motherjones--2020-03-03--Tech Workers Like Sanders and Warren, But Their Bosses Like Biden

Of all the Democratic presidential candidates , Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have been the harshest critics of big tech .
Both have promised to break up Amazon , Apple , and Alphabet ( Google ’ s parent company ) , which they say are monopolies .
Sanders successfully pressured Amazon into increasing minimum wage for its employees to $ 15 , and Warren ’ s proposed “ wealth tax ” would undoubtedly make a big dent in dot-com CEOs ’ assets .
Yet Sanders ’ and Warren ’ s skepticism toward Silicon Valley isn ’ t entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money from the employees of 20 major tech companies than any other candidates , though tech execs were more enthusiastic about seeding Pete Buttigieg ’ s failed startup campaign .
Overall , 96 percent of tech employees ’ $ 2 million in donations went to Democrats , though President Trump brought in more than Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer , who have since dropped out of the race .
Google employees gave just under $ 700,000 to Democratic candidates , with more than half going to Sanders and Warren .
To get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing out in Silicon Valley and other tech hubs , we analyzed more than 20,000 Federal Election Commission records of contributions to presidential candidates by the employees of 20 well-known technology companies including Google , Microsoft , Facebook , Twitter , Apple , Salesforce , Amazon , and Netflix ( and their major subsidiaries ) .
The data only includes gifts made in 2019 , so no contributions to Michael Bloomberg were counted .
A deeper look at the numbers shows that the candidates ’ support splits among different levels of of workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , administrative assistants , rideshare drivers , and support staff from Amazon , Uber , Lyft and other tech companies overwhelmingly backed Sanders , followed by Trump .
More than 50 gig workers who identified themselves as drivers for Uber , Lyft , Amazon , and Instacart gave to Sanders .
Tesla assembly line workers , PayPal customer support representatives , and Intel manufacturing technicians overwhelmingly gave to Sanders .
( We counted gig workers even though some companies do not treat them as employees .
To avoid double counting , gig workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
This trend flipped when we looked at tech executives , directors , vice presidents , and other members of the C-suite .
They overwhelmingly gave to Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden , more moderate candidates who haven ’ t taken positions that threaten tech companies .
Among Buttigieg ’ s contributors were Pinterest ’ s CEO and chief operating officer , Lyft ’ s chief technology officer and chief strategy officer , Microsoft ’ s chief technology officer , and Google , Apple and Saleforce ’ s chiefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included vice presidents and senior vice presidents at Amazon , Google , Microsoft , and Apple .
A majority of the tech workers who have made contributions to presidential candidates are managerial and mid-level employees such as engineers , managers , and analysts .
They mostly gave to Sanders and Warren , who together got three-quarters of the contributions from these employees .
The gap between Sanders and Warren among this group was quite narrow , suggesting no clear front runner .
Looking at each of the remaining candidates ’ contributions from different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Warren are winning Silicon Valley ’ s money—but Biden is doing well in the boardroom .
How the remaining candidates stack up

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Of all the Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have been the harshest critics of big tech. Both have promised to break up Amazon, Apple, and Alphabet (Google’s parent company), which they say are monopolies. Sanders successfully pressured Amazon into increasing minimum wage for its employees to $15, and Warren’s proposed “wealth tax” would undoubtedly make a big dent in dot-com CEOs’ assets.
Yet Sanders’ and Warren’s skepticism toward Silicon Valley isn’t entirely mutual. The two have raised more money from the employees of 20 major tech companies than any other candidates, though tech execs were more enthusiastic about seeding Pete Buttigieg’s failed startup campaign.
Overall, 96 percent of tech employees’ $2 million in donations went to Democrats, though President Trump brought in more than Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer, who have since dropped out of the race. Google employees gave just under $700,000 to Democratic candidates, with more than half going to Sanders and Warren.
Who’s getting tech workers’ money
To get a sense of how the presidential race is playing out in Silicon Valley and other tech hubs, we analyzed more than 20,000 Federal Election Commission records of contributions to presidential candidates by the employees of 20 well-known technology companies including Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Salesforce, Amazon, and Netflix (and their major subsidiaries). The data only includes gifts made in 2019, so no contributions to Michael Bloomberg were counted.
A deeper look at the numbers shows that the candidates’ support splits among different levels of of workers. Warehouse workers, shoppers, technicians, administrative assistants, rideshare drivers, and support staff from Amazon, Uber, Lyft and other tech companies overwhelmingly backed Sanders, followed by Trump. More than 50 gig workers who identified themselves as drivers for Uber, Lyft, Amazon, and Instacart gave to Sanders. Tesla assembly line workers, PayPal customer support representatives, and Intel manufacturing technicians overwhelmingly gave to Sanders. (We counted gig workers even though some companies do not treat them as employees. To avoid double counting, gig workers who listed two employers were not included.)
Gig workers feel the Bern
This trend flipped when we looked at tech executives, directors, vice presidents, and other members of the C-suite. They overwhelmingly gave to Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden, more moderate candidates who haven’t taken positions that threaten tech companies. Among Buttigieg’s contributors were Pinterest’s CEO and chief operating officer, Lyft’s chief technology officer and chief strategy officer, Microsoft’s chief technology officer, and Google, Apple and Saleforce’s chiefs of staff. Biden’s supporters included vice presidents and senior vice presidents at Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Apple.
Mayor Pete could compete—in the C-Suite
A majority of the tech workers who have made contributions to presidential candidates are managerial and mid-level employees such as engineers, managers, and analysts. They mostly gave to Sanders and Warren, who together got three-quarters of the contributions from these employees. The gap between Sanders and Warren among this group was quite narrow, suggesting no clear front runner.
Mid-level tech workers split for Sanders and Warren
Looking at each of the remaining candidates’ contributions from different types of tech workers shows how Sanders and Warren are winning Silicon Valley’s money—but Biden is doing well in the boardroom.
How the remaining candidates stack up


motherjones--2020-03-04--The Republican National Committee Obscured How Much It Pays Its Chief of Staff

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 .
Richard Walters began his career at the lowest rungs of the Republican National Committee when he was 23 .
Now , at 30 , he ’ s the RNC chief of staff , earning far more than any other official there , including his boss , the chairwoman , and the top officials at the Democratic National Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyebrows—but for the fact that the RNC obscured it .
Last year , Walters earned a salary of $ 207,558 , but the party paid him an additional $ 135,000 through a shell company he established in December 2018 called Red Wave Strategies .
Federal Election Commission reports described the RNC ’ s payments to Red Wave as “ political strategy services , ” as if the money had flowed to an independent contractor and not Walters himself .
Red Wave does not have other employees and has no clients other than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Party are raising unprecedented sums of cash for the 2020 election .
The party brought in more than $ 241 million alone in 2019 , far exceeding the $ 107 million the RNC raised in 2003 , the last time there was a Republican president seeking reelection , and eclipsing the $ 92 million raised last year by the Democratic National Committee .
The RNC spent record-breaking sums , too : In 2019 , the party doled out $ 192 million .
Amid the flows of cash , a select group of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for lucrative consulting work .
In October , the Washington Post highlighted the political consulting prowess of Katie Walsh , for whom Walters once worked at the RNC , and her husband , Mike Shields .
Both Walsh and Shields previously served as RNC chiefs of staff .
Three businesses controlled by Walsh and Shields have been paid more than $ 12 million from the RNC , multiple Republican groups and political committees since 2017 , according to the Post ’ s analysis of campaign filings and other records .
Michael Steele , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ payment structure “ just smells ” and was in keeping with a culture of “ sweetheart deals ” among party insiders that he described as corrosive .
A half-dozen former RNC employees and Republican operatives , who spoke to ProPublica on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution , said that the various deals , typically veiled behind opaque limited liability corporations , create an unseemly overall impression that is bad for morale and could eventually harm the party ’ s credibility with donors .
“ These guys , they just don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on rank-and-file folks out there , ” Steele said .
“ It ’ s disrespecting people who donate to the party.
” Mike Reed , an RNC spokesperson , told ProPublica over email that Walsh and Shields “ bring incredible value to the RNC and the party as a whole.
” Reed also provided comments concerning Walters from chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and the RNC ’ s budget committee chair , Glenn McCall .
McDaniel said that Walters ’ “ record as chief of staff speaks for itself , ” and McCall said Walters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myself , the chairwoman , treasurer , and budget committee ” because of his “ outstanding work.
” Given Walters ’ success on the job , and the size of the RNC ’ s operation , which consists of thousands of employees and volunteers , McCall said Walters is “ probably underpaid for his position.
” Reed did not address why the RNC pays Walters through Red Wave .
ProPublica described the payments to Walters ’ LLC to Larry Noble , a former FEC general counsel , a nonpartisan position .
Noble said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really part of Walters ’ compensation , it should ’ ve been attributed to his name and disclosed as “ payroll , ” a designation that covers the salaries of RNC staffers .
The arrangement , he said , amounts to “ a serious reporting violation .
It seems pretty blatant .
Hiding the recipient undermines the purpose of disclosure .
The question is , why are they enriching him in this particular way ?
” Reed disputed that the organization ’ s payments to Red Wave amount to a reporting violation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ everything to the FEC in accordance with the law.
” The RNC has also covered costs or made payments that are personally beneficial to the president , including nearly $ 2 million for the use of Trump properties , as well as more than $ 100,000 in purchases of Donald Trump Jr. ’ s 2019 book , “ Triggered : How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us.
” Reed said the party ’ s payments were appropriate .
He told ProPublica that Trump properties can be “ cheaper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that the FEC “ demands the RNC receive market rates.
” He added that Trump Jr. ’ s books were used for fundraising , and that the amount raised off copies exceeded the costs .
The RNC has also spent some $ 25,000 on customized Sharpies for the president—markers retrofitted in glossy black and embossed with Trump ’ s golden signature .
These “ political expenses , ” Reed said , are not unusual for presidents .
“ The taxpayers , ” he said , “ shouldn ’ t have to cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s preferred writing tool , and he uses them to sign documents and , in one notable recent instance , annotate maps .
As chief of staff , Walters is responsible for the party ’ s overall budget , approving the budgets of its various departments , handling personnel issues and dealing with donors who want access to McDaniel .
Additionally , McDaniel said , Walters oversees “ massive new investments ” in the organization ’ s data , political and digital teams .
Last year , McDaniel was paid $ 100,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in from the RNC .
Crucially , the chief of staff also executes all RNC vendor contracts , making Walters a key figure in the small network of operatives and friends who have struck lucrative contracts with the party .
Reed said there is a backstop beyond Walters when it comes to contracts .
The RNC ’ s budget is approved by two committees and voted on by the organization ’ s 168 members , he said .
In 2018 , Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky , an election and campaign law firm in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Walsh , Shields , a Shields business partner or , in the case of Red Wave , Walters .
Collectively , the RNC has paid them $ 865,000 .
Walsh , along with other Republican consultants , maintains an office on the RNC ’ s fourth floor , just feet from Walters and McDaniel .
Since early 2017 , when she left the White House , the organization has paid her more than $ 745,000 through a consulting company .
That contract predates Walters ’ tenure as chief of staff , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has reapproved it .
For her part , Walsh said in a statement to ProPublica , “ Since my contract with the RNC is well within or below market rate , the only conclusion I can reach from the insinuations being made in this ‘ article ’ , is that there are some people in the fake news/left wing media who don ’ t believe a young , accomplished woman should have a seat at the table.
” Another RNC arrangement involves a close Walters friend .
Not long after he became chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Belcher , a college classmate of Walters , set up an LLC of his own , according to corporate records in Mississippi , where the company , Concept Marketing & Branding LLC , is registered .
Belcher has been receiving modest payments for his “ photography services ” from the RNC on and off since 2015 , two years before Walters became chief of staff .
Typically , the transactions amount to several thousand dollars and are attributed to his name in FEC reports .
Starting in December 2017 , the month Belcher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Walters became chief of staff , the RNC also began to pay Concept for “ printing & design services ” and “ printing/graphic services.
” Some of the expenditures to the LLC were significantly higher than those connected to Belcher ’ s name , including one for roughly $ 78,000 , and another for more than $ 89,000 .
Asked about the arrangement , Belcher deferred to the RNC .
The payments , the RNC spokesman Reed said , covered production costs for a host of items , including invitations , business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company has been chosen multiple times after a bid process , ” he said .
“ And they have always come in the cheapest.
” Last summer , Belcher was hired to take photographs at an RNC event that featured Walters .
After it was over , Belcher posted 88 photos of Walters on his website .
In one series , the chief of staff , dressed in a pink plaid sport coat , his dark beard neatly trimmed , stands behind a lectern that bears the names of Trump and his vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different sequence , he ’ s seated on a panel , holding a microphone .
All of the photos are for sale , starting in wallet size , for $ 2.50 .
Reed told ProPublica that Belcher has been “ hired to take pictures at countless RNC events , ” including “ many ” where Walters was not an attendee .

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.
Richard Walters began his career at the lowest rungs of the Republican National Committee when he was 23. Now, at 30, he’s the RNC chief of staff, earning far more than any other official there, including his boss, the chairwoman, and the top officials at the Democratic National Committee.
The rich compensation might have raised eyebrows—but for the fact that the RNC obscured it. Last year, Walters earned a salary of $207,558, but the party paid him an additional $135,000 through a shell company he established in December 2018 called Red Wave Strategies.
Federal Election Commission reports described the RNC’s payments to Red Wave as “political strategy services,” as if the money had flowed to an independent contractor and not Walters himself. Red Wave does not have other employees and has no clients other than the RNC.
President Donald Trump and the Republican Party are raising unprecedented sums of cash for the 2020 election. The party brought in more than $241 million alone in 2019, far exceeding the $107 million the RNC raised in 2003, the last time there was a Republican president seeking reelection, and eclipsing the $92 million raised last year by the Democratic National Committee. The RNC spent record-breaking sums, too: In 2019, the party doled out $192 million.
Amid the flows of cash, a select group of political operatives has leveraged Trump campaign ties for lucrative consulting work. In October, the Washington Post highlighted the political consulting prowess of Katie Walsh, for whom Walters once worked at the RNC, and her husband, Mike Shields. Both Walsh and Shields previously served as RNC chiefs of staff. Three businesses controlled by Walsh and Shields have been paid more than $12 million from the RNC, multiple Republican groups and political committees since 2017, according to the Post’s analysis of campaign filings and other records.
Michael Steele, a former RNC chairman, said Walters’ payment structure “just smells” and was in keeping with a culture of “sweetheart deals” among party insiders that he described as corrosive.
A half-dozen former RNC employees and Republican operatives, who spoke to ProPublica on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution, said that the various deals, typically veiled behind opaque limited liability corporations, create an unseemly overall impression that is bad for morale and could eventually harm the party’s credibility with donors.
“These guys, they just don’t know what impact this has on rank-and-file folks out there,” Steele said. “It’s disrespecting people who donate to the party.”
Mike Reed, an RNC spokesperson, told ProPublica over email that Walsh and Shields “bring incredible value to the RNC and the party as a whole.”
Reed also provided comments concerning Walters from chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and the RNC’s budget committee chair, Glenn McCall. McDaniel said that Walters’ “record as chief of staff speaks for itself,” and McCall said Walters’ “compensation package was approved by myself, the chairwoman, treasurer, and budget committee” because of his “outstanding work.” Given Walters’ success on the job, and the size of the RNC’s operation, which consists of thousands of employees and volunteers, McCall said Walters is “probably underpaid for his position.”
Reed did not address why the RNC pays Walters through Red Wave.
ProPublica described the payments to Walters’ LLC to Larry Noble, a former FEC general counsel, a nonpartisan position. Noble said that if the Red Wave income was really part of Walters’ compensation, it should’ve been attributed to his name and disclosed as “payroll,” a designation that covers the salaries of RNC staffers. The arrangement, he said, amounts to “a serious reporting violation. It seems pretty blatant. Hiding the recipient undermines the purpose of disclosure. The question is, why are they enriching him in this particular way?”
Reed disputed that the organization’s payments to Red Wave amount to a reporting violation, and he said that the organization discloses “everything to the FEC in accordance with the law.”
The RNC has also covered costs or made payments that are personally beneficial to the president, including nearly $2 million for the use of Trump properties, as well as more than $100,000 in purchases of Donald Trump Jr.’s 2019 book, “Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us.”
Reed said the party’s payments were appropriate. He told ProPublica that Trump properties can be “cheaper to rent than other venues,” and that the FEC “demands the RNC receive market rates.” He added that Trump Jr.’s books were used for fundraising, and that the amount raised off copies exceeded the costs.
The RNC has also spent some $25,000 on customized Sharpies for the president—markers retrofitted in glossy black and embossed with Trump’s golden signature. These “political expenses,” Reed said, are not unusual for presidents. “The taxpayers,” he said, “shouldn’t have to cover these costs.” Sharpies are the president’s preferred writing tool, and he uses them to sign documents and, in one notable recent instance, annotate maps.
As chief of staff, Walters is responsible for the party’s overall budget, approving the budgets of its various departments, handling personnel issues and dealing with donors who want access to McDaniel. Additionally, McDaniel said, Walters oversees “massive new investments” in the organization’s data, political and digital teams. Last year, McDaniel was paid $100,000 less than the total amount Walters took in from the RNC.
Crucially, the chief of staff also executes all RNC vendor contracts, making Walters a key figure in the small network of operatives and friends who have struck lucrative contracts with the party.
Reed said there is a backstop beyond Walters when it comes to contracts. The RNC’s budget is approved by two committees and voted on by the organization’s 168 members, he said.
In 2018, Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky, an election and campaign law firm in Virginia, formed four LLCs tied either to Walsh, Shields, a Shields business partner or, in the case of Red Wave, Walters. Collectively, the RNC has paid them $865,000.
Walsh, along with other Republican consultants, maintains an office on the RNC’s fourth floor, just feet from Walters and McDaniel. Since early 2017, when she left the White House, the organization has paid her more than $745,000 through a consulting company. That contract predates Walters’ tenure as chief of staff, though the RNC declined to say whether Walters has reapproved it.
For her part, Walsh said in a statement to ProPublica, “Since my contract with the RNC is well within or below market rate, the only conclusion I can reach from the insinuations being made in this ‘article’, is that there are some people in the fake news/left wing media who don’t believe a young, accomplished woman should have a seat at the table.”
Shields didn’t return a phone message seeking comment.
Another RNC arrangement involves a close Walters friend. Not long after he became chief of staff, a photographer named Blake Belcher, a college classmate of Walters, set up an LLC of his own, according to corporate records in Mississippi, where the company, Concept Marketing & Branding LLC, is registered.
Belcher has been receiving modest payments for his “photography services” from the RNC on and off since 2015, two years before Walters became chief of staff. Typically, the transactions amount to several thousand dollars and are attributed to his name in FEC reports.
Starting in December 2017, the month Belcher established his company, and several months after Walters became chief of staff, the RNC also began to pay Concept for “printing & design services” and “printing/graphic services.” Some of the expenditures to the LLC were significantly higher than those connected to Belcher’s name, including one for roughly $78,000, and another for more than $89,000.
Asked about the arrangement, Belcher deferred to the RNC. The payments, the RNC spokesman Reed said, covered production costs for a host of items, including invitations, business cards and Christmas cards.
“This company has been chosen multiple times after a bid process,” he said. “And they have always come in the cheapest.”
Last summer, Belcher was hired to take photographs at an RNC event that featured Walters. After it was over, Belcher posted 88 photos of Walters on his website. In one series, the chief of staff, dressed in a pink plaid sport coat, his dark beard neatly trimmed, stands behind a lectern that bears the names of Trump and his vice president, Mike Pence. In a different sequence, he’s seated on a panel, holding a microphone. All of the photos are for sale, starting in wallet size, for $2.50.
Reed told ProPublica that Belcher has been “hired to take pictures at countless RNC events,” including “many” where Walters was not an attendee.


motherjones--2020-03-04--China Constructed New Hospitals in Days, and Other Lessons From Their Response to the Coronavirus

For many of us , the scariest part of the coronavirus outbreak is what we don ’ t know—how severe the virus is , how it ’ s transmitted , what we can do to stop its spread .
“ The many unknowns about the virus impede efforts to predict its trajectory , ” the Washington Post recently reported .
But what many outlets don ’ t mention is that there are many things we actually do know .
In February , about two months after the initial outbreak in Wuhan , China , the World Health Organization sent a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , epidemiologists , and infectious disease specialists to several cities in China to collect data .
The report that they produced is publicly available , and its revelations are sobering .
The authors found that the vast majority of people who test positive for the disease do end up developing symptoms , most commonly fever and a dry cough .
For people under 59 years old , the fatality rate is 1.3 percent ; for people over 80 , it ’ s nearly 15 percent .
The team found that 5 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Another 15 percent needed highly concentrated oxygen , sometimes for weeks .
Contrary to some US media reports , most health care workers in China seem to have caught the virus not from their patients but from family members .
For perspective on the report , I called Hernando Garzon , an emergency medicine physician who directs Sacramento ’ s EMS agency .
Garzon has spent the past two decades of his career studying international preparedness for outbreaks and other disasters—most recently , he oversaw the opening of two Ebola treatment centers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report so jarring that he emailed his colleagues to underscore its importance .
“ It ’ s a tremendous amount of exquisite detail , ” he said .
Beyond the valuable information about the disease itself , Garzon said , there is another reason Americans should pay attention to the WHO report : It highlights the drastic measures China has taken to contain the virus .
“ China ’ s bold approach to contain the rapid spread of this new respiratory pathogen has changed the course of a rapidly escalating and deadly epidemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
“ In the face of a previously unknown virus , China has rolled out perhaps the most ambitious , agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history.
” For starters , the report notes , China moved quickly to trace the contacts of every identified coronavirus patient .
In Wuhan , 1,800 teams of investigators were deployed to do this .
The government enacted vast and strict quarantine measures and scrambled to prepare test kits .
Every week the country churns out and distributes 1.6 million test kits , which deliver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made a real difference .
Now , 329 new cases are identified every day—down from 3,000 a month ago .
Garzon was struck by the fact that even after the Chinese government initially suppressed reports of the virus , it quickly mobilized this highly coordinated response .
He noted that the report authors weren ’ t sure that the rest of the world would be able to do the same .
China ’ s success is due in part to its authoritarian government—more democratic countries simply don ’ t exert the same kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond that , “ My biggest fear is that at the highest leadership levels in the United States , we ’ re not prepared for this , ” Garzon told me .
“ Having lost the pandemic preparedness in the White House , I don ’ t believe that at a federal level the disaster preparedness is what it has been in the past , and even in the past it had left something to be desired.
” William Haseltine , chair of the global health think tank ACCESS Health International and an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Like Garzon , he found the WHO report sobering—the United States would have a hard time matching China ’ s response , he said .
“ It ’ s a sad day when China is outperforming the US in terms of public health.
” Garzon noted , given the vastly different capacities for mobilizing a work force , some of China ’ s preparations would be nearly impossible to replicate in the United States .
Most impressively , the Chinese government hastened to build new hospitals to treat severe cases .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
—two new facilities to hold an additional 2,600 hospital beds in a matter of days .
“ People are marveling at that , ” Garzon told me .
“ Construction workers were working all night .
That ’ s something I don ’ t think the United States could do.
” But other steps that China took—the contact tracing , the test kits , perhaps even the quarantines—are entirely within the realm of the United States ’ capability , if the government were inclined to devote the necessary resources .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do these things , ” he said .
“ It ’ s just a matter of whether the government takes action.
” Haseltine notes that all of this would be a lot easier if the United States had invested in outbreak preparedness measures before a crisis .
As I wrote a few weeks ago , the Trump administration has hardly made this a priority : It did away with pandemic leadership , shelved a biodefense plan , and slashed emergency preparedness budgets .
One helpful step , Haseltine said , would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveillance and intervention .
“ Social workers understand what the vulnerable populations are and how to communicate with them , ” he said .
“ They need to be trained and integrated into our medical system.
” He also underscored the importance of the federal government creating incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs .
When there isn ’ t an active epidemic , of course , it ’ s hard to convince governments to invest in preparedness—and Garzon hopes the coronavirus will spur leaders to action .
“ My personal experience is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accomplish today , so emergency preparedness sits on the back burner , ” he said .
“ Let ’ s hope that this will serve as a wakeup call .
”

For many of us, the scariest part of the coronavirus outbreak is what we don’t know—how severe the virus is, how it’s transmitted, what we can do to stop its spread. “The many unknowns about the virus impede efforts to predict its trajectory,” the Washington Post recently reported.
But what many outlets don’t mention is that there are many things we actually do know. In February, about two months after the initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, the World Health Organization sent a team of 25 leading public health experts, epidemiologists, and infectious disease specialists to several cities in China to collect data. The report that they produced is publicly available, and its revelations are sobering. The authors found that the vast majority of people who test positive for the disease do end up developing symptoms, most commonly fever and a dry cough. For people under 59 years old, the fatality rate is 1.3 percent; for people over 80, it’s nearly 15 percent. The team found that 5 percent of coronavirus patients required ventilators to breathe. Another 15 percent needed highly concentrated oxygen, sometimes for weeks. Contrary to some US media reports, most health care workers in China seem to have caught the virus not from their patients but from family members.
“My biggest fear is that at the highest leadership levels in the United States, we’re not prepared for this.”
For perspective on the report, I called Hernando Garzon, an emergency medicine physician who directs Sacramento’s EMS agency. Garzon has spent the past two decades of his career studying international preparedness for outbreaks and other disasters—most recently, he oversaw the opening of two Ebola treatment centers in Sierra Leone. Garzon found the WHO report so jarring that he emailed his colleagues to underscore its importance. “It’s a tremendous amount of exquisite detail,” he said.
Beyond the valuable information about the disease itself, Garzon said, there is another reason Americans should pay attention to the WHO report: It highlights the drastic measures China has taken to contain the virus. “China’s bold approach to contain the rapid spread of this new respiratory pathogen has changed the course of a rapidly escalating and deadly epidemic,” the report’s authors wrote. “In the face of a previously unknown virus, China has rolled out perhaps the most ambitious, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history.”
For starters, the report notes, China moved quickly to trace the contacts of every identified coronavirus patient. In Wuhan, 1,800 teams of investigators were deployed to do this. The government enacted vast and strict quarantine measures and scrambled to prepare test kits. Every week the country churns out and distributes 1.6 million test kits, which deliver results in one day. These efforts made a real difference. Now, 329 new cases are identified every day—down from 3,000 a month ago.
Garzon was struck by the fact that even after the Chinese government initially suppressed reports of the virus, it quickly mobilized this highly coordinated response. He noted that the report authors weren’t sure that the rest of the world would be able to do the same. China’s success is due in part to its authoritarian government—more democratic countries simply don’t exert the same kind of control over their citizens. But beyond that, “My biggest fear is that at the highest leadership levels in the United States, we’re not prepared for this,” Garzon told me. “Having lost the pandemic preparedness in the White House, I don’t believe that at a federal level the disaster preparedness is what it has been in the past, and even in the past it had left something to be desired.”
William Haseltine, chair of the global health think tank ACCESS Health International and an infectious disease expert, echoed those concerns. Like Garzon, he found the WHO report sobering—the United States would have a hard time matching China’s response, he said. “It’s a sad day when China is outperforming the US in terms of public health.”
Garzon noted, given the vastly different capacities for mobilizing a work force, some of China’s preparations would be nearly impossible to replicate in the United States. Most impressively, the Chinese government hastened to build new hospitals to treat severe cases. In Wuhan alone, Chinese workers constructed—from scratch!—two new facilities to hold an additional 2,600 hospital beds in a matter of days. “People are marveling at that,” Garzon told me. “Construction workers were working all night. That’s something I don’t think the United States could do.”
But other steps that China took—the contact tracing, the test kits, perhaps even the quarantines—are entirely within the realm of the United States’ capability, if the government were inclined to devote the necessary resources. “It’s not technically all that difficult to do these things,” he said. “It’s just a matter of whether the government takes action.”
Haseltine notes that all of this would be a lot easier if the United States had invested in outbreak preparedness measures before a crisis. As I wrote a few weeks ago, the Trump administration has hardly made this a priority: It did away with pandemic leadership, shelved a biodefense plan, and slashed emergency preparedness budgets.
One helpful step, Haseltine said, would be training social workers to help with disease surveillance and intervention. “Social workers understand what the vulnerable populations are and how to communicate with them,” he said. “They need to be trained and integrated into our medical system.” He also underscored the importance of the federal government creating incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs.
When there isn’t an active epidemic, of course, it’s hard to convince governments to invest in preparedness—and Garzon hopes the coronavirus will spur leaders to action. “My personal experience is that there is always something more pressing to accomplish today, so emergency preparedness sits on the back burner,” he said. “Let’s hope that this will serve as a wakeup call.”


motherjones--2020-03-04--She Won an Abortion Rights Case in the Supreme Court. Now She’s Watching the Same Damn Fight Again.

Amy Hagstrom Miller is one of the fiercest advocates for reproductive rights in the country .
She is the president and CEO of Whole Woman ’ s Health , a network of eight abortion clinics that operate in five states , and she ’ s best known for her role as a plaintiff in a Supreme Court case in 2016 , Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt , in which she fought back against a set of arcane abortion restrictions on the premise that they created an undue burden for women seeking access to the procedure .
She won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included requiring clinics to meet surgical suite standards and acquire hospital admitting privileges for providers—as harmful to women , rather than protective of them .
You ’ ve probably seen photos of her standing on the steps of the Supreme Court on the day of the ruling in a white power suit , close-cropped platinum blonde hair trimmed into precise layers , bold lipstick , broad smile , I-prepared-for-this glasses .
Mother Jones called her up a few days before the Supreme Court was going to hear yet another case regarding a law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a nearby hospital—this time involving providers in Louisiana .
The case , June Medical Services v. Russo , has felt all too familiar for Hagstrom Miller , and she told us about what it ’ s like to watch a case she ’ s already won be relitigated four short years later—this time with a conservative majority court .
I guess the more things change , the more they stay the same , huh ?
Right , it ’ s like that David Byrne lyric , Same as it ever was .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ What has been on your mind , watching all of this play out over again ?
It ’ s interesting .
You have that first reaction of , “ Oh my goodness , we just went through all of this , now we go through it again.
” But then I sort of stepped back and realized , of course they ’ re coming for us .
We did this great thing , we advanced the ball .
I should not ever use sports analogies , but we really advanced the field , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has happened in a generation .
And so , if you think of all the different strategies that the opposition has had over the years to try to chip away at Roe , or come after Roe , of course they ’ re coming after Whole Woman ’ s Health .
We defined the concept of undue burden , and we put some standards in place that are much more rigorous , that require elected officials to support any restrictions on abortion with scientific facts and medical evidence .
That ’ s huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re trying to ignore it , or they ’ re trying to pretend the facts are different in Louisiana than they were in Texas .
They ’ re going to try to narrow the decision .
What really remains to be seen is what parts of it they may be able to narrow or change .
But I really see how quickly this happened after we won as a sign that we did some really good work , and we advanced [ abortion rights ] forward .
What is the difference for you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s harder for me this time because I ’ m not the plaintiff , so I can ’ t necessarily influence public opinion in the same way .
But on the other hand , because I ’ m not a plaintiff , I feel like I can talk candidly in a new way .
One of my first reactions was that the Fifth Circuit is being insubordinate to the Supreme Court , pretty plain and simple , right ?
They ’ re ignoring the Supreme Court ’ s ruling and trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Fifth Circuit in Louisiana , which is just one state over from Texas .
The Supreme Court needs to step in here , and it ’ ll be interesting to see what the Roberts Court tolerates and how much they honor the precedent and the rule of law .
What we can ’ t forget , as we start talking about legal strategies and interesting cases , is that real people ’ s lives are affected here .
These are real people , real clinics , real people who need safe abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just some sort of legal Monopoly game .
The impact of restrictions like this is far-reaching , and it has a huge effect in communities for years if a clinic gets shuttered .
You are all still seeing the effects of HB2 in Texas , right ?
Absolutely .
We had 44 clinics in 2013 .
When HB2 went into effect , we had to close all but six of them initially , and then we were able to get an injunction that allowed us , I think , to have something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
But since we won the case , only five have reopened .
That shuttering of clinics has this lasting impact on communities all across the state .
You could have a legal win on paper , and even a really strong one—which we did—but that doesn ’ t necessarily mean communities can recover and clinics can reopen .
The cruelty of a law like this is that by design , it really does have a lasting impact , and it doesn ’ t improve health and safety .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devastating way .
The Supreme Court will potentially rule on whether abortion providers will be allowed to retain third-party standing to represent their patients in abortion litigation .
Can you talk about what that could mean for Whole Woman ’ s Health and other providers ?
One of the most important things to talk about is what it means for pregnant people .
I have brought lawsuits on behalf of the people we serve many times now , and I know what it would mean if we weren ’ t allowed to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bring a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and undertake what we have gone through .
It ’ s not only ridiculous , it ’ s actually cruel .
What we as plaintiffs have gone through is remarkable .
Not only the time commitment and the devastation of going through discovery and depositions and a trial and the sort of vitriol that you deal with from the opposition ’ s attorneys .
And the raking through thousands of emails and all of your communication…it ’ s cruel to think of one individual having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for us to endure it as an organization—but to think that somebody has to bring a lawsuit in order to assert their rights and sacrifice their confidentiality , sacrifice their families ’ well being .
The other piece of it is that your average patient doesn ’ t know the legal system , doesn ’ t have access to attorneys and nonprofit reproductive rights law firms , etc .
To say that we would think it ’ s okay to put them in that position is ridiculous .
Not to mention that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , right ?
You can bring a lawsuit while you ’ re pregnant , but then , you know , even for Norma McCorvey , the plaintiff in Roe , it took years before Roe was decided , and she had a baby .
I ’ ve heard arguments like , “ oh , she could bring it confidentially.
” Or , “ she could be anonymous.
” I ’ ve been through depositions , I ’ ve been in the witness stand myself .
The discovery , the process , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the preparation for a deposition or being a witness , is really , really difficult .
Saying , “ Well , that ’ s the only path to justice that a patient could have , ” is really scary .
It ’ s also just extreme .
When you ’ re talking about sort of flashing back to your Supreme Court case in 2016 , is there anything specific that you ’ re reliving ?
Flashing back is a good way of putting it .
It ’ s a little bit more triggering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only the trauma of having to close clinics and having to turn patients away because of politics and abstract ideology and not anything to do with health and safety .
It ’ s being in the position of having to tell patients in the community [ about anti-abortion legislation ] and being a pawn in the state ’ s assertion of power .
It ’ s how it ’ s changed our relationships with our patients .
Our patients could see us as the enforcer .
We ’ re put in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , dealing with their reaction to it , and then enforcing the restrictions when they go against our beliefs about what she is capable of and what she deserves .
For me , that ’ s one of the more abstract but more long-lasting effects as I look back over my career .
I came into this work because of my deep commitment to human rights and justice .
And I see myself sitting beside that pregnant person as their guide and their support , not getting in their way or trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to jump over hurdles .
And so , just the sort of crafty and manipulative way , the opposition has put the very people there to help the woman be the enforcer of the rules against her is quite a thing .
So how do you keep going ?
There ’ s ups and downs , for sure .
My spirit is the thing that can really get dinged .
It ’ s really about thinking about the long game .
My work is to hopefully eradicate the stigma that surrounds abortion in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage with it and shine a light on it and show people how those stigmas and biases are manufactured as tools of the opposition .
That , in many ways , they don ’ t have anything to do with abortion at all , it ’ s about controlling women and about the real fear of what true equality and autonomy would look like .
When I keep my eye on that long game , I take the setbacks less personally—because of course I can ’ t eradicate the stigma around abortion in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against something really big and really fundamental , and abortion has become this little football .
But it ’ s really representing much bigger work toward equality and autonomy .
We can ’ t arrive at full autonomy unless we have the ability to control our fertility .
I can ’ t dream a future for myself that ’ s equal to a man ’ s if I can ’ t know that the option of abortion or contraception is available to me .
It doesn ’ t even really matter if I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It matters that I know I could .
To dream of that future that really is predicated on equality .
I understand that that ’ s fundamentally what ’ s at stake here .
Then I ’ m able to see the struggle for abortion rights in human justice and reproductive justice as part of a much larger through-line that has to do with racial inequality and economic injustice .
It helps me to not get in the weeds , not get so personal about it .
But it also is personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our company , these are my resources .
These are my staff .
It ’ s very important to me to provide a stable , healthy , fulfilling work environment for the people who work for me who do this really important work .
And the state is just constantly making it difficult .
I wish I could make it more stable not only for the people who work in the clinic , but also for the patients .
Are you preparing for a loss in the June Medical case ?
Yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of being an abortion provider : We ’ re always working three or four things at the same time , because maybe one will work or maybe two .
That ’ s true about hiring people or training people or trying to find a lease or trying to get a building .
Those kinds of things are just a reality that I ’ ve come to accept as part of the work that I do .
I ’ ve got to think about contingency planning for my clinics in the states that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think about the outcome for the clinics in the states that are haven states that are going to be stable no matter what , and what their role will be to receive people from other places .
How are we going to be ready for that ?
So I ’ m grateful that Whole Woman ’ s Health operates clinics in five states and that they ’ re not all Texas or Indiana .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Amy Hagstrom Miller is one of the fiercest advocates for reproductive rights in the country. She is the president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, a network of eight abortion clinics that operate in five states, and she’s best known for her role as a plaintiff in a Supreme Court case in 2016, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, in which she fought back against a set of arcane abortion restrictions on the premise that they created an undue burden for women seeking access to the procedure. She won, and the court recognized those restrictions—which included requiring clinics to meet surgical suite standards and acquire hospital admitting privileges for providers—as harmful to women, rather than protective of them. You’ve probably seen photos of her standing on the steps of the Supreme Court on the day of the ruling in a white power suit, close-cropped platinum blonde hair trimmed into precise layers, bold lipstick, broad smile, I-prepared-for-this glasses.
Mother Jones called her up a few days before the Supreme Court was going to hear yet another case regarding a law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital—this time involving providers in Louisiana. The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, has felt all too familiar for Hagstrom Miller, and she told us about what it’s like to watch a case she’s already won be relitigated four short years later—this time with a conservative majority court.
I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same, huh?
Right, it’s like that David Byrne lyric, Same as it ever was. It always goes through my head.
What has been on your mind, watching all of this play out over again?
It’s interesting. You have that first reaction of, “Oh my goodness, we just went through all of this, now we go through it again.” But then I sort of stepped back and realized, of course they’re coming for us. We did this great thing, we advanced the ball. I should not ever use sports analogies, but we really advanced the field, I am told, more than what has happened in a generation.
And so, if you think of all the different strategies that the opposition has had over the years to try to chip away at Roe, or come after Roe, of course they’re coming after Whole Woman’s Health. We defined the concept of undue burden, and we put some standards in place that are much more rigorous, that require elected officials to support any restrictions on abortion with scientific facts and medical evidence. That’s huge. So of course, they’re trying to ignore it, or they’re trying to pretend the facts are different in Louisiana than they were in Texas. They’re going to try to narrow the decision. What really remains to be seen is what parts of it they may be able to narrow or change. But I really see how quickly this happened after we won as a sign that we did some really good work, and we advanced [abortion rights] forward.
What is the difference for you in not being directly involved?
It’s harder for me this time because I’m not the plaintiff, so I can’t necessarily influence public opinion in the same way. But on the other hand, because I’m not a plaintiff, I feel like I can talk candidly in a new way. One of my first reactions was that the Fifth Circuit is being insubordinate to the Supreme Court, pretty plain and simple, right? They’re ignoring the Supreme Court’s ruling and trying to pretend it doesn’t apply in the Fifth Circuit in Louisiana, which is just one state over from Texas. The Supreme Court needs to step in here, and it’ll be interesting to see what the Roberts Court tolerates and how much they honor the precedent and the rule of law. What we can’t forget, as we start talking about legal strategies and interesting cases, is that real people’s lives are affected here. These are real people, real clinics, real people who need safe abortion services in Louisiana. It’s not just some sort of legal Monopoly game. The impact of restrictions like this is far-reaching, and it has a huge effect in communities for years if a clinic gets shuttered.
You are all still seeing the effects of HB2 in Texas, right?
Absolutely. We had 44 clinics in 2013. When HB2 went into effect, we had to close all but six of them initially, and then we were able to get an injunction that allowed us, I think, to have something like 18 for a long period of time. But since we won the case, only five have reopened. That shuttering of clinics has this lasting impact on communities all across the state. You could have a legal win on paper, and even a really strong one—which we did—but that doesn’t necessarily mean communities can recover and clinics can reopen. The cruelty of a law like this is that by design, it really does have a lasting impact, and it doesn’t improve health and safety. In fact, it rolls it backward in a very devastating way.
“The cruelty of a law like this is that by design it really does have a lasting impact, and it doesn’t improve health and safety. In fact, it rolls it backward in a very devastating way.”
The Supreme Court will potentially rule on whether abortion providers will be allowed to retain third-party standing to represent their patients in abortion litigation. Can you talk about what that could mean for Whole Woman’s Health and other providers?
One of the most important things to talk about is what it means for pregnant people. I have brought lawsuits on behalf of the people we serve many times now, and I know what it would mean if we weren’t allowed to do that, if a pregnant person had to bring a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and undertake what we have gone through. It’s not only ridiculous, it’s actually cruel. What we as plaintiffs have gone through is remarkable. Not only the time commitment and the devastation of going through discovery and depositions and a trial and the sort of vitriol that you deal with from the opposition’s attorneys. And the raking through thousands of emails and all of your communication…it’s cruel to think of one individual having to endure that. It was cruel for us to endure it as an organization—but to think that somebody has to bring a lawsuit in order to assert their rights and sacrifice their confidentiality, sacrifice their families’ well being. The other piece of it is that your average patient doesn’t know the legal system, doesn’t have access to attorneys and nonprofit reproductive rights law firms, etc. To say that we would think it’s okay to put them in that position is ridiculous. Not to mention that they wouldn’t get relief in time, right? You can bring a lawsuit while you’re pregnant, but then, you know, even for Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe, it took years before Roe was decided, and she had a baby.
I’ve heard arguments like, “oh, she could bring it confidentially.” Or, “she could be anonymous.” I’ve been through depositions, I’ve been in the witness stand myself. The discovery, the process, and the time it takes to even go through the preparation for a deposition or being a witness, is really, really difficult. Saying, “Well, that’s the only path to justice that a patient could have,” is really scary. It’s also just extreme.
“We’re put in this position of telling them about the restriction, dealing with their reaction to it, and then enforcing the restrictions when they go against our beliefs about what she is capable of and what she deserves.”
When you’re talking about sort of flashing back to your Supreme Court case in 2016, is there anything specific that you’re reliving?
Flashing back is a good way of putting it. It’s a little bit more triggering than I expected. It’s not only the trauma of having to close clinics and having to turn patients away because of politics and abstract ideology and not anything to do with health and safety. It’s being in the position of having to tell patients in the community [about anti-abortion legislation] and being a pawn in the state’s assertion of power. It’s how it’s changed our relationships with our patients. Our patients could see us as the enforcer. We’re put in this position of telling them about the restriction, dealing with their reaction to it, and then enforcing the restrictions when they go against our beliefs about what she is capable of and what she deserves. For me, that’s one of the more abstract but more long-lasting effects as I look back over my career. I came into this work because of my deep commitment to human rights and justice. And I see myself sitting beside that pregnant person as their guide and their support, not getting in their way or trying to cause them to have delays or have to jump over hurdles. And so, just the sort of crafty and manipulative way, the opposition has put the very people there to help the woman be the enforcer of the rules against her is quite a thing.
So how do you keep going?
There’s ups and downs, for sure. My spirit is the thing that can really get dinged. It’s really about thinking about the long game. My work is to hopefully eradicate the stigma that surrounds abortion in this country. That we at least engage with it and shine a light on it and show people how those stigmas and biases are manufactured as tools of the opposition. That, in many ways, they don’t have anything to do with abortion at all, it’s about controlling women and about the real fear of what true equality and autonomy would look like. When I keep my eye on that long game, I take the setbacks less personally—because of course I can’t eradicate the stigma around abortion in my lifetime. We’re up against something really big and really fundamental, and abortion has become this little football. But it’s really representing much bigger work toward equality and autonomy. We can’t arrive at full autonomy unless we have the ability to control our fertility. I can’t dream a future for myself that’s equal to a man’s if I can’t know that the option of abortion or contraception is available to me. It doesn’t even really matter if I exercise that option ever in my life. It matters that I know I could. To dream of that future that really is predicated on equality. I understand that that’s fundamentally what’s at stake here. Then I’m able to see the struggle for abortion rights in human justice and reproductive justice as part of a much larger through-line that has to do with racial inequality and economic injustice.
It helps me to not get in the weeds, not get so personal about it. But it also is personal, right? In my organization and our company, these are my resources. These are my staff. It’s very important to me to provide a stable, healthy, fulfilling work environment for the people who work for me who do this really important work. And the state is just constantly making it difficult. I wish I could make it more stable not only for the people who work in the clinic, but also for the patients.
Are you preparing for a loss in the June Medical case?
Yes, we are. That’s part of being an abortion provider: We’re always working three or four things at the same time, because maybe one will work or maybe two. That’s true about hiring people or training people or trying to find a lease or trying to get a building. Those kinds of things are just a reality that I’ve come to accept as part of the work that I do. I’ve got to think about contingency planning for my clinics in the states that will be adversely affected. I also have to think about the outcome for the clinics in the states that are haven states that are going to be stable no matter what, and what their role will be to receive people from other places. How are we going to be ready for that? So I’m grateful that Whole Woman’s Health operates clinics in five states and that they’re not all Texas or Indiana.


motherjones--2020-03-04--Supreme Court Oral Arguments Leave Abortion Precedents in Jeopardy

On Wednesday , the Supreme Court heard is first abortion case since President Trump ’ s appointments of conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh .
Despite the court ’ s new conservative majority , the morning ’ s oral arguments left little clarity about its future verdict in a case that could determine abortion rights for years to come .
A ruling against the abortion clinic in the case on either the substantive or procedural issues at hand could gut access to reproductive health care across the country .
Chief Justice John Roberts ’ questions to lawyers on both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would rule on the substantive issue .
The substantive issue in June Medical Services v. Russo involves a stayed 2014 Louisiana law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where they provide abortions .
The law is almost identical to a Texas measure that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in the 2016 case Whole Women ’ s Health v. Hellerstadt as placing an “ undue burden ” on women seeking abortions by forcing many clinics to shut down without a justifiable health purpose .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal justices hammered Louisiana ’ s attorneys over why admitting privileges were necessary for a procedure with a low complication rate , and specifically what benefit the 30 mile requirement plays when many women safely take medication to induce an abortion at home .
Lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights representing June Medical Services argue that if the law were to go into effect , there would be only one doctor left in Louisiana who could provide abortions .
Mary Ziegler , a professor at Florida State University who studies the history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law could prompt a “ cascade ” of similar restrictions in conservative states .
But the procedural issue could have an even further reaching impact .
In 1976 , the Supreme Court held that providers were eligible to represent their patients under a doctrine known as third-party standing .
In this case , Louisiana challenged that precedent in a last-minute counter-petition , arguing that patients and doctors might not have the same interests , and that there isn ’ t necessarily a barrier to women bringing these cases themselves .
Justices Kavanaugh and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , opening the door to a ruling that would force individuals denied or blocked from seeking abortions to bring a federal case on their own , a daunting legal and financial proposition for people already navigating an unwanted pregnancy .
Such a decision could force women to delay getting an abortion until after filing suit in order preserve their individual standing to sue , and push them into waging legal battles that could last for years , long after their own pregnancies were over .
If the court strikes down third-party standing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion restrictions , knowing that lawsuits against them are less likely .
Patient privacy could also be lessened , with individual plaintiffs forced into the public spotlight .
“ There ’ ll be demonstrations against them , ” says Stephen Wermiel , a constitutional law professor at American University .
“ We ’ re not talking about the shy and retired demonstrators .
We ’ re talking about people holding up posters with pictures of dead fetuses shouting , ‘ Baby killer !
’ ” Trump ’ s appointees have created the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watchers ’ eyes on Roberts , the presumptive swing vote .
While the chief justice joined an anti-abortion dissent in Whole Women ’ s Health , last year he issued an injunction preventing the Louisiana law from going into place , actions placing him on both sides of the issue .
In his time leading the court , Roberts has projected a desire to preserve the courts public legitimacy by deferring on occasion to longstanding decisions .
Roberts could decide that overturning a nearly 50-year-old precedent by rejecting third-party standing could run against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caveat that Roberts is hardly a moderate on abortion .
During Wednesday ’ s hearing , Roberts raised several pointed questions about whether there were differences in the benefits of requiring admitting privileges between Louisiana and Texas , though he refrained from asking about third-party standing—which could indicate he is less open to the possibility of ending the practice .
But analysts of the court warn against anticipating any case ’ s outcome based on oral arguments .
“ This is probably the most unpredictable the Supreme Court has been on abortion in @ @ @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard is first abortion case since President Trump’s appointments of conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Despite the court’s new conservative majority, the morning’s oral arguments left little clarity about its future verdict in a case that could determine abortion rights for years to come.
A ruling against the abortion clinic in the case on either the substantive or procedural issues at hand could gut access to reproductive health care across the country. Chief Justice John Roberts’ questions to lawyers on both sides indicated he was conflicted about how he would rule on the substantive issue.
“This is probably the most unpredictable the Supreme Court has been on abortion in decades.”
The substantive issue in June Medical Services v. Russo involves a stayed 2014 Louisiana law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where they provide abortions. The law is almost identical to a Texas measure that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in the 2016 case Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstadt as placing an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions by forcing many clinics to shut down without a justifiable health purpose. On Wednesday, the court’s liberal justices hammered Louisiana’s attorneys over why admitting privileges were necessary for a procedure with a low complication rate, and specifically what benefit the 30 mile requirement plays when many women safely take medication to induce an abortion at home.
Lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights representing June Medical Services argue that if the law were to go into effect, there would be only one doctor left in Louisiana who could provide abortions. Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University who studies the history of abortion law, says upholding the law could prompt a “cascade” of similar restrictions in conservative states.
But the procedural issue could have an even further reaching impact. In 1976, the Supreme Court held that providers were eligible to represent their patients under a doctrine known as third-party standing. In this case, Louisiana challenged that precedent in a last-minute counter-petition, arguing that patients and doctors might not have the same interests, and that there isn’t necessarily a barrier to women bringing these cases themselves. Justices Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito seemed receptive to the argument, opening the door to a ruling that would force individuals denied or blocked from seeking abortions to bring a federal case on their own, a daunting legal and financial proposition for people already navigating an unwanted pregnancy. Such a decision could force women to delay getting an abortion until after filing suit in order preserve their individual standing to sue, and push them into waging legal battles that could last for years, long after their own pregnancies were over.
If the court strikes down third-party standing, states may feel freer to pass tight abortion restrictions, knowing that lawsuits against them are less likely. Patient privacy could also be lessened, with individual plaintiffs forced into the public spotlight. “There’ll be demonstrations against them,” says Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University. “We’re not talking about the shy and retired demonstrators. We’re talking about people holding up posters with pictures of dead fetuses shouting, ‘Baby killer!’”
Trump’s appointees have created the most conservative bench in decades, turning court watchers’ eyes on Roberts, the presumptive swing vote. While the chief justice joined an anti-abortion dissent in Whole Women’s Health, last year he issued an injunction preventing the Louisiana law from going into place, actions placing him on both sides of the issue.
In his time leading the court, Roberts has projected a desire to preserve the courts public legitimacy by deferring on occasion to longstanding decisions. Roberts could decide that overturning a nearly 50-year-old precedent by rejecting third-party standing could run against that, says Wermiel, adding the caveat that Roberts is hardly a moderate on abortion.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Roberts raised several pointed questions about whether there were differences in the benefits of requiring admitting privileges between Louisiana and Texas, though he refrained from asking about third-party standing—which could indicate he is less open to the possibility of ending the practice. But analysts of the court warn against anticipating any case’s outcome based on oral arguments.
“This is probably the most unpredictable the Supreme Court has been on abortion in decades,” says Ziegler.


motherjones--2020-03-04--The Coronavirus Is Inflaming the UK’s Racism

The weekday lunch hour in London ’ s Chinatown is usually brimming with crowds .
But earlier this week , as the United Kingdom warned that more outbreaks of the coronavirus epidemic were inevitable , the once-reliable mix of tourists and city residents strolling through Gerrard Steet had been largely replaced by an empty corridor of Asian restaurants .
The business owners I spoke to said it had been roughly six weeks of more of the same hushed scene .
Ahead of the BBC ’ s special on the virus this week , Sam Phan had hoped that xenophobia toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rare moment in the national spotlight .
It ’ s a critical issue for the 23-year-old University of Manchester graduate student , who last month penned a Guardian op-ed detailing the hostile environment the virus has created for him and other Asians living in the United Kingdom .
It was also one of immediate concern when we spoke on Monday after Phan said that he had just been targeted by another round of coronavirus-related racial abuse while riding the train from London to Birmingham last weekend .
“ I was making my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man suddenly lifted his arm at me and said , ‘ Don ’ t give the coronavirus , ' ” Phan , a British citizen who was born in Vietnam , told me .
“ Literally two minutes before that even happened , a London man put his leg out to stop and ask me , “ Do you like Chinese bat soup ?
” But with a tight , 30-minute time frame dedicated to more pressing public health concerns , racism in light of the coronavirus was ultimately left out of Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boris Johnson , who appeared on the BBC special without addressing the rise in racist attacks , failed to do so again during his emergency press conference Tuesday .
The lack of official condemnation is likely to come as a missed opportunity for many Asians living in the UK—a group that in 2017 reported the country ’ s highest level of racial harassment—not just to address the current surge in discrimination , but also tackle what both anecdotal evidence and research have long described as a serious but hidden and underreported problem in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Chinese population .
Curious about the role of xenophobia playing out in London ’ s Chinatown , I ventured to the neighborhood in hopes to chat with business owners about business in the time of coronavirus .
But the restaurant and shop owners I spoke to were largely reluctant , even frustrated , to speak about the coronavirus ’ s effect on the neighborhood out of concern that increased media attention has only exasperated the situation , and thus their profit margins .
Some blamed the weather and post-holiday shopping season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As for whether racism was playing a role in people ’ s fears , the people I spoke to were quick to deny that it had been a factor .
The hesitation to call out racism isn ’ t exactly surprising .
It ’ s a common reaction from business owners to deny that social factors have an effect on their business , for fear of actually encouraging that line of thinking .
In the case of the Chinese community in the UK , a study found that the community is prone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a significant lack of confidence in the police .
But that may no longer be a tenable response , particularly as more people go public with allegations of assault amid the coronavirus epidemic .
The newest one to grab widespread media attention both in the UK and abroad emerged on Tuesday when a 23-year-old Singaporean student studying in London posted a graphic image of his alleged attack on Facebook .
“ All of a sudden , the first punch was swung at my face and took me by surprise , ” Mok @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shocked by the first hit , the guy delivered the second sucker punch…The guy who tried to kick me then said , ‘ I don ’ t want your coronavirus in my country , ’ before swinging another sucker punch at me , which resulted in my face exploding with blood.
” “ I ’ ve studied in London for the past 2 years and every year , I am subjected to racist remarks ( whether innocent or made with malice ) .
To those people who told me London isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britain , we like to say that racism is an American thing , ” Phan said .
“ But I feel like there are a lot of things that we need to have more conversations around now , especially the racism that happens toward East Asians and bring it into the spotlight .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The weekday lunch hour in London’s Chinatown is usually brimming with crowds. But earlier this week, as the United Kingdom warned that more outbreaks of the coronavirus epidemic were inevitable, the once-reliable mix of tourists and city residents strolling through Gerrard Steet had been largely replaced by an empty corridor of Asian restaurants. The business owners I spoke to said it had been roughly six weeks of more of the same hushed scene.
“A London man put his leg out to stop and ask me, ‘Do you like Chinese bat soup?'”
Ahead of the BBC’s special on the virus this week, Sam Phan had hoped that xenophobia toward Britain’s Asian population would get a rare moment in the national spotlight.
It’s a critical issue for the 23-year-old University of Manchester graduate student, who last month penned a Guardian op-ed detailing the hostile environment the virus has created for him and other Asians living in the United Kingdom. It was also one of immediate concern when we spoke on Monday after Phan said that he had just been targeted by another round of coronavirus-related racial abuse while riding the train from London to Birmingham last weekend.
“I was making my way through a busy train when a man suddenly lifted his arm at me and said, ‘Don’t give the coronavirus,'” Phan, a British citizen who was born in Vietnam, told me. “Literally two minutes before that even happened, a London man put his leg out to stop and ask me, “Do you like Chinese bat soup?”
But with a tight, 30-minute time frame dedicated to more pressing public health concerns, racism in light of the coronavirus was ultimately left out of Monday’s panel discussion. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who appeared on the BBC special without addressing the rise in racist attacks, failed to do so again during his emergency press conference Tuesday.
The lack of official condemnation is likely to come as a missed opportunity for many Asians living in the UK—a group that in 2017 reported the country’s highest level of racial harassment—not just to address the current surge in discrimination, but also tackle what both anecdotal evidence and research have long described as a serious but hidden and underreported problem in British society, especially for the UK’s Chinese population.
Curious about the role of xenophobia playing out in London’s Chinatown, I ventured to the neighborhood in hopes to chat with business owners about business in the time of coronavirus. But the restaurant and shop owners I spoke to were largely reluctant, even frustrated, to speak about the coronavirus’s effect on the neighborhood out of concern that increased media attention has only exasperated the situation, and thus their profit margins. Some blamed the weather and post-holiday shopping season for the dip in foot traffic. As for whether racism was playing a role in people’s fears, the people I spoke to were quick to deny that it had been a factor.
The hesitation to call out racism isn’t exactly surprising. It’s a common reaction from business owners to deny that social factors have an effect on their business, for fear of actually encouraging that line of thinking. In the case of the Chinese community in the UK, a study found that the community is prone to underreporting incidents of racially motivated attacks because of a significant lack of confidence in the police.
“The guy who tried to kick me then said, ‘I don’t want your coronavirus in my country.'”
But that may no longer be a tenable response, particularly as more people go public with allegations of assault amid the coronavirus epidemic. The newest one to grab widespread media attention both in the UK and abroad emerged on Tuesday when a 23-year-old Singaporean student studying in London posted a graphic image of his alleged attack on Facebook.
“All of a sudden, the first punch was swung at my face and took me by surprise,” Mok wrote. “When I was still shocked by the first hit, the guy delivered the second sucker punch…The guy who tried to kick me then said, ‘I don’t want your coronavirus in my country,’ before swinging another sucker punch at me, which resulted in my face exploding with blood.”
“I’ve studied in London for the past 2 years and every year, I am subjected to racist remarks (whether innocent or made with malice). To those people who told me London isn’t racist, think again.”
“In Britain, we like to say that racism is an American thing,” Phan said. “But I feel like there are a lot of things that we need to have more conversations around now, especially the racism that happens toward East Asians and bring it into the spotlight.”


motherjones--2020-03-04--Here’s Why Texans Had to Wait Six Hours to Vote

At 1:30 a.m on Wednesday morning , Hervis Rogers was the last person to cast a ballot at a polling place on the campus of Texas Southern University , a historically black college in Houston .
By that time the polls had long been officially closed and the state ’ s Democratic primary had already been called for Joe Biden .
Rogers had waited six hours and twenty minutes to vote .
“ I wanted to get my vote in , voice my opinion , ” he told ABC13 in Houston .
“ I wasn ’ t going to let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it out.
” There were similar reports of long lines in heavily Democratic cities across the state , including Austin , Dallas , and San Antonio .
While voters in California also faced delays due to a shortage of polling locations and problems with new voting technology , the longest waits took place in Texas , particularly in Houston ’ s Harris County , where the population is 43 percent Latino and 19 percent black .
Local election officials seemed unprepared for the high turnout , which was up 40 percent in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There were only six poll workers at the Texas Southern location , according to NBC News , where 10,000 students are enrolled .
And the polling site had only 10 voting machines , which were twenty years old .
Five of them broke down for part of the night , exacerbating the long lines .
With many local races , Texas voters faced a very long ballot that took a long time to fill out .
Texas ’ troubles weren ’ t just a case of bureaucratic incompetence or aging election infrastructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ design .
As my colleague Sam Van Pykeren noted last night , from 2012 to 2018 , Texas counties shuttered 750 polling places—more than any other state .
The closures disproportionately harmed Democratic and minority voters .
“ The 50 counties that gained the most Black and Latinx residents between 2012 and 2018 closed 542 polling sites , compared to just 34 closures in the 50 counties that have gained the fewest black and Latinx residents , ” according to a recent analysis in The Guardian .
Texas was allowed to close these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act that enabled states with a long history of voting discrimination like Texas to take such actions without federal approval .
All together , states previously subject to such supervision have shut down 1,688 polling locations from 2012 to 2018 , according to a report by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights .
Harris County closed 52 polling places during that time , the third most in Texas .
Many of these closures occurred because the county adopted so-called vote centers , that allow voters to cast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than be assigned to a specific polling place .
While the change is supposed to make voting more convenient , it has meant fewer polling places in cities across the state .
On Tuesday , virtually every Democratic polling location in Harris County reported a long wait at peak hours of the afternoon and early evening .
Long lines hurt some communities more than others .
“ In predominantly minority communities , the lines are about twice as long as in predominantly white ones , ” the New York Times reported in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ And minority voters are six times as likely as whites to wait longer than an hour to vote.
” With Texas emerging as a potential swing state in November , the long lines in minority and Democratic areas could be even longer in the general election .
As Texas Democratic State Senator Carol Alvarado , who represents part of Harris County , tweeted Tuesday night : “ Changes have to be made for the big one in November.
” Listen to MoJo reporters Tim Murphy and Fernanda Echavarri share their reporting about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s long fight , and the knockdown fight for delegates to come , on this special Super Tuesday edition of the Mother Jones Podcast :

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
At 1:30 a.m on Wednesday morning, Hervis Rogers was the last person to cast a ballot at a polling place on the campus of Texas Southern University, a historically black college in Houston. By that time the polls had long been officially closed and the state’s Democratic primary had already been called for Joe Biden. Rogers had waited six hours and twenty minutes to vote.
“I wanted to get my vote in, voice my opinion,” he told ABC13 in Houston. “I wasn’t going to let anything stop me, so I waited it out.”
Six hours and 20 minutes, to be exact. #HarrisVotes https://t.co/4Lrt29aTtZ — Courtney Fischer (@CourtneyABC13) March 4, 2020
There were similar reports of long lines in heavily Democratic cities across the state, including Austin, Dallas, and San Antonio. While voters in California also faced delays due to a shortage of polling locations and problems with new voting technology, the longest waits took place in Texas, particularly in Houston’s Harris County, where the population is 43 percent Latino and 19 percent black.
"There's thousands of us and we've been sitting out here for five hours"@GarrettHaake chats with Texas voter caught in long lines at polls on #SuperTuesday pic.twitter.com/jV9JPFl5X7 — MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 4, 2020
Local election officials seemed unprepared for the high turnout, which was up 40 percent in the county compared to the 2016 Democratic primary. There were only six poll workers at the Texas Southern location, according to NBC News, where 10,000 students are enrolled. And the polling site had only 10 voting machines, which were twenty years old. Five of them broke down for part of the night, exacerbating the long lines. With many local races, Texas voters faced a very long ballot that took a long time to fill out.
This is INSANE. These people have been waiting in line to vote for five hours at TSU. Polls closed 4.5 hours ago. pic.twitter.com/PLEJxixini — Garrett Haake (@GarrettHaake) March 4, 2020
Texas’ troubles weren’t just a case of bureaucratic incompetence or aging election infrastructure: The long lines were also by design. As my colleague Sam Van Pykeren noted last night, from 2012 to 2018, Texas counties shuttered 750 polling places—more than any other state. The closures disproportionately harmed Democratic and minority voters. “The 50 counties that gained the most Black and Latinx residents between 2012 and 2018 closed 542 polling sites, compared to just 34 closures in the 50 counties that have gained the fewest black and Latinx residents,” according to a recent analysis in The Guardian.
Texas was allowed to close these polling places because of a 2013 Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act that enabled states with a long history of voting discrimination like Texas to take such actions without federal approval. All together, states previously subject to such supervision have shut down 1,688 polling locations from 2012 to 2018, according to a report by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Harris County closed 52 polling places during that time, the third most in Texas. Afterwards, the county adopted so-called vote centers that allow voters to cast a ballot at any location, rather than be assigned to a specific polling place. While the change is supposed to make voting more convenient, it has meant fewer polling places in cities across the state. On Tuesday, virtually every Democratic polling location in Harris County reported a long wait at peak hours of the afternoon and early evening.
Look at wait times in Democratic polling locations (on left) in Houston vs Republican ones (on right). Virtually every Dem location has a long wait but almost no Republican ones do pic.twitter.com/4CUFqaOcyu — Ari Berman (@AriBerman) March 3, 2020
Long lines hurt some communities more than others. “In predominantly minority communities, the lines are about twice as long as in predominantly white ones,” the New York Times reported in 2016, citing research from Harvard University. “And minority voters are six times as likely as whites to wait longer than an hour to vote.”
With Texas emerging as a potential swing state in November, the long lines in minority and Democratic areas could be even longer in the general election. As Texas Democratic State Senator Carol Alvarado, who represents part of Harris County, tweeted Tuesday night: “Changes have to be made for the big one in November.”
Listen to MoJo reporters Tim Murphy and Fernanda Echavarri share their reporting about Biden’s big night, Bernie’s long fight, and the knockdown fight for delegates to come, on this special Super Tuesday edition of the Mother Jones Podcast:
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
Correction: This post originally misspelled Purvis’ name, and has been updated to clarify when Harris County adopted voting centers.