motherjones--2020-05-13--Stacey Abrams on Trump: “We Should Be Frightened, But We Should Also Be Fighting.”

The president ’ s son-in-law , Jared Kushner , sparked a national panic attack on Tuesday when he suggested to Time that he had personal insight into whether or not the 2020 election would take place , leaving room for some doubt .
“ It ’ s not my decision to make , so I ’ m not sure I can commit one way or the other , ” he said about holding the November poll .
“ But right now , that ’ s the plan.
” The elections are run by the states ; the president can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kushner ’ s quote was worrying enough for those who are already vexed about the executive branch using the coronavirus crisis to further impede the right to vote ( or , in the worst-case scenario , cancel elections outright ) .
And the comment was so brazen that Kushner himself experienced a rare jolt of self-awareness : He issued a new statement to NBC on Wednesday conceding , “ I have not been involved in , nor am I aware of , any discussions about trying to change the date of the presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a piece of Kushner puffery , the latest in a long career of self-regard ( recently he described the administration ’ s coronavirus response as a “ great success story ” ) , but the collective freakout points to very real concerns over threats to the 2020 vote , as the president ramps up campaign rhetoric against vote-by-mail , and his party attempts to stymie participation in the states .
Recently , our senior reporter Ari Berman sat down ( via Zoom , of course ) with Stacey Abrams , the former candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the biggest impediments to voting rights across the country and discuss how the pandemic is being weaponized against participation , especially among voters of color .
In a wide-ranging chat , which you can hear on this week ’ s episode of the Mother Jones Podcast , Abrams talks about launching her voting rights initiative , Fair Fight , after her narrow 2018 loss to now-Gov .
Brian Kemp ; ongoing threats to the 2020 census ; Kemp ’ s response to COVID-19 ; and the dangerous attempt to suppress voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That was a tragedy and a travesty that should not be repeated in a democratized , industrialized nation , ” Abrams tells Berman .
“ We were able to vote during the Civil War , we were able to vote during the Spanish flu of 1918 , there is no excuse for not holding our elections in 2020.
” You can listen to the full show , read an edited transcript , or watch the full livestream of this discussion below .
Stacey , thank you so much for joining me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ m doing well , thank you .
I ’ m ensconced in my dining room in Atlanta , Georgia , and doing my best to socially distance and stay sheltering in place until it truly is safe to go back out .
How prepared do you think the US is right now to hold a presidential election in a pandemic ?
The United States has the capacity to hold an election in a pandemic .
What we lack is the will and the investment .
South Korea , on April 15 , held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single highest turnout election since the 1990s , and they did it safely .
Every state in America has the capacity for vote-by-mail .
Every state has the ability for in-person early voting and in-person voting on the day of the election .
We simply have to make it safer .
But any argument that we don ’ t have the capacity is wrong .
We were able to vote during the Civil War .
We were able to vote during the 1918 Spanish flu .
There is no excuse for not holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do you think states like Georgia are to vote by mail ?
Only 6 percent of Georgians , for example , voted by mail in 2018 .
While only 6 percent may have used it , we saw a dramatic increase .
In fact , we saw the largest increase among African Americans .
My campaign in 2018 sent out 1.6 million vote-by-mail applications .
We followed it up with encouragement , but also education .
There ’ s been a lack of trust in vote-by-mail , particularly from communities of color , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of color is much higher than for the white communities .
In Georgia , we had a specific incident with the current governor , then Secretary of State , who arrested and jailed 12 people for using absentee ballots properly .
They lost their jobs .
They lost their reputations .
And not a single person was convicted .
But that created a dampening effect on the use of absentee ballots .
I wanted to ask you about Wisconsin .
Republicans refused to postpone [ the 2020 primaries ] .
They refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thousands of people were forced to choose between their health and their ballot .
When you saw all that , when you saw the long lines of voters wearing masks , what was your takeaway ?
We knew there was going to be something catastrophic that would happen in 2020 to elections .
I had no idea it would be a pandemic , but we knew that it would happen .
Voter suppression is systemic .
It ’ s built into the process .
What we have to learn from Wisconsin is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it work if we start early enough .
What happened in Wisconsin was that the decisions were made in a matter of weeks .
We now have months to prepare .
But we have to remember that for those thousands of people who stood in line , for those who had masks or didn ’ t , and for the poll workers who didn ’ t have adequate equipment , 52 people have already been confirmed with COVID-19 .
That should not happen .
There are already people who don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ ve been purged from the voting rolls , or who ’ ve been forced to wait in long lines or whose polling places have been closed .
How concerned are you that the coronavirus is going to add an additional layer of voter suppression ?
What COVID-19 has done is reveal what has been a systemic challenge for most of the 21st century .
But now that more people are seeing how the systems actually work , they ’ re understanding .
The reality is those things existed in 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference is , because of COVID-19 , people are seeing it in real time and they ’ re understanding its impact .
I do not welcome a pandemic , but I think what has happened is that people see what ’ s what ’ s going on .
Luckily , there has been bipartisan support of vote-by-mail , of safer voting , of better instruction .
That bipartisanship has to win out because we can not allow a conservative minority of thought to limit access to democracy and one of the most pivotal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ask you about Georgia .
When you see Brian Kemp rushing to reopen the state , when you see him say that he didn ’ t know that coronavirus cases could be asymptomatic , do you just think , I should ’ ve had this job instead ?
I think that the voters of Georgia were robbed of their opportunity to make an informed decision .
I believe that voter suppression stole the voices of thousands of Georgians .
If I were the governor , I would have followed the facts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early that asymptomatic people can carry the disease .
I wouldn ’ t have led Georgia to be one of the last states to shut down , and we certainly wouldn ’ t have been one of the first to reopen .
Since the reopening of the state , we ’ ve seen our COVID rate skyrocket by 40 percent .
We still are one of the slowest in testing .
There is a contact tracing program that ’ s getting up and running , but it ’ s woefully behind where it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is a perfect example of why I believe voting matters and having the right to choose your leaders matters .
People may have decided not to pick me anyway , but because of voter suppression , we will never know what the choice of the people would have been .
You mentioned voter suppression in Georgia , where there were 214 polling places closed , 53,000 voter registrations put on hold before the election—80 percent from voters of color—and 1.5 million people purged from the rolls .
There were four-hour lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you that in 2020 there could be a situation like in Georgia where there ’ s a very close disputed election that go to the Supreme Court ?
I believe that what we saw happen in Wisconsin legitimates any degree of concern about how the Supreme Court is going to handle questions of elections .
If you look at what happened in North Dakota in 2016 , when they refused to enjoin the disenfranchisement of thousands of Native Americans who could not possibly meet the standards .
What we saw happen with Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep concern .
And let ’ s not forget what happened in 2000 .
We know that the Supreme Court has not proven themselves to be good actors in this .
The 2020 census has also been derailed by the coronavirus .
What do we need to do to get the census back on track ?
I am deeply concerned about the census .
The Census Bureau has done as much as it can .
But we ’ ve got some major challenges .
We know that in rural communities , 6.2 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ packets that they need .
That includes most of our Native American families .
We know that they ’ ve delayed the counting of nontraditional folks , meaning those who are homeless , those who are living on college campuses , who are living in nursing homes .
Those counts have been delayed until June .
There might be thousands of college students who go uncounted .
And the last major concern I have is that , because we don ’ t have folks in the field knocking on doors , getting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to use a statistical process called “ imputation.
” That means that they ’ re going to look at neighborhoods where people didn ’ t respond , and based on the demographic data of that neighborhood , they ’ re going to impute who else lives there .
Which means minority communities that are already undercounted risk being statistically erased from the narrative of America because we don ’ t have the ability to go out and knock .
Another big issue right now is what ’ s happening to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you saw the Washington Post article that said Trump is going to name the chief fundraiser for the Republican convention to be postmaster general .
What ’ s your concern about what ’ s happened to the post office ?
The post office is a vital utility in our nation for many communities , especially rural communities .
It is their pharmacy .
It ’ s the only way they get their medication .
In the moment of COVID-19 , it ’ s the way people get their food .
This attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office is very dangerous and it ’ s directly connected to vote by mail .
We know that vote-by-mail is absolutely essential to certain communities , and we know that if it is expanded , it will likely increase participation in our election .
This is a rancorous , terrible decision that is grounded in his deepest incompetence , but also his meanness .
We should be frightened , but we should also be fighting .
The news is so bleak right now and we ’ ve touched on some pretty heavy topics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What what keeps you going and optimistic at this time ?
I know what we ’ re capable of as a country .
I ’ m the daughter of two civil rights activists who were activists as teenagers .
My dad was arrested when he was 14 , registering black people to vote in Hattiesburg , Mississippi .
We teased him that my mom was doing the same work , she was just smart enough not to get caught .
They raised us to believe that we have a responsibility .
But more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility .
My great grandmother , her grandparents were slaves .
Her parents were sharecroppers .
In 2018 , I became the first black woman nominated to be governor of a major party in American history .
I don ’ t have the luxury of bleakness because I ’ m a shining example of what is possible .
But my responsibility is not to rest on either the successes or the challenges that I face , but to do the work necessary to make the next generation even more hopeful about what ’ @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, sparked a national panic attack on Tuesday when he suggested to Time that he had personal insight into whether or not the 2020 election would take place, leaving room for some doubt. “It’s not my decision to make, so I’m not sure I can commit one way or the other,” he said about holding the November poll. “But right now, that’s the plan.” The elections are run by the states; the president can’t change when they happen. But Kushner’s quote was worrying enough for those who are already vexed about the executive branch using the coronavirus crisis to further impede the right to vote (or, in the worst-case scenario, cancel elections outright). And the comment was so brazen that Kushner himself experienced a rare jolt of self-awareness: He issued a new statement to NBC on Wednesday conceding, “I have not been involved in, nor am I aware of, any discussions about trying to change the date of the presidential election.”
It may have simply been a piece of Kushner puffery, the latest in a long career of self-regard (recently he described the administration’s coronavirus response as a “great success story”), but the collective freakout points to very real concerns over threats to the 2020 vote, as the president ramps up campaign rhetoric against vote-by-mail, and his party attempts to stymie participation in the states.
Recently, our senior reporter Ari Berman sat down (via Zoom, of course) with Stacey Abrams, the former candidate for governor of Georgia, to rank some of the biggest impediments to voting rights across the country and discuss how the pandemic is being weaponized against participation, especially among voters of color. In a wide-ranging chat, which you can hear on this week’s episode of the Mother Jones Podcast, Abrams talks about launching her voting rights initiative, Fair Fight, after her narrow 2018 loss to now-Gov. Brian Kemp; ongoing threats to the 2020 census; Kemp’s response to COVID-19; and the dangerous attempt to suppress voters during the Wisconsin primary in April. “That was a tragedy and a travesty that should not be repeated in a democratized, industrialized nation,” Abrams tells Berman. “We were able to vote during the Civil War, we were able to vote during the Spanish flu of 1918, there is no excuse for not holding our elections in 2020.”
You can listen to the full show, read an edited transcript, or watch the full livestream of this discussion below.
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
Stacey, thank you so much for joining me. How are you doing?
I’m doing well, thank you. I’m ensconced in my dining room in Atlanta, Georgia, and doing my best to socially distance and stay sheltering in place until it truly is safe to go back out.
How prepared do you think the US is right now to hold a presidential election in a pandemic?
The United States has the capacity to hold an election in a pandemic. What we lack is the will and the investment. South Korea, on April 15, held their national election. They held the single highest turnout election since the 1990s, and they did it safely. Every state in America has the capacity for vote-by-mail. Every state has the ability for in-person early voting and in-person voting on the day of the election. We simply have to make it safer. But any argument that we don’t have the capacity is wrong. We were able to vote during the Civil War. We were able to vote during the 1918 Spanish flu. There is no excuse for not holding our elections in 2020.
“We were able to vote during the 1918 Spanish flu. There is no excuse for not holding our elections in 2020.”
How prepared do you think states like Georgia are to vote by mail? Only 6 percent of Georgians, for example, voted by mail in 2018.
While only 6 percent may have used it, we saw a dramatic increase. In fact, we saw the largest increase among African Americans. My campaign in 2018 sent out 1.6 million vote-by-mail applications. We followed it up with encouragement, but also education.
There’s been a lack of trust in vote-by-mail, particularly from communities of color, because most the rejection rate for communities of color is much higher than for the white communities. In Georgia, we had a specific incident with the current governor, then Secretary of State, who arrested and jailed 12 people for using absentee ballots properly. They lost their jobs. They lost their reputations. And not a single person was convicted. But that created a dampening effect on the use of absentee ballots.
I wanted to ask you about Wisconsin. Republicans refused to postpone [the 2020 primaries]. They refused to mail ballots to every registered voter, and thousands of people were forced to choose between their health and their ballot. When you saw all that, when you saw the long lines of voters wearing masks, what was your takeaway?
We knew there was going to be something catastrophic that would happen in 2020 to elections. I had no idea it would be a pandemic, but we knew that it would happen. Voter suppression is systemic. It’s built into the process. What we have to learn from Wisconsin is that we have the capacity to still make it work if we start early enough. What happened in Wisconsin was that the decisions were made in a matter of weeks. We now have months to prepare. But we have to remember that for those thousands of people who stood in line, for those who had masks or didn’t, and for the poll workers who didn’t have adequate equipment, 52 people have already been confirmed with COVID-19. That should not happen.
There are already people who don’t have the IDs required to vote, who’ve been purged from the voting rolls, or who’ve been forced to wait in long lines or whose polling places have been closed. How concerned are you that the coronavirus is going to add an additional layer of voter suppression?
What COVID-19 has done is reveal what has been a systemic challenge for most of the 21st century. But now that more people are seeing how the systems actually work, they’re understanding. The reality is those things existed in 2019, 2016, 2012, 2008. The difference is, because of COVID-19, people are seeing it in real time and they’re understanding its impact.
I do not welcome a pandemic, but I think what has happened is that people see what’s what’s going on. Luckily, there has been bipartisan support of vote-by-mail, of safer voting, of better instruction. That bipartisanship has to win out because we cannot allow a conservative minority of thought to limit access to democracy and one of the most pivotal elections in our lifetimes.
“What COVID-19 has done is reveal what has been a systemic challenge for most of the 21st century.”
I want to ask you about Georgia. When you see Brian Kemp rushing to reopen the state, when you see him say that he didn’t know that coronavirus cases could be asymptomatic, do you just think, I should’ve had this job instead?
I think that the voters of Georgia were robbed of their opportunity to make an informed decision. I believe that voter suppression stole the voices of thousands of Georgians. If I were the governor, I would have followed the facts and the science. I would have known early that asymptomatic people can carry the disease. I wouldn’t have led Georgia to be one of the last states to shut down, and we certainly wouldn’t have been one of the first to reopen. Since the reopening of the state, we’ve seen our COVID rate skyrocket by 40 percent. We still are one of the slowest in testing. There is a contact tracing program that’s getting up and running, but it’s woefully behind where it should be. And so, yes, this is a perfect example of why I believe voting matters and having the right to choose your leaders matters. People may have decided not to pick me anyway, but because of voter suppression, we will never know what the choice of the people would have been.
You mentioned voter suppression in Georgia, where there were 214 polling places closed, 53,000 voter registrations put on hold before the election—80 percent from voters of color—and 1.5 million people purged from the rolls. There were four-hour lines in black neighborhoods. How concerned are you that in 2020 there could be a situation like in Georgia where there’s a very close disputed election that go to the Supreme Court?
I believe that what we saw happen in Wisconsin legitimates any degree of concern about how the Supreme Court is going to handle questions of elections. If you look at what happened in North Dakota in 2016, when they refused to enjoin the disenfranchisement of thousands of Native Americans who could not possibly meet the standards. What we saw happen with Wisconsin, that has created a through-line of deep concern. And let’s not forget what happened in 2000. We know that the Supreme Court has not proven themselves to be good actors in this.
The 2020 census has also been derailed by the coronavirus. What do we need to do to get the census back on track?
I am deeply concerned about the census. The Census Bureau has done as much as it can. But we’ve got some major challenges. We know that in rural communities, 6.2 million people have not received the hand-delivered census packets that they need. That includes most of our Native American families. We know that they’ve delayed the counting of nontraditional folks, meaning those who are homeless, those who are living on college campuses, who are living in nursing homes. Those counts have been delayed until June. There might be thousands of college students who go uncounted. And the last major concern I have is that, because we don’t have folks in the field knocking on doors, getting the response rates up, the Census Bureau is going to use a statistical process called “imputation.” That means that they’re going to look at neighborhoods where people didn’t respond, and based on the demographic data of that neighborhood, they’re going to impute who else lives there. Which means minority communities that are already undercounted risk being statistically erased from the narrative of America because we don’t have the ability to go out and knock.
“Minority communities that are already undercounted risk being statistically erased from the narrative of America.”
Another big issue right now is what’s happening to the postal service. I’m sure you saw the Washington Post article that said Trump is going to name the chief fundraiser for the Republican convention to be postmaster general. What’s your concern about what’s happened to the post office?
The post office is a vital utility in our nation for many communities, especially rural communities. It is their pharmacy. It’s the only way they get their medication. In the moment of COVID-19, it’s the way people get their food. This attempt to not only privatize but politicize the post office is very dangerous and it’s directly connected to vote by mail. We know that vote-by-mail is absolutely essential to certain communities, and we know that if it is expanded, it will likely increase participation in our election. This is a rancorous, terrible decision that is grounded in his deepest incompetence, but also his meanness. We should be frightened, but we should also be fighting.
The news is so bleak right now and we’ve touched on some pretty heavy topics. What are you hopeful about? What what keeps you going and optimistic at this time?
I know what we’re capable of as a country. I’m the daughter of two civil rights activists who were activists as teenagers. My dad was arrested when he was 14, registering black people to vote in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. We teased him that my mom was doing the same work, she was just smart enough not to get caught. They raised us to believe that we have a responsibility. But more importantly, that we have opportunity and possibility. My great grandmother, her grandparents were slaves. Her parents were sharecroppers. In 2018, I became the first black woman nominated to be governor of a major party in American history. I don’t have the luxury of bleakness because I’m a shining example of what is possible. But my responsibility is not to rest on either the successes or the challenges that I face, but to do the work necessary to make the next generation even more hopeful about what’s to come.
Watch the full live-streamed conversation below:


motherjones--2020-05-15--A New Report Shows What Really Happened With China’s Coronavirus Response

As more Americans die each day in the coronavirus pandemic , President Trump has desperately tried to deflect blame for his anemic and inept response to the crisis .
His blame-shifting crusade has landed on one big target : China .
He and his political allies have tried mightily to depict the Chinese government as the villain of this tale .
Though at the start Trump repeatedly praised Chinese leader Xi Jinping and his government for their response to the epidemic , which began in the city of Wuhan , Trump recently shifted gears and began claiming the Chinese government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for the tens of thousands of deaths in the United States .
When asked by CBS News reporter Weijia Jiang about testing and the American death toll , Trump barked at her , “ Don ’ t ask me .
Ask China.
” And his Republican comrades , following Trump ’ s lead , have called for sanctions against China and for changing the law to allow Americans to sue China for the damage done by the virus .
In fact , the Republican Party has adopted a blame-China strategy for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress introducing multiple bills related to China ’ s handling of the coronavirus outbreak , the Congressional Research Service , the nonpartisan research arm of the House and the Senate , this week released a detailed timeline of the actions China took during the early weeks of the epidemic in December and January .
Based on public accounts—including those in the Chinese media—the CRS report does not cast the Chinese government in a good light .
The report ’ s judgements are highly measured , but it does provide ammo to those seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own actions ( or inaction ) .
The report , written by Susan Lawrence , a CRS specialist in Asian affairs , points out that during the SARS outbreak in 2002 and 2003 , the Chinese government was soundly criticized for not reporting this event to the World Health Organization and the Chinese public for more than two months .
This time around , China has done better : “ China has shared information about COVID-19 more quickly and comprehensively…Chinese authorities allowed experts from the WHO China Country Office and WHO ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO describes as ‘ a brief visit to Wuhan ’ January 20-21 , 2020.
” But the report adds , “ The timeline nonetheless raises questions for some about China ’ s interactions with WHO at key moments in the early weeks of the pandemic.
” And the report offers this indictment : “ Prior to January 20 , 2020—the day Chinese authorities acknowledged person-to-person transmission of the novel coronavirus—the public record provides little indication that China ’ s top leaders saw containment of the epidemic as a high priority .
Thereafter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken aggressive measures to contain the virus.
” As the report notes , hospitals in Wuhan first started noticing a pneumonia of unknown origin in late December .
Yet in the first weeks , according to the report , “ Chinese authorities may not always have communicated with WHO ” in a timely and accurate fashion , as they are obligated to do under the International Health Regulations ( IHY ) , an agreement to which China , the United States , and 194 other countries are parties .
The report says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO of the outbreak , ” as it was also required to do : “ According to Dr. Michael Ryan , Executive Director of WHO ’ s Health Emergencies Programme , WHO headquarters in Geneva first learned about the outbreak in Wuhan [ on December 31 ] not directly from Chinese authorities , but rather from the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases ( ProMED ) , a U.S.-based open-source platform for early intelligence about infectious disease outbreaks.
” It turns out that a ProMED user had posted a translation of a Chinese media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urgent notices ” about these new atypical pneumonia cases that the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission had sent to medical institutions in the city .
At the same time , a photograph of a lab report showing a positive result for SARS had started spreading in news and medical circles in Wuhan .
Dr. Li Wenliang , for one , shared this image with his former classmates in a private online WeChat group .
( Dr. Li later would be harassed by government officials for his efforts to get the word out about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 at the age of 33 . )
As soon as the WHO learned about the outbreak from the ProMED post , it requested verification from the Chinese government .
Under the IHR , a government has 24 hours to respond .
The CRS report notes that “ China ’ s official timeline says it began ‘ regularly informing ’ WHO of developments related to the outbreak on January 3 , ” and the next day , the WHO tweeted about the outbreak in Wuhan .
So it seems there might have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in China verifying this new pneumonia .
The report identifies another , perhaps more significant delay : “ China ’ s government appears to have potentially hesitated before informing WHO both when it determined a novel coronavirus was responsible for the outbreak and when its scientists sequenced the virus ’ genome.
” On January 9 , 2020 , the WHO announced that “ Chinese authorities have made a preliminary determination of a novel ( or new ) coronavirus , identified in a hospitalized person with pneumonia in Wuhan.
” Two days later , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the genetic sequences for the novel # coronavirus ( 2019-nCoV ) from the Chinese authorities.
” But , the CRS report says , “ China appears to have determined that a novel coronavirus was responsible ” earlier .
One Chinese news outlet reported that samples from Wuhan pneumonia cases had been sequenced and found to indicate a novel coronavirus on December 26 .
The Wuhan Institute of Virology , an affiliate of the Chinese Academy of Sciences , according to Chinese state media , sequenced the virus ’ genome on January 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And according to the report , “ Chinese authorities do not appear to have shared biological samples with the WHO or other international partners ” in a timely manner .
What ’ s damning in the report is not surprising : “ Information Chinese authorities provided to the Chinese public and to the world in the early weeks of the epidemic was often incomplete and understated the extent of the virus ’ spread.
” Though Wuhan doctors suspected the new disease was moving through person-to-person transmission , the Chinese authorities initially downplayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that position in a January 14 , 2020 , press conference , ” the CRS report says , “ stating that China had experienced ‘ limited ’ human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus.
” The report also notes , “ Wuhan medical personnel began falling ill with symptoms similar to their patients ’ in December.
” But the Chinese authorities did not acknowledge medical worker infections—a sign that this new coronavirus was extremely infectious and dangerous—at first .
Moreover , Chinese officials intimidated and censored doctors and others who sought to share with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One example from the CRS report : “ The day after the team of scientists led by Prof. Yong-zhen Zhang of Fudan University in Shanghai became the first to share the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus with the world , Shanghai authorities closed down Professor Zhang ’ s laboratory for ‘ rectification , ’ implying it is being investigated for unspecified wrongdoing.
” And in January , China turned down offers from the US government to send a team of experts from the Centers for Disease Control to Wuhan .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to withhold information in the early weeks , ” the CRS report says .
But things did get better .
As the report puts it : After three weeks of not assiduously reporting and sharing information on this new killer threat , the Chinese government finally moved in the right direction .
It certainly deserves criticism for sitting on important data—and Trump defenders can latch onto this .
But in some ways , the Chinese story , as told by the CRS timeline , highlights Trump ’ s own inadequate response .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the epidemic on January 18 by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and that on January 23 National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien informed Trump about the potential pandemic threat posed by the coronavirus .
Yet Trump did not take immediate action .
He issued tweets praising China ’ s management of the crisis and hailed its “ transparency.
” On January 30 , he did create a White House task force and the next day he ordered the travel ban blocking entry into the United States of foreigners who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited effectiveness ) .
But he spent much of January and February discounting the coronavirus threat and taking few concrete steps to prepare for a possible pandemic .
China , in the opening weeks of this pandemic , did not sufficiently share with its people and the world important information about the coronavirus crisis , and that might have impeded the global response .
Yet Trump took longer than the Chinese government to acknowledge the threat and adopt serious measures .
( Months later , he still has not done enough to create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide protective equipment to health care workers . )
So Trump and his henchmen , searching for a distraction , can try to scapegoat the Chinese government as the number-one culprit , but as Confucius said , “ Don ’ t complain about the snow on your neighbor ’ s roof when your own doorstep is unclean .
”

As more Americans die each day in the coronavirus pandemic, President Trump has desperately tried to deflect blame for his anemic and inept response to the crisis. His blame-shifting crusade has landed on one big target: China.
He and his political allies have tried mightily to depict the Chinese government as the villain of this tale. Though at the start Trump repeatedly praised Chinese leader Xi Jinping and his government for their response to the epidemic, which began in the city of Wuhan, Trump recently shifted gears and began claiming the Chinese government, not the Trump administration, was responsible for the tens of thousands of deaths in the United States. When asked by CBS News reporter Weijia Jiang about testing and the American death toll, Trump barked at her, “Don’t ask me. Ask China.” And his Republican comrades, following Trump’s lead, have called for sanctions against China and for changing the law to allow Americans to sue China for the damage done by the virus. In fact, the Republican Party has adopted a blame-China strategy for the 2020 elections.
With GOP members of Congress introducing multiple bills related to China’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak, the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of the House and the Senate, this week released a detailed timeline of the actions China took during the early weeks of the epidemic in December and January. Based on public accounts—including those in the Chinese media—the CRS report does not cast the Chinese government in a good light. The report’s judgements are highly measured, but it does provide ammo to those seeking to divert attention from Trump’s own actions (or inaction).
The report, written by Susan Lawrence, a CRS specialist in Asian affairs, points out that during the SARS outbreak in 2002 and 2003, the Chinese government was soundly criticized for not reporting this event to the World Health Organization and the Chinese public for more than two months. This time around, China has done better: “China has shared information about COVID-19 more quickly and comprehensively…Chinese authorities allowed experts from the WHO China Country Office and WHO’s Western Pacific Regional Office to conduct what WHO describes as ‘a brief visit to Wuhan’ January 20-21, 2020.” But the report adds, “The timeline nonetheless raises questions for some about China’s interactions with WHO at key moments in the early weeks of the pandemic.” And the report offers this indictment: “Prior to January 20, 2020—the day Chinese authorities acknowledged person-to-person transmission of the novel coronavirus—the public record provides little indication that China’s top leaders saw containment of the epidemic as a high priority. Thereafter, however, Chinese authorities appear to have taken aggressive measures to contain the virus.”
As the report notes, hospitals in Wuhan first started noticing a pneumonia of unknown origin in late December. Yet in the first weeks, according to the report, “Chinese authorities may not always have communicated with WHO” in a timely and accurate fashion, as they are obligated to do under the International Health Regulations (IHY), an agreement to which China, the United States, and 194 other countries are parties. The report says that China “may not have proactively notified WHO of the outbreak,” as it was also required to do: “According to Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, WHO headquarters in Geneva first learned about the outbreak in Wuhan [on December 31] not directly from Chinese authorities, but rather from the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases (ProMED), a U.S.-based open-source platform for early intelligence about infectious disease outbreaks.”
It turns out that a ProMED user had posted a translation of a Chinese media report detailing the contents of two “urgent notices” about these new atypical pneumonia cases that the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission had sent to medical institutions in the city. At the same time, a photograph of a lab report showing a positive result for SARS had started spreading in news and medical circles in Wuhan. Dr. Li Wenliang, for one, shared this image with his former classmates in a private online WeChat group. (Dr. Li later would be harassed by government officials for his efforts to get the word out about the coronavirus and subsequently lose his life to COVID-19 at the age of 33.)
As soon as the WHO learned about the outbreak from the ProMED post, it requested verification from the Chinese government. Under the IHR, a government has 24 hours to respond. The CRS report notes that “China’s official timeline says it began ‘regularly informing’ WHO of developments related to the outbreak on January 3,” and the next day, the WHO tweeted about the outbreak in Wuhan. So it seems there might have been a slight delay of a few days in China verifying this new pneumonia.
The report identifies another, perhaps more significant delay: “China’s government appears to have potentially hesitated before informing WHO both when it determined a novel coronavirus was responsible for the outbreak and when its scientists sequenced the virus’ genome.”
On January 9, 2020, the WHO announced that “Chinese authorities have made a preliminary determination of a novel (or new) coronavirus, identified in a hospitalized person with pneumonia in Wuhan.” Two days later, the WHO tweeted that it had received “the genetic sequences for the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) from the Chinese authorities.” But, the CRS report says, “China appears to have determined that a novel coronavirus was responsible” earlier.
One Chinese news outlet reported that samples from Wuhan pneumonia cases had been sequenced and found to indicate a novel coronavirus on December 26. The Wuhan Institute of Virology, an affiliate of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, according to Chinese state media, sequenced the virus’ genome on January 2. So here was more lost time. And according to the report, “Chinese authorities do not appear to have shared biological samples with the WHO or other international partners” in a timely manner.
What’s damning in the report is not surprising: “Information Chinese authorities provided to the Chinese public and to the world in the early weeks of the epidemic was often incomplete and understated the extent of the virus’ spread.” Though Wuhan doctors suspected the new disease was moving through person-to-person transmission, the Chinese authorities initially downplayed this. “A WHO expert echoed that position in a January 14, 2020, press conference,” the CRS report says, “stating that China had experienced ‘limited’ human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus.” The report also notes, “Wuhan medical personnel began falling ill with symptoms similar to their patients’ in December.” But the Chinese authorities did not acknowledge medical worker infections—a sign that this new coronavirus was extremely infectious and dangerous—at first.
Moreover, Chinese officials intimidated and censored doctors and others who sought to share with the public information about the epidemic. One example from the CRS report: “The day after the team of scientists led by Prof. Yong-zhen Zhang of Fudan University in Shanghai became the first to share the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus with the world, Shanghai authorities closed down Professor Zhang’s laboratory for ‘rectification,’ implying it is being investigated for unspecified wrongdoing.” And in January, China turned down offers from the US government to send a team of experts from the Centers for Disease Control to Wuhan.
“It remains unclear who was responsible for decisions to withhold information in the early weeks,” the CRS report says. But things did get better.
As the report puts it:
The Chinese leadership’s approach to the epidemic changed dramatically on January 20. On that day, a medical expert lauded for his role in the SARS epidemic, Zhong Nanshan, officially confirmed human-to-human transmission and medical worker infections. China’s National Health Commission declared novel coronavirus-caused pneumonia a statutory notifiable infectious disease under the PRC Law on the Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases. China also amended the PRC Health and Quarantine Law, opening the way for mandatory quarantines and lock-downs. The day ended with General Secretary Xi issuing an “important instruction,” carried in all major media, to prioritize novel coronavirus prevention and control work.
After three weeks of not assiduously reporting and sharing information on this new killer threat, the Chinese government finally moved in the right direction. It certainly deserves criticism for sitting on important data—and Trump defenders can latch onto this. But in some ways, the Chinese story, as told by the CRS timeline, highlights Trump’s own inadequate response. It notes that Trump was first briefed on the epidemic on January 18 by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and that on January 23 National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien informed Trump about the potential pandemic threat posed by the coronavirus. Yet Trump did not take immediate action. He issued tweets praising China’s management of the crisis and hailed its “transparency.” On January 30, he did create a White House task force and the next day he ordered the travel ban blocking entry into the United States of foreigners who had been in China (a ban of limited effectiveness). But he spent much of January and February discounting the coronavirus threat and taking few concrete steps to prepare for a possible pandemic.
China, in the opening weeks of this pandemic, did not sufficiently share with its people and the world important information about the coronavirus crisis, and that might have impeded the global response. Yet Trump took longer than the Chinese government to acknowledge the threat and adopt serious measures. (Months later, he still has not done enough to create a testing and tracing regimen or to provide protective equipment to health care workers.) So Trump and his henchmen, searching for a distraction, can try to scapegoat the Chinese government as the number-one culprit, but as Confucius said, “Don’t complain about the snow on your neighbor’s roof when your own doorstep is unclean.”


motherjones--2020-05-15--Why the Sale of a Tuscaloosa Abortion Clinic Could Signal a Massive Change in Abortion Care

Exactly a year after Alabama passed into law one of the country ’ s most severe abortion restrictions , the state ’ s abortion fund is taking a major step toward expanding access to the procedure in the Southeast .
Gov .
Kay Ivey signed the Human Life Protection Act , which would have effectively banned abortion in the state , on May 15 , 2019 , though a US district judge issued an injunction that temporarily blocked the law from going into effect .
While its future remains in limbo , the passage of the ban drove home just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has long been dedicated to winnowing away abortion rights through its legislature .
The state is down to three clinics , two of which were owned by aging proprietors—a fairly commonplace reality in several other states that are hostile to abortion rights .
But Alabama is also home to robust grassroots abortion advocacy ; one of the biggest beneficiaries of the backlash to last year ’ s law was the Yellowhammer Fund , the state ’ s only abortion fund , which saw a massive influx of cash .
Just days after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my Mother Jones colleague Marisa Endicott reported that the fund was able to support three times the number of clients as the year prior .
Now , on the anniversary of that dark day for abortion rights , the Yellowhammer Fund is purchasing a clinic in Tuscaloosa , the West Alabama Women ’ s Center .
“ We ’ re probably going to need more clinics in safe places as executive orders slow things down , as whatever happens with SCOTUS slows things down , ” says The Very Reverend Katherine Hancock Ragsdale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abortion Federation , a professional association for abortion providers .
“ Existing clinics can ’ t necessarily handle the volume of the closures that could be looming.
” Today , though , is more than a local victory .
In fact , it may herald a shift in abortion care strategy much more broadly .
Traditionally , abortion funds , which offer financial and logistical assistance to people seeking abortion care , have remained separate from clinics—operating in tandem with them only insofar as to set their clients up with appointments and work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mission may be exactly what is needed to shore up the precarious network of access in the region and make abortion care available to low-income folks .
“ I ’ d be surprised if we didn ’ t see more funds running clinics in the future , ” says Gloria Gray , the former owner of West Alabama Women ’ s Center , who reached out to Yellowhammer to ask if it was interested in purchasing the clinic .
“ I think that would be a good , good way to go—I will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how well they ’ ve been able to get to the donors , and how they have done as well as they have.
” Gray has owned and operated the clinic since 1993 .
In recent years , the clinic has provided more than half the abortions in the state , serving women across the Southeast as states in the region have implemented increasingly draconian abortion restrictions .
Gray , though , felt now was time to step aside .
“ I was turning 70 years old , ” she tells Mother Jones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grandchildren , I wanted to travel a bit , I wanted to [ go visit ] my son—those were my main reasons for wanting someone else that I knew could keep the clinic open and would go in and run it well.
” Amanda Reyes , executive director of the Yellowhammer Fund , explains the organization ’ s decision to take over the clinic as it sort of coming full circle—after all , she tells me , Yellowhammer started by offering escort services to shield patients from protesters at the same Tuscaloosa clinic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have a direct impact on access , ” she says .
“ Even starting the fund was a bit of a pipe dream , but when we started the fund , we had an idea that we would like to buy or start a clinic if we were successful beyond our wildest dreams .
And we were !
” The younger generation of abortion rights activists has often been more likely to work with abortion funds or in general activism than to work with or as abortion providers , in part because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many clinic owners are of a generation that was less bogged down by student debt and the consequences of the 2008 recession ; they purchased their businesses when the economy was steadier and the wealth gap was lesser .
“ Those of us who are poised to take over this kind of work , we don ’ t have the money .
It ’ s hard for us , we have all this student debt , we can ’ t always just spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a clinic that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we keep open because we believe in the ability of people to have abortion care , ” Reyes , who is 31 , tells me .
“ How the economy has played out over the last several decades is a major factor , and student debt is one of the dangers to keeping abortion clinics open.
” Reyes adds that having a collective effort like an abortion fund makes for more possibilities than a single prospective buyer , and she explains that most of the clinic ’ s current staff plans to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valuable institutional knowledge .
There are , of course , also the challenges and costs associated with keeping a clinic open , particularly in a red state , where anti-abortion legislation is always brewing in the background , creating expensive , burdensome restrictions and policies that clinics must follow to continue operating .
“ One of the reasons why [ independent clinic owners ] may have such a hard time retiring is that there ’ s not always a lot of money in this business , ” Reyes says .
“ And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of clinic—you have to deal with TRAP laws and all kinds of things , you may not have savings.
” Gray also admits that while it ’ s not why she ’ s retiring , the constant legislative onslaught , the stress of running a medical practice , and the regular abuse from protesters wore on her .
She even recalls a time when an anti-abortion protester called her religious mother to inform her that her daughter had purchased an abortion clinic .
“ I did get tired , constantly being told what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what I did , ” Gray says .
For Yellowhammer , the money for the acquisition was actually made possible by the extreme outpouring of support in the wake of last year ’ s ban .
“ That ’ s really fantastic , to be able to say that one year later , after [ lawmakers ] passed an abortion ban , we now have enough resources to buy a clinic and make not only abortion care more accessible , but comprehensive reproductive and sexual health care more accessible to people in Alabama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not something [ those lawmakers ] were intending to do.
” Ragsdale acknowledges taking on an abortion clinic is a tall ask for anyone—which is another reason why abortion providers are aging out of the business even while there are not enough new providers to take their places , particularly in hostile states like Alabama .
Ragsdale notes that red states often rely on traveling doctors to serve as abortion providers , as it ’ s less of a risk if their families live in a state that has more liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into [ this field ] out of passion , ” Ragsdale says .
“ They go into it to serve their values and to do work that ’ s meaningful , and that ’ s great , but if you ’ re young , you also have a life to build , perhaps a family to build and support .
You can ’ t just completely ignore the financial realities.
” Under the new ownership , the West Alabama Women ’ s Center plans to expand the services offered at the clinic over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reproductive health care .
This too may signal another shift in modern abortion care .
Yellowhammer plans to use a model similar to that of CHOICES in Memphis , which was one of the first clinics to bill itself as a reproductive health care center rather than strictly an abortion clinic .
“ Because our focus is as a reproductive justice fund , there is a whole host of other things that we are interested in , ” Reyes says , “ including comprehensive reproductive and sexual health care , continuation of pregnancies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of changes , particularly in the Southeast , are crucial in this moment .
Abortion access in the Bible Belt has been whittled down significantly and has become a major battleground in the fight for abortion rights since a wave of bans swept through the region a year ago .
While all those laws have since been temporarily blocked in federal court , states in the region more recently tried to use the coronavirus pandemic to reignite the fight over abortion access .
And over just the next few weeks , the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion rights case that could open the door to more restrictions in 15 states , Alabama included ; a new analysis from Guttmacher , a research and policy organization focused on reproductive health care , estimates that the clinic in Tuscaloosa would be one of only two clinics that could withstand that pressure in the state .
“ This gives us the chance to try to rework the health care system and provide a model for what health care in this country should look like , ” Reyes says .
“ I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge about how the health care system works and using that to our community ’ s advantage will help us create some really great policy ideas , too .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Exactly a year after Alabama passed into law one of the country’s most severe abortion restrictions, the state’s abortion fund is taking a major step toward expanding access to the procedure in the Southeast.
Gov. Kay Ivey signed the Human Life Protection Act, which would have effectively banned abortion in the state, on May 15, 2019, though a US district judge issued an injunction that temporarily blocked the law from going into effect. While its future remains in limbo, the passage of the ban drove home just how vulnerable access is in a state that has long been dedicated to winnowing away abortion rights through its legislature.
“I’d be surprised if we didn’t see more funds running clinics in the future.”
The state is down to three clinics, two of which were owned by aging proprietors—a fairly commonplace reality in several other states that are hostile to abortion rights. But Alabama is also home to robust grassroots abortion advocacy; one of the biggest beneficiaries of the backlash to last year’s law was the Yellowhammer Fund, the state’s most prominent abortion fund, which saw a massive influx of cash. Just days after the ban was signed into law, my Mother Jones colleague Marisa Endicott reported that the fund was able to support three times the number of clients as the year prior.
Now, on the anniversary of that dark day for abortion rights, the Yellowhammer Fund is purchasing a clinic in Tuscaloosa, the West Alabama Women’s Center.
“We’re probably going to need more clinics in safe places as executive orders slow things down, as whatever happens with SCOTUS slows things down,” says The Very Reverend Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, a professional association for abortion providers. “Existing clinics can’t necessarily handle the volume of the closures that could be looming.”
Today, though, is more than a local victory. In fact, it may herald a shift in abortion care strategy much more broadly. Traditionally, abortion funds, which offer financial and logistical assistance to people seeking abortion care, have remained separate from clinics—operating in tandem with them only insofar as to set their clients up with appointments and work through the financials. But consolidating their mission may be exactly what is needed to shore up the precarious network of access in the region and make abortion care available to low-income folks.
“I’d be surprised if we didn’t see more funds running clinics in the future,” says Gloria Gray, the former owner of West Alabama Women’s Center, who reached out to Yellowhammer to ask if it was interested in purchasing the clinic. “I think that would be a good, good way to go—I will say Yellowhammer has totally amazed me at how well they’ve been able to get to the donors, and how they have done as well as they have.”
Gray has owned and operated the clinic since 1993. In recent years, the clinic has provided more than half the abortions in the state, serving women across the Southeast as states in the region have implemented increasingly draconian abortion restrictions. Gray, though, felt now was time to step aside. “I was turning 70 years old,” she tells Mother Jones. “I wanted to enjoy my grandchildren, I wanted to travel a bit, I wanted to [go visit] my son—those were my main reasons for wanting someone else that I knew could keep the clinic open and would go in and run it well.”
Amanda Reyes, executive director of the Yellowhammer Fund, explains the organization’s decision to take over the clinic as it sort of coming full circle—after all, she tells me, Yellowhammer started by offering escort services to shield patients from protesters at the same Tuscaloosa clinic. “This gives us an opportunity to have a direct impact on access,” she says. “Even starting the fund was a bit of a pipe dream, but when we started the fund, we had an idea that we would like to buy or start a clinic if we were successful beyond our wildest dreams. And we were!”
“Those of us who are poised to take over this kind of work, we don’t have the money.”
The younger generation of abortion rights activists has often been more likely to work with abortion funds or in general activism than to work with or as abortion providers, in part because of a lower economic barrier to entry. Many clinic owners are of a generation that was less bogged down by student debt and the consequences of the 2008 recession; they purchased their businesses when the economy was steadier and the wealth gap was lesser.
“Those of us who are poised to take over this kind of work, we don’t have the money. It’s hard for us, we have all this student debt, we can’t always just spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a clinic that might just be a money pit that we keep open because we believe in the ability of people to have abortion care,” Reyes, who is 31, tells me. “How the economy has played out over the last several decades is a major factor, and student debt is one of the dangers to keeping abortion clinics open.” Reyes adds that having a collective effort like an abortion fund makes for more possibilities than a single prospective buyer, and she explains that most of the clinic’s current staff plans to stay on—meaning they will be able to retain valuable institutional knowledge.
There are, of course, also the challenges and costs associated with keeping a clinic open, particularly in a red state, where anti-abortion legislation is always brewing in the background, creating expensive, burdensome restrictions and policies that clinics must follow to continue operating. “One of the reasons why [independent clinic owners] may have such a hard time retiring is that there’s not always a lot of money in this business,” Reyes says. “And it’s expensive to run this kind of clinic—you have to deal with TRAP laws and all kinds of things, you may not have savings.” Gray also admits that while it’s not why she’s retiring, the constant legislative onslaught, the stress of running a medical practice, and the regular abuse from protesters wore on her. She even recalls a time when an anti-abortion protester called her religious mother to inform her that her daughter had purchased an abortion clinic. “I did get tired, constantly being told what an evil person I was for doing what I did,” Gray says.
For Yellowhammer, the money for the acquisition was actually made possible by the extreme outpouring of support in the wake of last year’s ban. “That’s really fantastic, to be able to say that one year later, after [lawmakers] passed an abortion ban, we now have enough resources to buy a clinic and make not only abortion care more accessible, but comprehensive reproductive and sexual health care more accessible to people in Alabama,” Reyes says. “That’s not something [those lawmakers] were intending to do.”
Ragsdale acknowledges taking on an abortion clinic is a tall ask for anyone—which is another reason why abortion providers are aging out of the business even while there are not enough new providers to take their places, particularly in hostile states like Alabama. Ragsdale notes that red states often rely on traveling doctors to serve as abortion providers, as it’s less of a risk if their families live in a state that has more liberal views on abortion. “People go into [this field] out of passion,” Ragsdale says. “They go into it to serve their values and to do work that’s meaningful, and that’s great, but if you’re young, you also have a life to build, perhaps a family to build and support. You can’t just completely ignore the financial realities.”
Under the new ownership, the West Alabama Women’s Center plans to expand the services offered at the clinic over the next several years to cover full-spectrum reproductive health care. This too may signal another shift in modern abortion care. Yellowhammer plans to use a model similar to that of CHOICES in Memphis, which was one of the first clinics to bill itself as a reproductive health care center rather than strictly an abortion clinic. “Because our focus is as a reproductive justice fund, there is a whole host of other things that we are interested in,” Reyes says, “including comprehensive reproductive and sexual health care, continuation of pregnancies, trans-affirming health care.”
“After [lawmakers] passed an abortion ban, we now have enough resources to make not only abortion care more accessible, but comprehensive reproductive and sexual health care more accessible. That’s not something they were intending to do.”
These kinds of changes, particularly in the Southeast, are crucial in this moment. Abortion access in the Bible Belt has been whittled down significantly and has become a major battleground in the fight for abortion rights since a wave of bans swept through the region a year ago. While all those laws have since been temporarily blocked in federal court, states in the region more recently tried to use the coronavirus pandemic to reignite the fight over abortion access. And over just the next few weeks, the Supreme Court is set to rule on an abortion rights case that could open the door to more restrictions in 15 states, Alabama included; a new analysis from Guttmacher, a research and policy organization focused on reproductive health care, estimates that the clinic in Tuscaloosa would be one of only two clinics that could withstand that pressure in the state.
“This gives us the chance to try to rework the health care system and provide a model for what health care in this country should look like,” Reyes says. “I think that running this clinic and having this knowledge about how the health care system works and using that to our community’s advantage will help us create some really great policy ideas, too.”
Correction, May 15, 2020, 3:53 pm: This article has been corrected to reflect that Yellowhammer is not the sole abortion fund in Alabama. We regret the error.


motherjones--2020-05-16--Betsy DeVos Is Already Being Sued Over Her New Campus Sexual Assault Rules

Last week , when Education Secretary Betsy DeVos released new rules for how schools should handle reports of sexual assault and harassment , the American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement : “ See you in court.
” On Thursday , it made good on its promise , filing a federal lawsuit against DeVos , the Education Department , and its assistant secretary for civil rights .
The ACLU argues that Trump administration ’ s new campus sexual assault rules “ dramatically reduce schools ’ responsibility to respond to sexual harassment and assault ” and “ inflict significant harm ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first of several lawsuits expected to challenge a long-anticipated regulation that dramatically reinterprets Title IX , the federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in education .
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of four groups that advocate for student survivors of sexual assault and harassment , including Know Your IX , Girls For Gender Equity , Stop Sexual Assault in Schools , and the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates .
Additional lawsuits from students , nonprofits , and state attorneys general are anticipated .
Since 2017 , when DeVos rescinded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campus sexual assault , she has advocated ensuring “ due process ” for accused students and fairness in campus sexual misconduct cases , contrasting these changes with the previous administration ’ s emphasis on survivors ’ rights .
When the final Title IX regulation was released last week , she told reporters that it “ recognizes we can continue to combat sexual misconduct without abandoning our core values of fairness , presumption of innocence , and due process.
” Both the Education Department and the ACLU predict that under the the new rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trigger investigations that could lead to an accused student being disciplined under Title IX .
In its own justification for the regulation , the Education Department estimates that colleges on average will conduct one-third fewer sexual misconduct investigations under the new rules .
“ This is shutting students out of the reporting process before they even have a chance to have their report investigated , ” says Ria Tabacco Mar , director of the ACLU ’ s Women ’ s Rights Project .
She says the ACLU supports “ fair process for complainants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adds , “ creating barriers and making students jump through hoops to report sexual assault and harassment does nothing to ensure due process for all.
” The new rules require colleges ’ disciplinary hearings to adopt many of the features of criminal trials , including live hearings and the cross-examination of the complainant and the accused by each party ’ s lawyer or representative .
But in addition to overhauling the mechanics of campus disciplinary proceedings , the rules have also “ radically reduced ” colleges ’ legal obligations to respond to sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lawsuit argues .
The ACLU ’ s lawsuit focuses on the new rules ’ “ double standard ” for harassment on the basis of sex .
While schools must address harassment based on race , national origin , or disability if it is “ severe , pervasive , or objectively offensive , ” DeVos ’ s new rules define sexual harassment more stringently : If the alleged harassment is not “ severe , pervasive , and objectively offensive ” ( emphasis added ) , the school must dismiss the complaint .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it ’ s quite significant , ” Tabacco Mar says .
“ You could have an instance of harassment that ’ s severe—something that we all acknowledge is reprehensible—but if it only happens once , then maybe it ’ s not considered ‘ pervasive.
’ On the other hand , you could have conduct that ’ s pervasive—something that ’ s happening to a student every single day—but because no particular incident is itself severe , schools are free to ignore the sum of the parts.
” There are other double @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the ACLU ’ s complaint .
Unlike other types of harassment , sexual harassment is only required to be investigated if it is reported to a specific campus official such as a Title IX coordinator .
“ Under the prior standard , institutions could be on notice if students reported the conduct to trusted adults such as a campus security officer , professor , or athletic coach , if staff themselves witnessed the harassment , or if the incident was publicized in the media or flyers about the incident widely posted at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its complaint .
“ No longer.
” The ACLU lawsuit notes out that while the new rules appear to allow schools to choose which standard of proof to apply , they also require schools to use the same standard for students and faculty .
Because many colleges have collective bargaining agreements with faculty that require them to use the “ clear and convincing ” standard in faculty misconduct cases , those schools will effectively be forced to hold sexual harassment claims to a higher standard than other violations , Tabacco Mar says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new rules also bar school administrators from conducting a formal Title IX investigation into most reports of sexual misconduct that occur off-campus , even if they affect the on-campus lives of students who , for instance , may have to share a class with their attacker .
“ Taken together , ” the complaint says , provisions in DeVos ’ regulations “ radically undermine Title IX ’ s mandate that institutions prevent and respond to sexual harassment that interferes with students ’ educational opportunities.
” Outside of court , survivor activists are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as encouraging schools to voluntarily investigate complaints that the new rules would allow them to ignore .
On Thursday , during a webinar hosted by the Institute for Research on Male Supremacism , Alexandra Brodsky , a staff attorney at Public Justice , reminded more than a hundred educators , researchers , students , and activists that the new regulations do not take effect until mid-August , giving them time to lobby school administrators who are deciding how to implement the new rules .
“ This rule is not law yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great tactic for getting your school to do the right thing is reminding them not to rush to comply with regulations that might be defeated in court .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Last week, when Education Secretary Betsy DeVos released new rules for how schools should handle reports of sexual assault and harassment, the American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement: “See you in court.”
On Thursday, it made good on its promise, filing a federal lawsuit against DeVos, the Education Department, and its assistant secretary for civil rights. The ACLU argues that Trump administration’s new campus sexual assault rules “dramatically reduce schools’ responsibility to respond to sexual harassment and assault” and “inflict significant harm” on survivors. The complaint is the first of several lawsuits expected to challenge a long-anticipated regulation that dramatically reinterprets Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of four groups that advocate for student survivors of sexual assault and harassment, including Know Your IX, Girls For Gender Equity, Stop Sexual Assault in Schools, and the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. Additional lawsuits from students, nonprofits, and state attorneys general are anticipated.
Since 2017, when DeVos rescinded the Obama administration’s guidelines on campus sexual assault, she has advocated ensuring “due process” for accused students and fairness in campus sexual misconduct cases, contrasting these changes with the previous administration’s emphasis on survivors’ rights. When the final Title IX regulation was released last week, she told reporters that it “recognizes we can continue to combat sexual misconduct without abandoning our core values of fairness, presumption of innocence, and due process.”
Both the Education Department and the ACLU predict that under the new rules, fewer reports of sexual misconduct will trigger investigations that could lead to an accused student being disciplined under Title IX. In its own justification for the regulation, the Education Department estimates that colleges on average will conduct one-third fewer sexual misconduct investigations under the new rules. “This is shutting students out of the reporting process before they even have a chance to have their report investigated,” says Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. She says the ACLU supports “fair process for complainants and respondents alike.” But, she adds, “creating barriers and making students jump through hoops to report sexual assault and harassment does nothing to ensure due process for all.”
The new rules require colleges’ disciplinary hearings to adopt many of the features of criminal trials, including live hearings and the cross-examination of the complainant and the accused by each party’s lawyer or representative. But in addition to overhauling the mechanics of campus disciplinary proceedings, the rules have also “radically reduced” colleges’ legal obligations to respond to sexual assault and harassment, the ACLU’s lawsuit argues.
The ACLU’s lawsuit focuses on the new rules’ “double standard” for harassment on the basis of sex. While schools must address harassment based on race, national origin, or disability if it is “severe, pervasive, or objectively offensive,” DeVos’s new rules define sexual harassment more stringently: If the alleged harassment is not “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” (emphasis added), the school must dismiss the complaint.
“It may seem like a small change, but it’s quite significant,” Tabacco Mar says. “You could have an instance of harassment that’s severe—something that we all acknowledge is reprehensible—but if it only happens once, then maybe it’s not considered ‘pervasive.’ On the other hand, you could have conduct that’s pervasive—something that’s happening to a student every single day—but because no particular incident is itself severe, schools are free to ignore the sum of the parts.”
There are other double standards in the new rules, according to the ACLU’s complaint. Unlike other types of harassment, sexual harassment is only required to be investigated if it is reported to a specific campus official such as a Title IX coordinator. “Under the prior standard, institutions could be on notice if students reported the conduct to trusted adults such as a campus security officer, professor, or athletic coach, if staff themselves witnessed the harassment, or if the incident was publicized in the media or flyers about the incident widely posted at the college,” the ACLU writes in its complaint. “No longer.”
As I reported last week , the new rules also allows colleges to use a higher standard of proof when evaluating claims of sexual assault or harassment:
All schools will be permitted to apply the “clear and convincing” standard of proof to determine whether a student is responsible for sexual misconduct. This is a higher standard than the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required by Obama-era guidance. (The “preponderance of the evidence” standard requires evaluating whether the misconduct was “more likely than not” to have occurred—the same standard of proof used by the Supreme Court in evaluating civil rights discrimination cases.)
The ACLU lawsuit notes out that while the new rules appear to allow schools to choose which standard of proof to apply, they also require schools to use the same standard for students and faculty. Because many colleges have collective bargaining agreements with faculty that require them to use the “clear and convincing” standard in faculty misconduct cases, those schools will effectively be forced to hold sexual harassment claims to a higher standard than other violations, Tabacco Mar says.
According to the ACLU complaint, the new rules also bar school administrators from conducting a formal Title IX investigation into most reports of sexual misconduct that occur off-campus, even if they affect the on-campus lives of students who, for instance, may have to share a class with their attacker. “Taken together,” the complaint says, provisions in DeVos’ regulations “radically undermine Title IX’s mandate that institutions prevent and respond to sexual harassment that interferes with students’ educational opportunities.”
Outside of court, survivor activists are planning ways to resist DeVos’ regulation, such as encouraging schools to voluntarily investigate complaints that the new rules would allow them to ignore. On Thursday, during a webinar hosted by the Institute for Research on Male Supremacism, Alexandra Brodsky, a staff attorney at Public Justice, reminded more than a hundred educators, researchers, students, and activists that the new regulations do not take effect until mid-August, giving them time to lobby school administrators who are deciding how to implement the new rules.
“This rule is not law yet,” Brodsky said. “A great tactic for getting your school to do the right thing is reminding them not to rush to comply with regulations that might be defeated in court.”
Read the full complaint here:
ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Title IX Regulations (PDF)
ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Title IX Regulations (Text)


motherjones--2020-05-16--Another Private Jet Company Owned by a Trump Donor Got a Bailout—This One for $20 Million

This story was published originally by ProPublica , a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power .
Sign up for ProPublica ‘ s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published .
An Omaha , Nebraska-based private jet company whose principal owner donated generously to Donald Trump and Republicans ahead of the 2016 election received $ 20 million in taxpayer aid from the federal bailout package passed in March .
Jet Linx Aviation , which caters to well-to-do CEOs and executives , was the second private plane company founded or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funds designated for the airline industry under the Coronavirus Aid , Relief and Economic Security Act .
CNBC reported on Thursday that Clay Lacy Aviation , a Van Nuys , California-based private jet company whose founder has given nearly $ 50,000 to the Republican National Committee and Trump , got $ 27 million in federal funds .
Jet Linx Management Company Vice Chairman John Denny Carreker and his wife , Connie , gave $ 68,100 to Trump ’ s campaign , the Republican National Committee and the Trump Victory Committee between October 2015 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filings show .
Connie Carreker gave an additional $ 1,000 to the Trump campaign in November 2018 , according to the FEC .
Most of the CARES Act money for the airline industry has gone to commercial or regional carriers .
American , Delta , United and Southwest collectively were allotted almost $ 19.5 billion , more than three-quarters of the total reserved for the passenger airline industry .
But private charters haven ’ t been left out .
About 70 such companies received CARES Act funds as of April 27 , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 96 recipients published this week .
That represents just a fraction of the roughly 2,000 private jet companies operating in the U.S. , as compiled by Private Jet Card Comparisons , an independent buyer ’ s guide .
In total , they received about $ 157 million in taxpayer aid , less than a percent of the more than $ 23 billion disbursed so far for the passenger airline industry .
Jet Linx and Clay Lacy are among the most prominent in the industry : Last year , the flight tracking firm Argus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respectively , in hours logged , according to a list of the top 25 private air charter operations .
No other top 10 private jet company received federal grants .
The average grant amount for the 70 private jet companies to receive aid was $ 2.2 million , about a tenth of what Jet Linx and Clay Lacy each received .
A number listed for the Carrekers at their Dallas home wasn ’ t in service , and a press representative for the company hasn ’ t responded to emails seeking comment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ play no role in determining which companies received federal funds , requirements that were set by Congress .
CNBC reported that Clay Lacy did not respond to a request for comment on its reporting .
Lawmakers set aside $ 25 billion for passenger airlines in the coronavirus relief bill .
Companies that earned at least half their revenue last year by flying people from place to place could apply for grants from a special program within the CARES Act designed to cover payroll and benefits for workers .
The size of the grants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how much they paid their employees in salary and benefits between April and September last year .
The law restricts how much executives are allowed to take in compensation .
The Treasury Department declined to say how many total companies applied for the payroll grants , how many were private plane companies or how many applicants were deemed ineligible for funds .
A spokesman for the Transportation Department said officials verified that applicants held up-to-date “ certificates and authorizations ” before the Treasury distributed them money .
It wasn ’ t clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payroll aid would be publicly disclosed .
Jet Linx claims an 112-aircraft fleet that flies out of 18 cities where it operates its own private terminals .
The company says it has 450 workers , who serve as flight crew and operations , maintenance and support staff .
Jet Linx offers well-heeled customers membership packages that give them access to luxury plane rides for a fee .
On its website , Jet Linx offers members who pay $ 5,000 up front access to any size jet for pay-as-you-fly costs .
Hourly rates can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Do you work for a company that was denied CARES Act funds ?
If so , or if you were laid off from a company that received the federal aid , email Jake Pearson at jake.pearson @ propublica.org

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
This story was published originally by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica‘s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
An Omaha, Nebraska-based private jet company whose principal owner donated generously to Donald Trump and Republicans ahead of the 2016 election received $20 million in taxpayer aid from the federal bailout package passed in March.
Jet Linx Aviation, which caters to well-to-do CEOs and executives, was the second private plane company founded or owned by Trump donors to receive federal funds designated for the airline industry under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act. CNBC reported on Thursday that Clay Lacy Aviation, a Van Nuys, California-based private jet company whose founder has given nearly $50,000 to the Republican National Committee and Trump, got $27 million in federal funds.
Jet Linx Management Company Vice Chairman John Denny Carreker and his wife, Connie, gave $68,100 to Trump’s campaign, the Republican National Committee and the Trump Victory Committee between October 2015 and November 2016, Federal Election Commission filings show. Connie Carreker gave an additional $1,000 to the Trump campaign in November 2018, according to the FEC.
Most of the CARES Act money for the airline industry has gone to commercial or regional carriers. American, Delta, United and Southwest collectively were allotted almost $19.5 billion, more than three-quarters of the total reserved for the passenger airline industry.
But private charters haven’t been left out.
About 70 such companies received CARES Act funds as of April 27, according to the first round of disclosures to 96 recipients published this week. That represents just a fraction of the roughly 2,000 private jet companies operating in the U.S., as compiled by Private Jet Card Comparisons, an independent buyer’s guide. In total, they received about $157 million in taxpayer aid, less than a percent of the more than $23 billion disbursed so far for the passenger airline industry.
Jet Linx and Clay Lacy are among the most prominent in the industry: Last year, the flight tracking firm Argus Traqpak ranked them fifth and 11th, respectively, in hours logged, according to a list of the top 25 private air charter operations. No other top 10 private jet company received federal grants. The average grant amount for the 70 private jet companies to receive aid was $2.2 million, about a tenth of what Jet Linx and Clay Lacy each received.
A number listed for the Carrekers at their Dallas home wasn’t in service, and a press representative for the company hasn’t responded to emails seeking comment. A Treasury Department spokeswoman said campaign contributions play no role in determining which companies received federal funds, requirements that were set by Congress.
CNBC reported that Clay Lacy did not respond to a request for comment on its reporting.
Lawmakers set aside $25 billion for passenger airlines in the coronavirus relief bill. Companies that earned at least half their revenue last year by flying people from place to place could apply for grants from a special program within the CARES Act designed to cover payroll and benefits for workers. The size of the grants companies received is supposed to be based on how much they paid their employees in salary and benefits between April and September last year. The law restricts how much executives are allowed to take in compensation.
The Treasury Department declined to say how many total companies applied for the payroll grants, how many were private plane companies or how many applicants were deemed ineligible for funds. A spokesman for the Transportation Department said officials verified that applicants held up-to-date “certificates and authorizations” before the Treasury distributed them money.
It wasn’t clear when the other passenger airline companies granted payroll aid would be publicly disclosed.
Jet Linx claims an 112-aircraft fleet that flies out of 18 cities where it operates its own private terminals. The company says it has 450 workers, who serve as flight crew and operations, maintenance and support staff.
Jet Linx offers well-heeled customers membership packages that give them access to luxury plane rides for a fee. On its website, Jet Linx offers members who pay $5,000 up front access to any size jet for pay-as-you-fly costs. Hourly rates can run up to $4,500 per hour.
Do you work for a company that was denied CARES Act funds? If so, or if you were laid off from a company that received the federal aid, email Jake Pearson at jake.pearson@propublica.org
Doris Burke contributed research.


motherjones--2020-05-16--Trump Fires State Department Watchdog Who Provided Ukraine Documents to Congress

On Friday night , President Donald Trump fired State Department Inspector General Steve Linick , replacing him with Ambassador Stephen Akard , an ally of Vice President Mike Pence .
The move , which angered Congressional Democrats , is the fourth firing of such an independent watchdog in recent weeks .
“ The president ’ s late-night , weekend firing of the State Department inspector general has accelerated his dangerous pattern of retaliation against the patriotic public servants charged with conducting oversight on behalf of the American people , ” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ launched an investigation into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s alleged misuse of a political appointee to perform personal tasks for him and his wife .
The ousted official also had a minor role in the US House ’ s impeachment of Trump late last year , when he agreed to provide relevant documents to congressional investigators against the general wishes of the president .
As Mother Jones reported last month in the wake of the dismissal of Michael Atkinson , the intelligence community ’ s inspector general , Trump has come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal officials tasked with independent oversight : In an extraordinary admission during a press conference Saturday , Trump indicated that he fired Atkinson as retaliation for the watchdog ’ s role informing Congress of a whistleblower report detailing Trump ’ s effort last year to coerce Ukraine into producing dirt on his political opponents .
“ He took a fake report and he brought it to Congress , ” Trump said , ignoring the reality that the complaint was shown to be accurate by a slew of witnesses who testified before the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legally required to inform lawmakers of its existence .
At least one congressional committee is looking into whether Atkinson ’ s ouster , in addition to addressing Trump ’ s craving for revenge , also aimed to thwart ongoing probes by the IG ’ s office .
Rep. Eliot Engel ( D-N.Y. ) , who chairs the House Committee on Foreign Affairs , said in a late night statement that he believed the firing was an act of retaliation and that he would be demanding more answers .
“ This firing is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect one of his most loyal supporters , the Secretary of State , from accountability , ” he said .
“ As he systematically removes the official independent watchdogs from the Executive Branch , the work of the Committee on Foreign Affairs becomes that much more critical .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Friday night, President Donald Trump fired State Department Inspector General Steve Linick, replacing him with Ambassador Stephen Akard, an ally of Vice President Mike Pence. The move, which angered Congressional Democrats, is the fourth firing of such an independent watchdog in recent weeks.
The move has been assailed as an “outrageous act of a President trying to protect one of his most loyal supporters.”
“The president’s late-night, weekend firing of the State Department inspector general has accelerated his dangerous pattern of retaliation against the patriotic public servants charged with conducting oversight on behalf of the American people,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.
According to Politico, Linick recently launched an investigation into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s alleged misuse of a political appointee to perform personal tasks for him and his wife. The ousted official also had a minor role in the US House’s impeachment of Trump late last year, when he agreed to provide relevant documents to congressional investigators against the general wishes of the president.
As Mother Jones reported last month in the wake of the dismissal of Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s inspector general, Trump has come under fire for his repeated removals of federal officials tasked with independent oversight:
In an extraordinary admission during a press conference Saturday, Trump indicated that he fired Atkinson as retaliation for the watchdog’s role informing Congress of a whistleblower report detailing Trump’s effort last year to coerce Ukraine into producing dirt on his political opponents. “He took a fake report and he brought it to Congress,” Trump said, ignoring the reality that the complaint was shown to be accurate by a slew of witnesses who testified before the House of Representatives, and that Atkinson was legally required to inform lawmakers of its existence. At least one congressional committee is looking into whether Atkinson’s ouster, in addition to addressing Trump’s craving for revenge, also aimed to thwart ongoing probes by the IG’s office.
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), who chairs the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said in a late night statement that he believed the firing was an act of retaliation and that he would be demanding more answers. “This firing is the outrageous act of a President trying to protect one of his most loyal supporters, the Secretary of State, from accountability,” he said. “As he systematically removes the official independent watchdogs from the Executive Branch, the work of the Committee on Foreign Affairs becomes that much more critical.”