19 pandemic, with far-reaching consequences not just in North and Central America but also in Europe.
The US isn’t the only country looking to give an immediate boot to uninvited guests, either. Canada announced yesterday that they’ll be handing some folks back to us:
Canada will no longer accept irregular migrants trying to cross the shared border with the United States and will instead return them to U.S. authorities, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday. The move marks a significant change in tactics from the Liberal government, which earlier this week had said those traversing the frontier would be put into quarantine. “This is a temporary measure which we’ll put in place for as long as the coronavirus crisis lasts. These are exceptional measures to protect citizens,” Trudeau told a news conference. … “The people who crossed up until today will be in isolation … but in future those trying to cross will be turned back to U.S. authorities,” said Trudeau.
That’s fine, and that’s as it should be. We can quarantine border-violating Americans on our side, and deport everyone who shouldn’t be in this country either. That is precisely the way it should have been all along. No one is owed entry to the US except those who apply for and receive permission to do so legally.
Addendum: Andrew McCarthy’s excellent disposition today on the limit of law in crisis and the necessity of political decision relates to this issue. It might be even better in the context of Jazz’s post earlier today:


hotair--2020-03-21--Surprise! Guess who "the person in the back" was at WH briefing

Friday ’ s press briefing with President Trump and his COVID-19 Taskforce was not only informative , but it was also downright entertaining .
There was even a surprise guest , at least a surprise to the viewers .
One moment that set the online universe on fire was when Peter Alexander of NBC made the mistake of accusing President Trump of lying to the public about the seriousness of the pandemic .
He later tried to explain that he was tossing Trump a softball question , hoping the president would take the pitch and hit it out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will pass .
Instead of taking the alleged softball question , Trump stopped the guy by commenting , “ Such a lovely question.
” Alexander asked about the “ spin ” Trump puts on his information about the pandemic and Trump isn ’ t stupid .
He knows that is code in the Trump-hating media for bad Orange Man lies .
I watched the press conference and here is what I saw – Trump answered the question about the uncertainty of the drug that is used in malaria treatment being a possible treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he kept his cool .
Then Alexander asked a follow-up question about what Americans who are scared should be told .
“ I say that you ’ re a terrible reporter ” , Trump replied .
Then he went on to tell Alexander he is putting out a “ very bad signal ” to the American people .
He was firm in his criticism of the reporter ’ s question but didn ’ t raise his voice .
His decimal level went up just a smidge as he accused Alexander of pursuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NBC and Comcast ( ConCast ) , too .
C ’ mon .
We all know there is no love lost between NBC and Trump .
Later , Mike Pence was asked the same question and responded in his normal manner – calm and reassuring .
It ’ s what we expect from Pence .
In this case , though , with the stress that everyone is under in dealing with the pandemic , I don ’ t think Trump did anything wrong .
Alexander knew what he was saying when he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump isn ’ t a warm and fuzzy guy .
He ’ s not a crier like the Bushes and he doesn ’ t bother with phony sounding empathy like Barack Obama or Bill “ I feel your pain ” Clinton .
Trump just lets it rip .
The pearl-clutching media who think everything is all about them , who often simply deliver opinions instead of actually delivering news to the public don ’ t cope well .
Later in the press conference , President Trump called on a reporter – “ Yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without identifying him or his news organization .
The man who began to ask a question was Sean Spicer , the former White House press secretary .
What ?
As you hear in the clip , Spicy asks about the timeliness of the financial assistance that will be offered to small businesses during this crisis , and then he asked about the appearance of possible insider trading by four U.S. senators after a briefing that included the likely severity of the approaching pandemic .
Both questions were reasonable and professionally asked .
Spicer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a reporter .
He has a show on Newsmax .
The reaction to Spicer ’ s new role in the briefing room is about what you ’ d expect from the anti-Trump press .
Some are calling his appearance “ surreal ” .
Spicer now has his own political talk show for the conservative Newsmax TV outlet .
By the time Trump entered the White House Briefing Room to address reporters Friday , Spicer was set to press his old boss for presidential reaction to small business anxieties and reports that senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The surreal scene played out moments after the president castigated NBC ’ s Peter Alexander for suggesting that Trump may be giving Americans “ a false sense of hope ” about coronavirus treatment , asking what he would say to Americans who are scared or sickened by the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak .
Ultimately , Trump used Spicer ’ s questions to praise his administration ’ s response to small businesses hammered by the outbreak and defend senators who reportedly sold stock before markets tanked in response to the pandemic , though he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them — a California Democrat — by name .
“ I saw some names .
I know all of them .
I know everyone mentioned , ” Trump replied to Spicer .
“ Dianne Feinstein , I guess .
And a couple of others .
I don ’ t know too much about what it ’ s about , but I find them to all be very honorable people .
That ’ s all I know .
And they said they did nothing wrong .
I find them — the whole group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must have had to swallow hard to admit Spicer did well in his questions to President Trump .
He has “ a long way to go ” to earn the confidence of other reporters was one reaction .
“ It obviously made for a surreal scene to have the former White House press secretary , best known for lying about Trump ’ s inauguration crowd size , back in the briefing room and asking totally relevant questions , ” said a veteran member of the White House press corps who asked not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more credibility today asking questions than he did answering them.
” A second longtime White House correspondent told The Daily Beast : “ I thought it was interesting that the president didn ’ t call on him by name .
That question had to be asked today .
It was a legitimate question… I will say it felt very surreal.
” A third White House correspondent , however , was less than amused : “ Spicer has a long way to go before he has the confidence of the rest of the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of repeatedly lying from the podium as press secretary helped usher in an era of gaslighting the public that won ’ t soon be forgotten .
One day in the briefing room doesn ’ t erase that.
” The most amusing reaction came from Playboy reporter Brian Karem .
He may need a safe space to cope with the new guy in the room .
He was shocked that Spicer was “ allowed ” to even be there .
You remember him , right ?
He ’ s the one who once asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowing kids are in cages at the border .
He also had his press pass yanked briefly by the White House for his part in a skirmish on the White House lawn during last year ’ s Easter Egg Roll .
Good times .

Friday’s press briefing with President Trump and his COVID-19 Taskforce was not only informative, but it was also downright entertaining. There was even a surprise guest, at least a surprise to the viewers. One moment that set the online universe on fire was when Peter Alexander of NBC made the mistake of accusing President Trump of lying to the public about the seriousness of the pandemic. He later tried to explain that he was tossing Trump a softball question, hoping the president would take the pitch and hit it out of the park by reassuring everyone that this crisis will pass.
Instead of taking the alleged softball question, Trump stopped the guy by commenting, “Such a lovely question.” Alexander asked about the “spin” Trump puts on his information about the pandemic and Trump isn’t stupid. He knows that is code in the Trump-hating media for bad Orange Man lies. I watched the press conference and here is what I saw – Trump answered the question about the uncertainty of the drug that is used in malaria treatment being a possible treatment for COVID-19. His voice was normal, he kept his cool. Then Alexander asked a follow-up question about what Americans who are scared should be told. “I say that you’re a terrible reporter”, Trump replied. Then he went on to tell Alexander he is putting out a “very bad signal” to the American people. He was firm in his criticism of the reporter’s question but didn’t raise his voice. His decimal level went up just a smidge as he accused Alexander of pursuing sensationalism, not journalism, and smacked NBC and Comcast (ConCast), too. C’mon. We all know there is no love lost between NBC and Trump.
Later, Mike Pence was asked the same question and responded in his normal manner – calm and reassuring. It’s what we expect from Pence. In this case, though, with the stress that everyone is under in dealing with the pandemic, I don’t think Trump did anything wrong. Alexander knew what he was saying when he said the word ‘spin”. President Trump isn’t a warm and fuzzy guy. He’s not a crier like the Bushes and he doesn’t bother with phony sounding empathy like Barack Obama or Bill “I feel your pain” Clinton. Trump just lets it rip. The pearl-clutching media who think everything is all about them, who often simply deliver opinions instead of actually delivering news to the public don’t cope well.
Later in the press conference, President Trump called on a reporter – “Yes, please, in the back” without identifying him or his news organization. The man who began to ask a question was Sean Spicer, the former White House press secretary. What?
Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer asks President Trump a question at the Coronavirus Taskforce briefing. pic.twitter.com/7NR16KYtsF — CSPAN (@cspan) March 20, 2020
As you hear in the clip, Spicy asks about the timeliness of the financial assistance that will be offered to small businesses during this crisis, and then he asked about the appearance of possible insider trading by four U.S. senators after a briefing that included the likely severity of the approaching pandemic. Both questions were reasonable and professionally asked. Spicer returns to the White House briefing room as a reporter. He has a show on Newsmax. The reaction to Spicer’s new role in the briefing room is about what you’d expect from the anti-Trump press. Some are calling his appearance “surreal”.
Spicer now has his own political talk show for the conservative Newsmax TV outlet. By the time Trump entered the White House Briefing Room to address reporters Friday, Spicer was set to press his old boss for presidential reaction to small business anxieties and reports that senators unloaded stocks before a pandemic-sparked market downturn. The surreal scene played out moments after the president castigated NBC’s Peter Alexander for suggesting that Trump may be giving Americans “a false sense of hope” about coronavirus treatment, asking what he would say to Americans who are scared or sickened by the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak. Ultimately, Trump used Spicer’s questions to praise his administration’s response to small businesses hammered by the outbreak and defend senators who reportedly sold stock before markets tanked in response to the pandemic, though he made sure to call out only one of them — a California Democrat — by name. “I saw some names. I know all of them. I know everyone mentioned,” Trump replied to Spicer. “Dianne Feinstein, I guess. And a couple of others. I don’t know too much about what it’s about, but I find them to all be very honorable people. That’s all I know. And they said they did nothing wrong. I find them — the whole group, very honorable people.”
Other reporters must have had to swallow hard to admit Spicer did well in his questions to President Trump. He has “a long way to go” to earn the confidence of other reporters was one reaction.
“It obviously made for a surreal scene to have the former White House press secretary, best known for lying about Trump’s inauguration crowd size, back in the briefing room and asking totally relevant questions,” said a veteran member of the White House press corps who asked not to be further identified. “He had more credibility today asking questions than he did answering them.” A second longtime White House correspondent told The Daily Beast: “I thought it was interesting that the president didn’t call on him by name. That question had to be asked today. It was a legitimate question… I will say it felt very surreal.” A third White House correspondent, however, was less than amused: “Spicer has a long way to go before he has the confidence of the rest of the White House press corps. His shameful record of repeatedly lying from the podium as press secretary helped usher in an era of gaslighting the public that won’t soon be forgotten. One day in the briefing room doesn’t erase that.”
Former White Press Secretary Sean Spicer is sitting in the WH briefing room seat that is assigned to OAN and Newsmax, @SallyBronston reports. Spicer apparently has a show on Newsmax that launched earlier this month. — Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) March 20, 2020
Apparently.
The most amusing reaction came from Playboy reporter Brian Karem. He may need a safe space to cope with the new guy in the room. He was shocked that Spicer was “allowed” to even be there.
It's taken some time. But @realDonaldTrump is successfully controlling the message about COVID-19 by limiting reporters access to this room and by planting his supporters among the press. https://t.co/VJdflaXrIs — Brian J. Karem (@BrianKarem) March 20, 2020
There really is fake news in that room now. Remember what Spicer said, "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," Spicer said. — Brian J. Karem (@BrianKarem) March 20, 2020
You remember him, right? He’s the one who once asked Sarah Sanders how she slept at night knowing kids are in cages at the border. He also had his press pass yanked briefly by the White House for his part in a skirmish on the White House lawn during last year’s Easter Egg Roll. Good times.


hotair--2020-03-21--Are all of these lockdown orders legal?

Are all of these lockdown orders legal?

Here in New York State ( upstate , thankfully , not the city ) , we ’ re on lockdown as of tonight .
All “ non-essential ” businesses are closed and the Governor has actually issued an order including a ban on “ all non-solitary outside activity , like outdoor basketball games and other team sports.
” On our street , neighbors were out on their porches last night talking to each other ( without coming too close ) and it ’ s hard to escape the feeling that the wheels are coming off of our society .
Hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Big Apple .
It ’ s getting pretty grim out there .
But are all of these orders even legal ?
Can the governor of a state simply shut down all activity in an emergency situation and restrict the free movement of citizens ?
Governor Larry Hogan has issued a similar order in Maryland and the Baltimore Sun took a look at that question yesterday .
And it turns out that the answer is yes , at least for the most part , but only for limited periods of time under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders straddle the line between the public and private good , pitting the financial health of some against the physical health of all .
And because of their sweeping , intrusive impacts , they raise a simple question : Are they legal ?
The answer , according to legal experts , is yes — largely because of the state of emergency declared by Hogan March 5 .
President Donald Trump and other federal officials are making similar moves under a national emergency declaration .
But before we wash our hands of this subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of qualifiers .
At the Free Beacon , Kevin Daley examines the question and finds that some of these powers don ’ t really exist under the Constitution .
But the courts have long been inclined to turn a blind eye to such issues in the interest of keeping our society intact during particularly grim times .
Professor James Hodge , a public health law specialist at Arizona State University , said lockdowns of the sort seen in France—where President Emmanuel Macron has mobilized 100,000 police officers to enforce a shelter in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple constitutional wires .
“ We ’ ve seen lockdowns in China and Italy .
The capacity to pull off similar efforts in the United States at any level of government is sketchy at best because of rights to travel , due process and other specific constitutional norms , ” Hodge told the Washington Free Beacon .
If the crisis worsens significantly , the courts may permit broad action , at least for a limited period of time .
A judge might defer to the judgment of public health authorities , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest is compelling and its intervention is both narrowly constructed and the least restrictive means of meeting the threat .
This appears to be more a case of practicality than legality .
The government isn ’ t supposed to be able to flatly restrict your free movement absent some indication that you ’ ve broken the law or pose a threat to society .
Similarly , they aren ’ t empowered to shut down private businesses , providing the operation is engaging in the vending of legal goods and services .
But if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courts that the need is urgent and the threat to the continued survival of the republic is dire , judges will generally turn a blind eye to constitutional requirements and allow a more authoritarian state to exist .
Of course , they ’ ll include stern warnings about how those powers will not be allowed to continue past the end of the state of emergency , but they ’ ll allow it .
So what the judges are doing is giving an unofficial nod to powers that largely don ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name of keeping the country going .
At least in New York , it certainly seems as of those conditions exist , so arguing with the lockdown orders would prove pointless .
If you haven ’ t read Allahpundit ’ s update on just how bad things are in New York City , take a moment to do so .
They ’ re already almost out of hospital beds and ventilators , with more patients showing up by the hour .
The New York Post is reporting that people were dying from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hour yesterday .
Much of the initial information we were given about the novel coronavirus ( when it was still mostly limited to China ) turned out to be incorrect .
It ’ s taking out younger people at a frightening rate , not just the elderly and those with compromised immune systems .
With all that in mind , this probably isn ’ t the time to be carping about restrictions on constitutional rights to free movement and the like .
Even if orders like these aren ’ t technically within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courts are going to back them up and it appears that we ’ re going to need to take drastic actions if we ’ re to stop this plague from going into Full Captain Trips mode .

Here in New York State (upstate, thankfully, not the city), we’re on lockdown as of tonight. All “non-essential” businesses are closed and the Governor has actually issued an order including a ban on “all non-solitary outside activity, like outdoor basketball games and other team sports.” On our street, neighbors were out on their porches last night talking to each other (without coming too close) and it’s hard to escape the feeling that the wheels are coming off of our society. Hospital beds are nearing full capacity even outside of the Big Apple. It’s getting pretty grim out there.
But are all of these orders even legal? Can the governor of a state simply shut down all activity in an emergency situation and restrict the free movement of citizens? Governor Larry Hogan has issued a similar order in Maryland and the Baltimore Sun took a look at that question yesterday. And it turns out that the answer is yes, at least for the most part, but only for limited periods of time under a declared state of emergency.
The orders straddle the line between the public and private good, pitting the financial health of some against the physical health of all. And because of their sweeping, intrusive impacts, they raise a simple question: Are they legal? The answer, according to legal experts, is yes — largely because of the state of emergency declared by Hogan March 5. President Donald Trump and other federal officials are making similar moves under a national emergency declaration.
But before we wash our hands of this subject, that answer comes with a number of qualifiers. At the Free Beacon, Kevin Daley examines the question and finds that some of these powers don’t really exist under the Constitution. But the courts have long been inclined to turn a blind eye to such issues in the interest of keeping our society intact during particularly grim times.
Professor James Hodge, a public health law specialist at Arizona State University, said lockdowns of the sort seen in France—where President Emmanuel Macron has mobilized 100,000 police officers to enforce a shelter in place order for 15 days—is likely to trip multiple constitutional wires. “We’ve seen lockdowns in China and Italy. The capacity to pull off similar efforts in the United States at any level of government is sketchy at best because of rights to travel, due process and other specific constitutional norms,” Hodge told the Washington Free Beacon. If the crisis worsens significantly, the courts may permit broad action, at least for a limited period of time. A judge might defer to the judgment of public health authorities, but the government would be required to show its interest is compelling and its intervention is both narrowly constructed and the least restrictive means of meeting the threat.
This appears to be more a case of practicality than legality. The government isn’t supposed to be able to flatly restrict your free movement absent some indication that you’ve broken the law or pose a threat to society. Similarly, they aren’t empowered to shut down private businesses, providing the operation is engaging in the vending of legal goods and services.
But if the executive and legislative branches can convince the courts that the need is urgent and the threat to the continued survival of the republic is dire, judges will generally turn a blind eye to constitutional requirements and allow a more authoritarian state to exist. Of course, they’ll include stern warnings about how those powers will not be allowed to continue past the end of the state of emergency, but they’ll allow it. So what the judges are doing is giving an unofficial nod to powers that largely don’t really exist, but can be seized in the name of keeping the country going.
At least in New York, it certainly seems as of those conditions exist, so arguing with the lockdown orders would prove pointless. If you haven’t read Allahpundit’s update on just how bad things are in New York City, take a moment to do so. They’re already almost out of hospital beds and ventilators, with more patients showing up by the hour. The New York Post is reporting that people were dying from COVID-19 at a rate of one per hour yesterday. Much of the initial information we were given about the novel coronavirus (when it was still mostly limited to China) turned out to be incorrect. It’s taking out younger people at a frightening rate, not just the elderly and those with compromised immune systems.
With all that in mind, this probably isn’t the time to be carping about restrictions on constitutional rights to free movement and the like. Even if orders like these aren’t technically within the powers of governors or the President, the courts are going to back them up and it appears that we’re going to need to take drastic actions if we’re to stop this plague from going into Full Captain Trips mode.


hotair--2020-03-21--Joe Biden to offer regular coronavirus shadow-briefings starting next week

This strikes me as a bad idea for the country though it will probably be popular with the resistance which long ago patented the phrase “ not my president ” and the idea of setting up a shadow government .
Joe Biden is planning a regular shadow briefing on coronavirus to start as early as Monday to show how he would handle the crisis and address what he calls the lies and failures of President Trump .
Biden gave a preview of what ’ s to come in a conference call with reporters Friday , where he listed a litany @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who has been holding regular White House press conferences concerning coronavirus preparedness and response that have been broadcast live on all major networks .
“ President Trump stop saying false things , will ya ?
” Biden said .
“ People are worried they are really frightened , when these things don ’ t come through .
He just exacerbates their concern .
Stop saying false things you think make you sound like a hero and start putting the full weight of the federal government behind finding fast , safe and effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his house is being outfitted with equipment that would enable him to livestream events , have interactive tele-press conferences and broadcast interviews with network television .
Politically speaking , I can imagine how Biden ’ s team probably arrived at this .
He has basically wiped out all of his primary opponents at this point which means the real contest between him and Trump should be gearing up .
However , the coronavirus has bigfooted the entire political process .
No more campaign stops .
No more rallies .
And the biggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about anything else .
The coronavirus has taken all the oxygen out of the room .
So what is Joe supposed to campaign on ?
Obviously all he can do at this point is campaign on how he ’ d handle the coronavirus better than Trump .
But there are a couple of big risks in doing this .
The first one has to do with his brand and the second with his gaffes .
If I had to sum up Biden ’ s brand it ’ s not that he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders ) or has the most plans ( that was Warren ) .
Biden ’ s appeal is that he ’ s somewhat more moderate and , at his best , he seems like a regular guy , but a guy who can connect with a lot of groups of people .
His campaign is trying to push this image of “ Emo Joe ” as someone who can change the tenor of the country .
Not to put too fine a point on it , but if Peter Alexander had asked Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are feeling afraid , I suspect he would have crushed that softball .
The risk is that by offering a daily shadow-briefing he starts to look too calculating and too political .
Because the fact is that Joe Biden isn ’ t president and isn ’ t responsible for any of this right now .
It ’ s pretty easy to criticize the guy who is actually dealing with it when you ’ re stuck in your house giving interviews .
I ’ m not saying it ’ s impossible he could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but there is a risk that he looks less like “ Emo Joe ” and more like Joe the armchair quarterback .
The second risk is probably best summed up by this video below .
This is a virtual town hall which Biden held last week .
As you can see , it wasn ’ t exactly a smooth experience .
Part of the problem may have been technical , but certainly not all of it .
Once Biden sets himself up as the shadow president doing daily briefings , he really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Watch this clip and then tell me you ’ re sure Biden is going to come out looking good while doing this .

This strikes me as a bad idea for the country though it will probably be popular with the resistance which long ago patented the phrase “not my president” and the idea of setting up a shadow government.
Joe Biden is planning a regular shadow briefing on coronavirus to start as early as Monday to show how he would handle the crisis and address what he calls the lies and failures of President Trump. Biden gave a preview of what’s to come in a conference call with reporters Friday, where he listed a litany of false and misleading statements from Trump, who has been holding regular White House press conferences concerning coronavirus preparedness and response that have been broadcast live on all major networks. “President Trump stop saying false things, will ya?” Biden said. “People are worried they are really frightened, when these things don’t come through. He just exacerbates their concern. Stop saying false things you think make you sound like a hero and start putting the full weight of the federal government behind finding fast, safe and effective treatments.”… Now, he said, his house is being outfitted with equipment that would enable him to livestream events, have interactive tele-press conferences and broadcast interviews with network television.
Politically speaking, I can imagine how Biden’s team probably arrived at this. He has basically wiped out all of his primary opponents at this point which means the real contest between him and Trump should be gearing up. However, the coronavirus has bigfooted the entire political process. No more campaign stops. No more rallies. And the biggest problem is that no one is talking about anything else. The coronavirus has taken all the oxygen out of the room. So what is Joe supposed to campaign on? Obviously all he can do at this point is campaign on how he’d handle the coronavirus better than Trump.
But there are a couple of big risks in doing this. The first one has to do with his brand and the second with his gaffes. If I had to sum up Biden’s brand it’s not that he’s the most progressive (that’s Sanders) or has the most plans (that was Warren). Biden’s appeal is that he’s somewhat more moderate and, at his best, he seems like a regular guy, but a guy who can connect with a lot of groups of people. His campaign is trying to push this image of “Emo Joe” as someone who can change the tenor of the country. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if Peter Alexander had asked Biden what he’d say to people who are feeling afraid, I suspect he would have crushed that softball.
The risk is that by offering a daily shadow-briefing he starts to look too calculating and too political. Because the fact is that Joe Biden isn’t president and isn’t responsible for any of this right now. It’s pretty easy to criticize the guy who is actually dealing with it when you’re stuck in your house giving interviews. I’m not saying it’s impossible he could find an audience or a political upside, but there is a risk that he looks less like “Emo Joe” and more like Joe the armchair quarterback.
The second risk is probably best summed up by this video below. This is a virtual town hall which Biden held last week. As you can see, it wasn’t exactly a smooth experience. Part of the problem may have been technical, but certainly not all of it. Once Biden sets himself up as the shadow president doing daily briefings, he really is setting himself up for a comparison. Watch this clip and then tell me you’re sure Biden is going to come out looking good while doing this.


hotair--2020-03-22--The Justice Department is asking for emergency powers

It ’ s not just private businesses and schools being impacted by the social distancing rules and lockdowns taking place all over the nation .
Our criminal justice system is feeling the pinch also , as courts deal with mandatory staffing reductions and the need to avoid having large groups of people gathered together in front of a judge .
This is restricting the ability of states to process suspects in normal fashion .
In response to this pressure , Politico reports that the Justice Department quietly filed a request to have emergency powers granted to them so they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are generally followed , and some of what they ’ re asking for is disturbing to say the least .
The Justice Department has quietly asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies — part of a push for new powers that comes as the coronavirus spreads through the United States .
Documents reviewed by POLITICO detail the department ’ s requests to lawmakers on a host of topics , including the statute of limitations , asylum and the way court hearings are conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on documents seeking the authority to extend deadlines on merger reviews and prosecutions .
There are more requests on the list , including the ability for the chief judge of any district court to “ pause court proceedings ” when the court is impacted by civil disobedience or other emergency situations .
Such a “ pause ” could be put into effect for pre-arrest , post-arrest , pre-trial , trial , and post-trial procedures .
In other words , this would effectively throw habeas corpus out the window for the duration of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least , be arrested and tossed in a cell and left there indefinitely without getting the chance to appear before a judge and ask to be released , have bail set or anything else .
Drastic times may call for drastic measures , but this obviously has some civil rights advocates on edge over what could amount to a suspension of many constitutional rights .
At Outside the Beltway , James Joyner opines that while the optics certainly look bad and he remains distrustful of the Trump administration in terms of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their case fairly well and this could be needed .
Policing and administration of a justice system are essential services that can ’ t be suspended even during this time of social distancing .
Police officers simply have to patrol their beats to keep their communities safe .
And judges have to continue going to work to issue warrants and do other vital parts of their jobs .
Presumably , both are enacting some safeguards for self- and community-protection but the bottom line is they have to do their jobs .
But we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and petit ( trial ) juries to meet , certainly not under the usual procedures .
And courthouses have to be on minimal staffing , both to protect non-essential workers and because somebody has to take care of all the kids who are home from schools that are shut down .
Under these circumstances , it seems perfectly reasonable to automatically extend statutes of limitations .
Similarly , allowing the use of videoconferencing technology to maintain social distancing seems obviously prudent .
But there are limits to how much Joyner is willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice machinery running .
He gives a firm “ hell no ” to the idea of indefinite detention without access to counsel and the courts .
He feels we must protect any defendant ’ s right to a fair and speedy trial , even if we have to modify our definition of “ speedy ” a bit while the pandemic runs its course .
I tend to agree .
Surely we can help the Department of Justice keep the wheels from coming off entirely without sacrificing essential rights .
Perhaps we could ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes until the backlog is cleared and focus only on the most serious violent crimes and criminals who would be most likely to present a credible threat to public safety if they were simply cut loose .
It ’ s not an ideal situation , but as Joyner points out , we can ’ t have the cops simply stop enforcing the law .
At that point , civilization as we know it effectively breaks down and the country goes into full Mad Max mode .
In order to avoid that potential outcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process their caseloads may be required .

It’s not just private businesses and schools being impacted by the social distancing rules and lockdowns taking place all over the nation. Our criminal justice system is feeling the pinch also, as courts deal with mandatory staffing reductions and the need to avoid having large groups of people gathered together in front of a judge. This is restricting the ability of states to process suspects in normal fashion. In response to this pressure, Politico reports that the Justice Department quietly filed a request to have emergency powers granted to them so they can maintain order without the normal procedures that are generally followed, and some of what they’re asking for is disturbing to say the least.
The Justice Department has quietly asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies — part of a push for new powers that comes as the coronavirus spreads through the United States. Documents reviewed by POLITICO detail the department’s requests to lawmakers on a host of topics, including the statute of limitations, asylum and the way court hearings are conducted. POLITICO also reviewed and previously reported on documents seeking the authority to extend deadlines on merger reviews and prosecutions.
There are more requests on the list, including the ability for the chief judge of any district court to “pause court proceedings” when the court is impacted by civil disobedience or other emergency situations. Such a “pause” could be put into effect for pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures. In other words, this would effectively throw habeas corpus out the window for the duration of the pandemic. You could, in theory at least, be arrested and tossed in a cell and left there indefinitely without getting the chance to appear before a judge and ask to be released, have bail set or anything else.
Drastic times may call for drastic measures, but this obviously has some civil rights advocates on edge over what could amount to a suspension of many constitutional rights. At Outside the Beltway, James Joyner opines that while the optics certainly look bad and he remains distrustful of the Trump administration in terms of a power grab, the DOJ has made their case fairly well and this could be needed.
Policing and administration of a justice system are essential services that can’t be suspended even during this time of social distancing. Police officers simply have to patrol their beats to keep their communities safe. And judges have to continue going to work to issue warrants and do other vital parts of their jobs. Presumably, both are enacting some safeguards for self- and community-protection but the bottom line is they have to do their jobs. But we surely can’t ask grand juries and petit (trial) juries to meet, certainly not under the usual procedures. And courthouses have to be on minimal staffing, both to protect non-essential workers and because somebody has to take care of all the kids who are home from schools that are shut down. Under these circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable to automatically extend statutes of limitations. Similarly, allowing the use of videoconferencing technology to maintain social distancing seems obviously prudent.
But there are limits to how much Joyner is willing to tolerate in terms of keeping the criminal justice machinery running. He gives a firm “hell no” to the idea of indefinite detention without access to counsel and the courts. He feels we must protect any defendant’s right to a fair and speedy trial, even if we have to modify our definition of “speedy” a bit while the pandemic runs its course.
I tend to agree. Surely we can help the Department of Justice keep the wheels from coming off entirely without sacrificing essential rights. Perhaps we could ask the courts to defer prosecution of minor crimes until the backlog is cleared and focus only on the most serious violent crimes and criminals who would be most likely to present a credible threat to public safety if they were simply cut loose. It’s not an ideal situation, but as Joyner points out, we can’t have the cops simply stop enforcing the law. At that point, civilization as we know it effectively breaks down and the country goes into full Mad Max mode. In order to avoid that potential outcome, some adjustments in how the courts process their caseloads may be required.


hotair--2020-03-22--NYT visualization: How the Chinese government enabled the spread of coronavirus

A must-see .
The Times gave its feature the anodyne headline “ How the Virus Got Out , ” but scroll through it and the culpability of the ChiCom regime becomes bracingly clear .
Seven million people , many infected , left Wuhan and started seeding outbreaks around the world during the first three weeks of January while the Chinese government was busy assuring everyone that there was no cause for alarm .
Two months later , we ’ re staring at a global depression and potentially millions of people dead before this thing burns itself out .
However much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll never be enough .
There ’ s a report out today that the White House is nudging federal agencies to make sure everyone understands that China ’ s government is to blame .
The media ( parts of which also underplayed the threat from COVID-19 early on ) is making frowny faces about that messaging for various reasons .
Some think it ’ s a needless distraction from the domestic mobilization effort to manage the outbreak ; some think it ’ s “ unhelpful ” to be bickering with China at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work together ; some think it ’ s racist , of course ; and some think it ’ s a cynical move by Trump to deflect attention from his own managerial failures by refocusing the public on Beijing ’ s failings .
We can debate whether there ’ s truth to any of those critiques .
What ’ s beyond debate is that the White House is correct on the merits .
The talking points appear to have originated in the National Security Council .
One section of the cable reads “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Republic of China ] Propaganda and Disinformation on the Wuhan Virus Pandemic.
” “ Chinese Communist Party officials in Wuhan and Beijing had a special responsibility to inform the Chinese people and the world of the threat , since they were the first to learn of it , ” the cable reads .
“ Instead , the… government hid news of the virus from its own people for weeks , while suppressing information and punishing doctors and journalists who raised the alarm .
The Party cared more about its reputation than its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it ’ s worth making sure the world knows it given the ChiCom propaganda effort to pin the mess they ’ ve made , the most costly blunder in modern human history , on the United States .
The blame goes beyond the cover-up in Wuhan in January too , notes Shadi Hamid : Because the Chinese Communist Party was pretending that there was little to be concerned about , Wuhan was a porous purveyor of the virus .
The government only instituted a lockdown in Wuhan on January 23—seven weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events in Italy , the United States , Spain , and France have shown , quite a lot can happen in a week , much less seven .
By then , mayor Zhou Xianwang admitted that more than 5 million people had already left Wuhan .
If that weren ’ t enough , we can plumb recent history for an even more damning account .
In a 2019 article , Chinese experts warned it was “ highly likely that future SARS- or MERS-like coronavirus outbreaks will originate from bats , and there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in China.
” In a 2007 journal article , infectious-disease specialists published a study arguing that “ the presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats , together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China , is a time bomb .
The possibility of the reemergence of SARS and other novel viruses from animals or laboratories and therefore the need for preparedness should not be ignored.
” It was ignored .
There will never again be business as usual between the United States and China .
Hopefully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one global catastrophe in a lifetime is enough , thanks — but between the shortages we ’ re now experiencing and the resentment Americans will feel towards Beijing after their family members start dying off in numbers from this plague , even the free-traders of the future will make exceptions for China .
Watching them try to blame us to dodge accountability for the calamity they ’ ve bequeathed to the world is salt in an open , bleeding wound .
In lieu of an exit question , below you ’ ll find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an otherwise grim day , the first of many to come .
Koreans continue to manage their own outbreak expertly through a combination of fast , easy , widely available testing like you see in the clip and extensive use of precautions like masks and social distancing measures .
I think we can eventually catch up to them on testing — there ’ s already a 45-minute coronavirus test for hospitals that ’ s coming online here — and all of us are getting a crash course in social distancing right now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a problem for months and I don ’ t know how we easily solve it .
Normally we ’ d order more from China but , well , you know .

A must-see. The Times gave its feature the anodyne headline “How the Virus Got Out,” but scroll through it and the culpability of the ChiCom regime becomes bracingly clear. Seven million people, many infected, left Wuhan and started seeding outbreaks around the world during the first three weeks of January while the Chinese government was busy assuring everyone that there was no cause for alarm.
Two months later, we’re staring at a global depression and potentially millions of people dead before this thing burns itself out.
However much we end up punishing them, it’ll never be enough.
The coronavirus numbers in New York are just horrifying.https://t.co/eh00i5sqOi pic.twitter.com/wcHuTPwUSF — Mike Baker (@ByMikeBaker) March 22, 2020
Trump's former FDA chief on how bad this will get in coming days: "I think the scenes out of New York are going to be shocking."pic.twitter.com/0GqUnVmGlU — Jesse Lehrich (@JesseLehrich) March 22, 2020
There’s a report out today that the White House is nudging federal agencies to make sure everyone understands that China’s government is to blame. The media (parts of which also underplayed the threat from COVID-19 early on) is making frowny faces about that messaging for various reasons. Some think it’s a needless distraction from the domestic mobilization effort to manage the outbreak; some think it’s “unhelpful” to be bickering with China at a moment when countries would be well-served to work together; some think it’s racist, of course; and some think it’s a cynical move by Trump to deflect attention from his own managerial failures by refocusing the public on Beijing’s failings.
We can debate whether there’s truth to any of those critiques. What’s beyond debate is that the White House is correct on the merits.
The talking points appear to have originated in the National Security Council. One section of the cable reads “NSC Top Lines: [People’s Republic of China] Propaganda and Disinformation on the Wuhan Virus Pandemic.” “Chinese Communist Party officials in Wuhan and Beijing had a special responsibility to inform the Chinese people and the world of the threat, since they were the first to learn of it,” the cable reads. “Instead, the… government hid news of the virus from its own people for weeks, while suppressing information and punishing doctors and journalists who raised the alarm. The Party cared more about its reputation than its own people’s suffering.”
Correct. And it’s worth making sure the world knows it given the ChiCom propaganda effort to pin the mess they’ve made, the most costly blunder in modern human history, on the United States. The blame goes beyond the cover-up in Wuhan in January too, notes Shadi Hamid:
Because the Chinese Communist Party was pretending that there was little to be concerned about, Wuhan was a porous purveyor of the virus. The government only instituted a lockdown in Wuhan on January 23—seven weeks after the virus first appeared. As events in Italy, the United States, Spain, and France have shown, quite a lot can happen in a week, much less seven. By then, mayor Zhou Xianwang admitted that more than 5 million people had already left Wuhan. If that weren’t enough, we can plumb recent history for an even more damning account. In a 2019 article, Chinese experts warned it was “highly likely that future SARS- or MERS-like coronavirus outbreaks will originate from bats, and there is an increased probability that this will occur in China.” In a 2007 journal article, infectious-disease specialists published a study arguing that “the presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a time bomb. The possibility of the reemergence of SARS and other novel viruses from animals or laboratories and therefore the need for preparedness should not be ignored.” It was ignored.
There will never again be business as usual between the United States and China. Hopefully there won’t be war — one global catastrophe in a lifetime is enough, thanks — but between the shortages we’re now experiencing and the resentment Americans will feel towards Beijing after their family members start dying off in numbers from this plague, even the free-traders of the future will make exceptions for China. Watching them try to blame us to dodge accountability for the calamity they’ve bequeathed to the world is salt in an open, bleeding wound.
In lieu of an exit question, below you’ll find an encouraging note from South Korea on an otherwise grim day, the first of many to come. Koreans continue to manage their own outbreak expertly through a combination of fast, easy, widely available testing like you see in the clip and extensive use of precautions like masks and social distancing measures. I think we can eventually catch up to them on testing — there’s already a 45-minute coronavirus test for hospitals that’s coming online here — and all of us are getting a crash course in social distancing right now. Masks, however, will likely be a problem for months and I don’t know how we easily solve it. Normally we’d order more from China but, well, you know.


hotair--2020-03-22--Texas newspaper slams Cornyn's words on COVID-19, it doesn't end well

Senator John Cornyn , a Republican up for re-election in November , is under fire from voices from the left-leaning media for correctly identifying the coronavirus ’ s origin .
I suppose it shouldn ’ t be , but it is surprising the lengths some on the left are willing to go to criticize others during a time of crisis .
Take , for instance , the reaction in the media when a public figure dares to call the COVID-19 virus as anything other than that .
Where did the coronavirus originate ?
It originated in Wuhan , China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the beginning , was “ the Wuhan coronavirus ” .
It was also logical to call it the “ Chinese coronavirus ” .
Both labels specifically refer to the location where the virus began .
All of the regular cable and network news anchors referred to the virus in the same terms .
Here is a solid 2 minute , 7-second montage of video clips of our betters in the media ( h/t MRCTV ) calling COVID-19 “ the Wuhan virus ” , and the “ Chinese coronavirus virus ” .
See , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , though , as some continue to note the origin of the coronavirus in its name , it ’ s racist , or xenophobic to do so .
It ’ s the same virus .
The descriptive label is the same .
The only difference now is that in the midst of a global pandemic , the left chooses to play politics .
So much for all that unity and pulling together , country over politics , right ?
In the clip above , late-night show host Samantha Bee calls it a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blames xenophobic thoughts from a Trump adviser on immigration .
Senator Cornyn , during a weekly conference call with Texas reporters , dared to say that Chinese culture plays a role in the pandemic ’ s origin .
Cornyn pointed a finger at open markets in particular .
“ It ’ s no coincidence that China has ’ been the source of most of these contagions breaking out — SARS , MERS swine flu — because of some of the cultural practices there , ” Cornyn said .
“ These open meat markets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to snake to dog meat and some of these viruses that have previously been only in animals , have then jumped to human beings and create this particular outbreak , and that ’ s a very serious problem that we need to address in addition to this supply chain or maybe the supply chain is part of that.
” Cornyn made much the same point in another interview with reporters Wednesday , a video of which was tweeted by The Hill newspaper .
That kind of candid response is “ not helpful ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American-Statesman editorial board .
Sen. John Cornyn asserted Wednesday that “ China is to blame ” for the coronavirus outbreak because of its “ culture where people eat bats and snakes and dogs and things like that.
” Just like that , Texas ’ senior senator blamed a nation of 1.4 billion people for a pathogen that likely originated in one meat market .
As if the United States and other countries haven ’ t had their own episodes of salmonella , E. coli or other outbreaks from mishandled food .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , frogs , alligators and other meats that might strike others as unsavory .
“ Wet markets ” , though , are not prevalent in the United States .
A wet market is where the virus was traced back to , wasn ’ t it ?
Yes , other coronaviruses have come from other areas but in this case , it is factual to say it comes from China .
The Greater Austin Asian Chamber of Commerce weighed in , too .
Mostly the op-ed is a vehicle to smack President Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know .
After praising past efforts in a national crisis , like President Bush ’ s to the terror attacks of 9/11/01 , Trump is taken to task in throwaway lines about “ administration failures ” and referencing the debunked talking point that Trump disbanded the pandemic panel of experts .
It ’ s ok to blame others while taking Cornyn to task for being honest , I guess .
The Executive editor of the Austin American-Statesman tweeted out a link to the op-ed on Sunday and the responses didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m sure .
A couple of samples of the response from readers : It is what it is .
Airbrushing the origins of a pandemic doesn ’ t help make it go away .
Criticizing for the sake of criticizing political opponents isn ’ t bringing about the unity needed to mitigate the spread of the virus , either .

Senator John Cornyn, a Republican up for re-election in November, is under fire from voices from the left-leaning media for correctly identifying the coronavirus’s origin. I suppose it shouldn’t be, but it is surprising the lengths some on the left are willing to go to criticize others during a time of crisis. Take, for instance, the reaction in the media when a public figure dares to call the COVID-19 virus as anything other than that.
Where did the coronavirus originate? It originated in Wuhan, China. A logical tag for it, in the beginning, was “the Wuhan coronavirus”. It was also logical to call it the “Chinese coronavirus”. Both labels specifically refer to the location where the virus began. All of the regular cable and network news anchors referred to the virus in the same terms.
Here is a solid 2 minute, 7-second montage of video clips of our betters in the media (h/t MRCTV) calling COVID-19 “the Wuhan virus”, and the “Chinese coronavirus virus”.
See, all the cool kids did it. Now, though, as some continue to note the origin of the coronavirus in its name, it’s racist, or xenophobic to do so. It’s the same virus. The descriptive label is the same. The only difference now is that in the midst of a global pandemic, the left chooses to play politics. So much for all that unity and pulling together, country over politics, right? In the clip above, late-night show host Samantha Bee calls it a “dog whistle” and a pundit blames xenophobic thoughts from a Trump adviser on immigration.
Senator Cornyn, during a weekly conference call with Texas reporters, dared to say that Chinese culture plays a role in the pandemic’s origin. Cornyn pointed a finger at open markets in particular.
“It’s no coincidence that China has’ been the source of most of these contagions breaking out — SARS, MERS swine flu — because of some of the cultural practices there,” Cornyn said. “These open meat markets that serve everything from bats to tapirs to snake to dog meat and some of these viruses that have previously been only in animals, have then jumped to human beings and create this particular outbreak, and that’s a very serious problem that we need to address in addition to this supply chain or maybe the supply chain is part of that.” Cornyn made much the same point in another interview with reporters Wednesday, a video of which was tweeted by The Hill newspaper.
Sen. John Cornyn: "China is to blame because the culture where people eat bats & snakes & dogs & things like that, these viruses are transmitted from the animal to the people and that's why China has been the source of a lot of these viruses like SARS, like MERS, the Swine Flu." pic.twitter.com/N4TIlGFqAL — The Hill (@thehill) March 18, 2020
That kind of candid response is “not helpful” and “dangerous”, according to the American-Statesman editorial board.
Sen. John Cornyn asserted Wednesday that “China is to blame” for the coronavirus outbreak because of its “culture where people eat bats and snakes and dogs and things like that.” Just like that, Texas’ senior senator blamed a nation of 1.4 billion people for a pathogen that likely originated in one meat market. As if the United States and other countries haven’t had their own episodes of salmonella, E. coli or other outbreaks from mishandled food. As if Texans don’t eat snakes, frogs, alligators and other meats that might strike others as unsavory.
“Wet markets”, though, are not prevalent in the United States. A wet market is where the virus was traced back to, wasn’t it? Yes, other coronaviruses have come from other areas but in this case, it is factual to say it comes from China. The Greater Austin Asian Chamber of Commerce weighed in, too.
“Calling it the Chinese virus targets the Chinese-American community and then the broader Asian-American community, because no one can tell us apart, quite frankly,” Marina Ong Bhargava, the CEO of the Greater Austin Asian Chamber of Commerce, told us. “People get laid off and there’s fear. If we use this term, then our community is going to be targeted.”
Mostly the op-ed is a vehicle to smack President Trump. He uses “reckless rhetoric”, you know. After praising past efforts in a national crisis, like President Bush’s to the terror attacks of 9/11/01, Trump is taken to task in throwaway lines about “administration failures” and referencing the debunked talking point that Trump disbanded the pandemic panel of experts. It’s ok to blame others while taking Cornyn to task for being honest, I guess.
Instead, in recent days, President Donald Trump has eschewed the internationally recognized terms of coronavirus and COVID-19 for his preferred term: “the Chinese virus.” Trump is nothing if not a master of branding, his words carefully chosen and relentlessly repeated to drive home a message. The president is trying to paper over his administration’s failures — disbanding a key team of global health experts in 2018 and failing to ramp up production of coronavirus test kits, among other things — by blaming the disease on a foreign country. It aligns with Trump’s toxic worldview blaming immigrants and foreign countries for an array of America’s problems.
The Executive editor of the Austin American-Statesman tweeted out a link to the op-ed on Sunday and the responses didn’t go the way he planned, I’m sure.
@statesman @aasviewpoints editor Juan Castillo has encouraging words for all us in these most unsettling times. "We’ve supported each other before in dire times. And we can do it again." https://t.co/WuOeNoTcGZ — John Bridges (@JohnBridges) March 22, 2020
A couple of samples of the response from readers:
It's the Chinese coronavirus, that China arrested Chinese doctors and erased their data to hide from the rest of the world, you clowns.#Covid19 #WuhanVirus #ChinaVirus — Tom (@BoreGuru) March 22, 2020
https://twitter.com/AmandaT_TX/status/1241734088718983169
It is what it is. Airbrushing the origins of a pandemic doesn’t help make it go away. Criticizing for the sake of criticizing political opponents isn’t bringing about the unity needed to mitigate the spread of the virus, either.


hotair--2020-03-22--Gun stores are an essential business in a COVID-19 lockdown, says governor of ... Illinois?

Over the next few weeks we ’ ll see some oddities and ironies in government response to the coronavirus pandemic , but perhaps none quite so odd and ironic as this .
The state of Illinois has some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation , and this crisis might have been seen by some as an opportunity to shut down the firearm trade .
Instead , the shelter-in-place executive order issued by Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker specifically allows for gun stores to remain open and protected ( via Instapundit ) : Emphasis mine .
Breitbart ’ s AWR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the day before the order went into effect .
At 5 pm CT today , any business outside of the list provided by Pritzker will be required to close until further notice .
Pritzker ’ s order will keep firearms retailers and suppliers open and operating in the shutdown , helping them survive the crisis while arming and supplying citizens during the crisis “ for the purposes of safety and security ” — in Pritzker ’ s own words .
The irony of this can be found on Pritzker ’ s own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ robust gun control agenda , declaring that “ Gun violence is a public health epidemic .
… Our plan centers on recognizing violence as the health epidemic that it is , interrupting it , reducing the risk , and changing community norms so that everyone can feel safe in their own homes.
” Tossing around terms like “ health epidemic ” was cheap before the COVID-19 pandemic reminded everyone what a real epidemic is .
Gun violence is not an epidemic — it ’ s a crime , and the solution to it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their right to defend themselves against it .
Pritzker ’ s order tacitly concedes this point in the face of an actual epidemic .
Hawkins quotes a statement from the Second Amendment Foundation driving this point home : Indeed , although consumers seem to be way ahead of that curve .
Journal Courier reporter Marco Cartolano reports that the demand for firearms began arcing upward a month ago and has accelerated even more this month .
Cartolano wrote this before Pritzker ’ s order was published : Nationally , firearms and ammunition sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new coronavirus .
The FBI reported that background checks through their system totalled 2.8 million in February , a 36 percent increase compared to the same month last year , The New York Times reported .
Alex Horsman , marketing manager for Ammo.com , told USA Today that the online retailer alone has reported a 68 % jump in sales ; economic and political instability tends to bring increases in the sale of guns and ammunition , he said .
In Illinois , some feared municipalities would clamp down on sales of firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Illinois sent out an alert about Champaign ’ s emergency declaration , saying that it would allow the mayor to ban the sale of guns .
On March 13 , the city of Champaign issued a statement clarifying that it did not intend to ban the sale of firearms .
Access to gun shops may be limited by Gov .
J.B. Pritzker ’ s stay-at-home order — under which businesses deemed “ non-essential ” must stop operating until April 7 .
That ’ s no longer a worry , but it makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declaring firearms and ammunition sales an essential business , Pritzker has overruled any local efforts to shut down gun stores as a part of the epidemic response .
Champaign ’ s mayor has no choice but to follow Pritzker ’ s executive order allowing those stores to stay open as “ essential … for purposes of safety and security.
” It might take a while before customers can find anything to buy , however .
Yesterday I realized that I was out of ammunition for one of my pistols , and found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caliber ) was gone , especially in smaller amounts .
I ended up purchasing a thousand rounds , which was the lowest amount available .
Suffice it to say that I will be heading to the target range when the peak of this epidemic passes , and I might set up a cot in my lane and stay a while .
For now , though , I am passing the time by ensuring that my firearms are clean , lubricated , in good working order , and ready in the extremely unlikely case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s been very calm and orderly here in suburban Minnesota , and there ’ s no reason to think that a few weeks of Netflix and chill will change that .
When everyone else realizes that , supply will rebound and demand will decline back to normal .
Perhaps after this , though , we can get back to normal in another way — by putting aside the idea that a public-safety policy failure such as violence in Chicago should be called an “ epidemic.
” Let ’ s see if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Addendum : Speaking of unnecessary panic , it ’ s important to actually read through Pritzker ’ s order to understand just how little seems to be shut down .
The EO lists a number of businesses and operations deemed essential by the state of Illinois , allowing them to remain in operation and people to leave their homes to access them .
These include the obvious choices — grocery stores and pharmacies , gas stations , financial institutions , and so on — but “ cannabis ” is included in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential ” businesses and operations .
Those are the private-sector categories , by the way ; governmental operations are protected in a separate part of the EO .
Here are a few of the other “ essentials ” open for business operations : Read the order for the full listing of essential businesses and services .
The list makes this look less like a lockdown and more of a narrowing down .
Outside of entertainment venues and schools , most people will likely find that they still have access to most of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to exercise them .

Over the next few weeks we’ll see some oddities and ironies in government response to the coronavirus pandemic, but perhaps none quite so odd and ironic as this. The state of Illinois has some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation, and this crisis might have been seen by some as an opportunity to shut down the firearm trade. Instead, the shelter-in-place executive order issued by Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker specifically allows for gun stores to remain open and protected (via Instapundit):
Supplies for Essential Businesses and Operations. Businesses that sell, manufacture, or supply other Essential Businesses and Operations with the support or materials necessary to operate, including computers, audio and video electronics, household appliances; IT and telecommunication equipment; hardware, paint, flat glass; electrical, plumbing and heating material; sanitary equipment; personal hygiene products; food, food additives, ingredients and components; medical and orthopedic equipment; optics and photography equipment; diagnostics, food and beverages, chemicals, soaps and detergent; and firearm and ammunition suppliers and retailers for purposes of safety and security;
Emphasis mine. Breitbart’s AWR Hawkins first noted this late last night, the day before the order went into effect. At 5 pm CT today, any business outside of the list provided by Pritzker will be required to close until further notice. Pritzker’s order will keep firearms retailers and suppliers open and operating in the shutdown, helping them survive the crisis while arming and supplying citizens during the crisis “for the purposes of safety and security” — in Pritzker’s own words.
The irony of this can be found on Pritzker’s own campaign website. He ran on a robust gun control agenda, declaring that “Gun violence is a public health epidemic. … Our plan centers on recognizing violence as the health epidemic that it is, interrupting it, reducing the risk, and changing community norms so that everyone can feel safe in their own homes.” Tossing around terms like “health epidemic” was cheap before the COVID-19 pandemic reminded everyone what a real epidemic is. Gun violence is not an epidemic — it’s a crime, and the solution to it is not to strip law-abiding citizens of their right to defend themselves against it.
Pritzker’s order tacitly concedes this point in the face of an actual epidemic. Hawkins quotes a statement from the Second Amendment Foundation driving this point home:
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb reacted to Pritzker’s recognition of the “essential” nature of firearms to the American life by saying, “When an anti-gun Democrat Governor declares that essential businesses includes firearm and ammunition suppliers and retailers for purposes of safety and security, that is really a big deal. Every Governor should copy the Illinois example when issuing stay in place and business closure orders in the face of the Corona Virus.”
Indeed, although consumers seem to be way ahead of that curve. Journal Courier reporter Marco Cartolano reports that the demand for firearms began arcing upward a month ago and has accelerated even more this month. Cartolano wrote this before Pritzker’s order was published:
Nationally, firearms and ammunition sales have risen drastically amid news of the new coronavirus. The FBI reported that background checks through their system totalled 2.8 million in February, a 36 percent increase compared to the same month last year, The New York Times reported. Alex Horsman, marketing manager for Ammo.com, told USA Today that the online retailer alone has reported a 68% jump in sales; economic and political instability tends to bring increases in the sale of guns and ammunition, he said. In Illinois, some feared municipalities would clamp down on sales of firearms and ammunition. The National Rifle Association of Illinois sent out an alert about Champaign’s emergency declaration, saying that it would allow the mayor to ban the sale of guns. On March 13, the city of Champaign issued a statement clarifying that it did not intend to ban the sale of firearms. Access to gun shops may be limited by Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s stay-at-home order — under which businesses deemed “non-essential” must stop operating until April 7.
That’s no longer a worry, but it makes a more subtle point clear. By declaring firearms and ammunition sales an essential business, Pritzker has overruled any local efforts to shut down gun stores as a part of the epidemic response. Champaign’s mayor has no choice but to follow Pritzker’s executive order allowing those stores to stay open as “essential … for purposes of safety and security.”
It might take a while before customers can find anything to buy, however. Yesterday I realized that I was out of ammunition for one of my pistols, and found that almost all of it (a common caliber) was gone, especially in smaller amounts. I ended up purchasing a thousand rounds, which was the lowest amount available. Suffice it to say that I will be heading to the target range when the peak of this epidemic passes, and I might set up a cot in my lane and stay a while. For now, though, I am passing the time by ensuring that my firearms are clean, lubricated, in good working order, and ready in the extremely unlikely case that they’ll be needed. It’s been very calm and orderly here in suburban Minnesota, and there’s no reason to think that a few weeks of Netflix and chill will change that. When everyone else realizes that, supply will rebound and demand will decline back to normal.
Perhaps after this, though, we can get back to normal in another way — by putting aside the idea that a public-safety policy failure such as violence in Chicago should be called an “epidemic.” Let’s see if Pritzker really learned a lesson from this.
Addendum: Speaking of unnecessary panic, it’s important to actually read through Pritzker’s order to understand just how little seems to be shut down. The EO lists a number of businesses and operations deemed essential by the state of Illinois, allowing them to remain in operation and people to leave their homes to access them. These include the obvious choices — grocery stores and pharmacies, gas stations, financial institutions, and so on — but “cannabis” is included in the second category of twenty-three categories of “essential” businesses and operations. Those are the private-sector categories, by the way; governmental operations are protected in a separate part of the EO.
Here are a few of the other “essentials” open for business operations :
Charitable and social services
The media
Mechanics and bicycle shops
Hardware and houseware stores
Almost all trades
Booze! (Unlike Pennsylvania)
Laundry services
Take-out service from restaurants
Home-office supplies and services
Uber, Lyft, rental cars, taxis, etc
Real estate, insurance, and other professional services
“Critical labor union functions,” natch
Hotels and motels
Funeral services
Read the order for the full listing of essential businesses and services. The list makes this look less like a lockdown and more of a narrowing down. Outside of entertainment venues and schools, most people will likely find that they still have access to most of their normal contacts … to the extent they want to exercise them.


hotair--2020-03-22--Ohio halts "nonessential" abortions during COVID-19 crisis

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost made a bold decision to require abortion providers to halt performing most abortions , deeming them as elective , nonessential procedures .
The order to suspend services specifically applies to nonessential surgical abortions .
The decision falls within the guidelines established by the state health department ’ s March 17 order to cancel all “ nonessential or elective surgeries and procedures ” .
In order to preserve personal protective equipment ( PPE ) in hospital and clinic settings , a strong order to limit services was determined to be necessary .
Governor DeWine has issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state of all the governors in the country .
Letters were sent to clinics explaining the decision .
In letters to clinics , Deputy Attorney General Jonathan Fulkerson framed the crackdown as a necessary measure amid a public health crisis that ’ s drawn dire warnings from Ohio leaders .
Gov .
Mike DeWine ( R ) has led the way with dramatic policies — shutdowns of schools , restaurants , bars and more — to curb the virus that has now infected hundreds and killed three people in the state .
Officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become far deadlier if strained systems grow overwhelmed .
“ This is an unprecedented time in the state ’ s history , and everyone must do their part to help stop the spread of this disease , ” Fulkerson wrote , warning that the department of health will “ take all appropriate measures ” if providers don ’ t fall in line .
The attorney general ’ s office responded to complaints made against some abortion providers on Friday and Saturday .
Ohioans complained that abortion clinics were still open and operating though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nonessential medical procedure .
Abortions have not come to a screeching halt in Ohio .
There is wiggle room in the wording of the governor ’ s order .
Planned Parenthood , for example , is finding a way to work around the order .
But after receiving complaints , Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost ordered two of them to follow Ohio Health Director Amy Acton ’ s mandate .
Yost ’ s warning applies to all such clinics in the state .
However , operators of at least one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Acton ’ s order and continue to provide abortions .
“ Under that order , Planned Parenthood can still continue providing essential procedures , including surgical abortion , and our health centers continue to offer other health care services that our patients depend on .
Our doors remain open for this care , ’ ” said a joint statement from Iris E. Harvey and Kersha Deibel , respectively presidents and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio and Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region .
The latter runs an abortion clinic in Cincinnati @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential , not nonessential services .
This struggle , as the state battles the spread of the coronavirus , comes down to pro-life groups objecting to abortion clinics continuing to operate and using up medical resources , and pro-abortion clinics viewing abortion as essential health care for women .
The two sides of this argument aren ’ t going to agree in the midst of a pandemic .
The governor ’ s office has to play referee through letters issued by the state ’ s attorney general .
That office warns clinics that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to , there will be consequences , though those consequences are not spelled out .
The National Abortion Federation ( yes , there is such an organization ) calls elective abortions “ essential health service ” .
Abortion is provided for almost one in five pregnancies in the United States , as part of the continuum of pregnancy care .
It is an essential health service .
An individual and family decide to end a pregnancy for a complex constellation of reasons that include the impact of pregnancy and birth on their health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic circumstances .
These are conditions that do not go away—and are likely heightened—in pandemic conditions .
Denying or deferring abortion care places an immediate burden on patients , their families , and the health system , and can have profound and lasting consequences .
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists doesn ’ t want abortion procedures included in Ohio ’ s guidance against elective procedures .
“ As hospital systems , clinics , and communities prepare to meet anticipated increases in demand for the care of people with COVID-19 , strategies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to maximize health care resources are evolving .
Some health systems , at the guidance of the CDC , are implementing plans to cancel elective and non-urgent procedures to expand hospitals ’ capacity to provide critical care .
“ While most abortion care is delivered in outpatient settings , in some cases care may be delivered in hospital-based settings or surgical facilities .
To the extent that hospital systems or ambulatory surgical facilities are categorizing procedures that can be delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic , abortion should not be categorized as such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of comprehensive health care .
It is also a time-sensitive service for which a delay of several weeks , or in some cases days , may increase the risks or potentially make it completely inaccessible .
The consequences of being unable to obtain an abortion profoundly impact a person ’ s life , health , and well-being .
The governor of Ohio is aggressively working to mitigate the spread of a pandemic .
Idealogical arguments over abortion were bound to enter the fray , given the influence the pro-abortion forces have in today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely understandable that the state ’ s leadership is trying to keep watch over the use of resources like protective gear for medical professionals that are in short supply .

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost made a bold decision to require abortion providers to halt performing most abortions, deeming them as elective, nonessential procedures. The order to suspend services specifically applies to nonessential surgical abortions.
The decision falls within the guidelines established by the state health department’s March 17 order to cancel all “nonessential or elective surgeries and procedures”. In order to preserve personal protective equipment (PPE) in hospital and clinic settings, a strong order to limit services was determined to be necessary.
Governor DeWine has issued some of the strongest orders for his state of all the governors in the country. Letters were sent to clinics explaining the decision.
In letters to clinics, Deputy Attorney General Jonathan Fulkerson framed the crackdown as a necessary measure amid a public health crisis that’s drawn dire warnings from Ohio leaders. Gov. Mike DeWine (R) has led the way with dramatic policies — shutdowns of schools, restaurants, bars and more — to curb the virus that has now infected hundreds and killed three people in the state. Officials around the country fear the pandemic will become far deadlier if strained systems grow overwhelmed. “This is an unprecedented time in the state’s history, and everyone must do their part to help stop the spread of this disease,” Fulkerson wrote, warning that the department of health will “take all appropriate measures” if providers don’t fall in line.
The attorney general’s office responded to complaints made against some abortion providers on Friday and Saturday. Ohioans complained that abortion clinics were still open and operating though, to the critics, abortion is a nonessential medical procedure. Abortions have not come to a screeching halt in Ohio. There is wiggle room in the wording of the governor’s order. Planned Parenthood, for example, is finding a way to work around the order.
But after receiving complaints, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost ordered two of them to follow Ohio Health Director Amy Acton’s mandate. Yost’s warning applies to all such clinics in the state. However, operators of at least one of the clinics responded that they would both comply with Acton’s order and continue to provide abortions. “Under that order, Planned Parenthood can still continue providing essential procedures, including surgical abortion, and our health centers continue to offer other health care services that our patients depend on. Our doors remain open for this care,’” said a joint statement from Iris E. Harvey and Kersha Deibel, respectively presidents and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio and Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region. The latter runs an abortion clinic in Cincinnati.
Abortion providers consider their services as essential, not nonessential services. This struggle, as the state battles the spread of the coronavirus, comes down to pro-life groups objecting to abortion clinics continuing to operate and using up medical resources, and pro-abortion clinics viewing abortion as essential health care for women. The two sides of this argument aren’t going to agree in the midst of a pandemic. The governor’s office has to play referee through letters issued by the state’s attorney general. That office warns clinics that if the order isn’t adhered to, there will be consequences, though those consequences are not spelled out.
The National Abortion Federation (yes, there is such an organization) calls elective abortions “essential health service”.
Abortion is provided for almost one in five pregnancies in the United States, as part of the continuum of pregnancy care. It is an essential health service. An individual and family decide to end a pregnancy for a complex constellation of reasons that include the impact of pregnancy and birth on their health, ability to work, and strained economic circumstances. These are conditions that do not go away—and are likely heightened—in pandemic conditions. Denying or deferring abortion care places an immediate burden on patients, their families, and the health system, and can have profound and lasting consequences.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists doesn’t want abortion procedures included in Ohio’s guidance against elective procedures.
“As hospital systems, clinics, and communities prepare to meet anticipated increases in demand for the care of people with COVID-19, strategies to mitigate spread of the virus and to maximize health care resources are evolving. Some health systems, at the guidance of the CDC, are implementing plans to cancel elective and non-urgent procedures to expand hospitals’ capacity to provide critical care. “While most abortion care is delivered in outpatient settings, in some cases care may be delivered in hospital-based settings or surgical facilities. To the extent that hospital systems or ambulatory surgical facilities are categorizing procedures that can be delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic, abortion should not be categorized as such a procedure. Abortion is an essential component of comprehensive health care. It is also a time-sensitive service for which a delay of several weeks, or in some cases days, may increase the risks or potentially make it completely inaccessible. The consequences of being unable to obtain an abortion profoundly impact a person’s life, health, and well-being.
The governor of Ohio is aggressively working to mitigate the spread of a pandemic. Idealogical arguments over abortion were bound to enter the fray, given the influence the pro-abortion forces have in today’s politics. It’s completely understandable that the state’s leadership is trying to keep watch over the use of resources like protective gear for medical professionals that are in short supply.