motherjones--2020-02-27--Hello, Fellow Olds: Meet Bernie Sanders’ Elderly Fans

At a Bernie Sanders rally in Myrtle Beach , South Carolina , on Wednesday afternoon , I met George Rollins and Bryan Hill , best friends who grew up in Lake City , a town an hour west of the convention center where the event was held .
Both had retired from working as schoolteachers in South Carolina public schools—Rollins taught first grade , Hill taught high school civics—and are enjoying the good benefits that can come after a long career in the public sector .
“ The thing is , we ’ re doing just fine , ” Rollins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ But too many people have this attitude , ‘ I got mine , but to hell with you.
’ ” It ’ s a common sentiment among older voters who ’ ve told me they ’ re supporting Sanders , not because he ’ ll improve their lives , but because they think he has a vision for those who are younger and struggling .
Polling suggests Sanders is underperforming among South Carolina ’ s older voters .
An NBC News/Marist survey released earlier this week showed Joe Biden crushing Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally captured a neck and neck race between those two candidates , it found 36 percent of “ baby boomers ” ages 55 to 73 , and 40 percent of those over 73 , favoring the former vice president .
Sanders , meanwhile , only got 12 and 8 percent of their support , respectively .
Myrtle Beach could be seen as a unfriendly ground for Sanders to stump in the last days before Saturday ’ s South Carolina primary .
Behind Florida , the state has the oldest population in the South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasing popularity among retirees , with the seafront city boasting an even greater concentration than average .
When I text Laurin Gandy , a longtime South Carolina Democratic operative for her take on the area , she responds with a series of old person emojis .
But nearby Coastal Carolina University supplies a fair number of young people , and other residents are concerned about what coastal flooding could mean for their beach community .
But for every young person rocking Bernie swag or a South Carolina Conservation Votes shirt at the rally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often donning the retiree uniform of windbreaker , khaki pants , and slip-on leather shoe .
( To be fair , the rally was at 3 in the afternoon on a workday . )
The Sanders campaign tacitly acknowledged its shortcomings with aging voters last Thursday when it announced that Dick Van Dyke , the 1960s-era sitcom star and music man of Mary Poppins fame , had endorsed Sanders .
In an accompanying video , the nonagenarian showman puckishly tells viewers that “ somebody younger , like Bernie ” is a “ perfect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election since the end of World War II ” as he extols Sanders ’ support for universal health care and democratic reforms .
“ I can ’ t understand why , according to the polls , he ’ s having problems with older citizens like me , ” Van Dyke says .
“ Why wouldn ’ t an older citizen vote for somebody with that kind of a record , and with that kind of experience and honesty ?
” Pundits answer Van Dyke ’ s question by suggesting Sanders ’ bold positions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more moderate—specifically his support for a Medicare for All system that could upend the health care plans retirees now rely on .
Indeed , some older voters who had come to see Sanders said they probably won ’ t vote him because of his single-payer vision .
“ I want everyone to have insurance , but I want people to be able to keep their own , ” Peggy Jeffries tells me .
She hasn ’ t yet decided who she ’ ll vote for , but is leaning to Biden .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than I am , but I ’ m really afraid of picking someone too liberal.
” But a number of older people I spoke with said Sanders ’ plan didn ’ t concern them , or that they support him despite it .
Scott Edwards , a retired ophthalmologist who lives part-time in South Carolina , said he likes the idea of people being able to keep their current insurance and thinks that even under Sanders ’ proposal , people should pay for health care on a sliding scale .
But he thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views his emphasis on the topic as a guarantee that health care would be the top cause of his administration .
Others cited concerns about the next generation and those who don ’ t have it as good as they do .
“ He clearly understands minorities , women , ” Hill tells me .
“ He talks about equality in all aspects of life—equal pay , justice for the young black men.
” Among the biggest applause lines of Sanders ’ stump in Myrtle Beach was one that admonished the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unions .
“ I like unions !
” Sanders yelled as the crowd cheered .
And for Mary Eaton , a retired bankteller who made “ less than 15 dollars an hour ” during her 46 years on the job , she feels his platform would correct wrongs she faced in her working life .
“ I just love him , ” Eaton says about Sanders , clutching her hand to her heart .
“ He stands for all of us common people .
And I really think he can do something for @ @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
At a Bernie Sanders rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on Wednesday afternoon, I met George Rollins and Bryan Hill, best friends who grew up in Lake City, a town an hour west of the convention center where the event was held. Both had retired from working as schoolteachers in South Carolina public schools—Rollins taught first grade, Hill taught high school civics—and are enjoying the good benefits that can come after a long career in the public sector.
“The thing is, we’re doing just fine,” Rollins said in a gravely South Carolina drawl. “But too many people have this attitude, ‘I got mine, but to hell with you.’”
It’s a common sentiment among older voters who’ve told me they’re supporting Sanders, not because he’ll improve their lives, but because they think he has a vision for those who are younger and struggling.
“Why wouldn’t an older citizen vote for somebody with that kind of a record?”
Polling suggests Sanders is underperforming among South Carolina’s older voters. An NBC News/Marist survey released earlier this week showed Joe Biden crushing Sanders across the demographic. While that poll generally captured a neck and neck race between those two candidates, it found 36 percent of “baby boomers” ages 55 to 73, and 40 percent of those over 73, favoring the former vice president. Sanders, meanwhile, only got 12 and 8 percent of their support, respectively.
Myrtle Beach could be seen as a unfriendly ground for Sanders to stump in the last days before Saturday’s South Carolina primary. Behind Florida, the state has the oldest population in the South, a trend-line growing thanks to its increasing popularity among retirees, with the seafront city boasting an even greater concentration than average. When I text Laurin Gandy, a longtime South Carolina Democratic operative for her take on the area, she responds with a series of old person emojis.
But nearby Coastal Carolina University supplies a fair number of young people, and other residents are concerned about what coastal flooding could mean for their beach community. But for every young person rocking Bernie swag or a South Carolina Conservation Votes shirt at the rally, there was an older person, often donning the retiree uniform of windbreaker, khaki pants, and slip-on leather shoe. (To be fair, the rally was at 3 in the afternoon on a workday.)
The Sanders campaign tacitly acknowledged its shortcomings with aging voters last Thursday when it announced that Dick Van Dyke, the 1960s-era sitcom star and music man of Mary Poppins fame, had endorsed Sanders. In an accompanying video, the nonagenarian showman puckishly tells viewers that “somebody younger, like Bernie” is a “perfect candidate” for the “most important election since the end of World War II” as he extols Sanders’ support for universal health care and democratic reforms. “I can’t understand why, according to the polls, he’s having problems with older citizens like me,” Van Dyke says. “Why wouldn’t an older citizen vote for somebody with that kind of a record, and with that kind of experience and honesty?”
Pundits answer Van Dyke’s question by suggesting Sanders’ bold positions have alienated older voters—who tend to be more moderate—specifically his support for a Medicare for All system that could upend the health care plans retirees now rely on. Indeed, some older voters who had come to see Sanders said they probably won’t vote him because of his single-payer vision. “I want everyone to have insurance, but I want people to be able to keep their own,” Peggy Jeffries tells me. She hasn’t yet decided who she’ll vote for, but is leaning to Biden. “He’s so much more conservative than I am, but I’m really afraid of picking someone too liberal.”
But a number of older people I spoke with said Sanders’ plan didn’t concern them, or that they support him despite it. Scott Edwards, a retired ophthalmologist who lives part-time in South Carolina, said he likes the idea of people being able to keep their current insurance and thinks that even under Sanders’ proposal, people should pay for health care on a sliding scale. But he thinks the Vermont senator is sincere, and views his emphasis on the topic as a guarantee that health care would be the top cause of his administration.
Others cited concerns about the next generation and those who don’t have it as good as they do. “He clearly understands minorities, women,” Hill tells me. “He talks about equality in all aspects of life—equal pay, justice for the young black men.”
Among the biggest applause lines of Sanders’ stump in Myrtle Beach was one that admonished the state’s Republican governor and legislature for disempowering unions. “I like unions!” Sanders yelled as the crowd cheered. And for Mary Eaton, a retired bankteller who made “less than 15 dollars an hour” during her 46 years on the job, she feels his platform would correct wrongs she faced in her working life.
“I just love him,” Eaton says about Sanders, clutching her hand to her heart. “He stands for all of us common people. And I really think he can do something for all of us.”


motherjones--2020-02-27--Coronavirus Could Take a Bite Out of Trump’s Wallet

Coronavirus has already disrupted economies across Asia , tanked the US stock market , and taken a bite out of the earnings of the world ’ s wealthiest companies .
Soon , there might be another financial casualty of the pathogen : President Donald Trump ’ s pocketbook .
Since he took office , Trump ’ s personal income has increasingly relied on his travel and resort business .
That ’ s because he ’ s sold fewer condos , lost his product licensing deals , opened no major new properties , and no longer makes televisions shows .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president disclosed earning in 2018 , at least $ 336 million came from hotel management fees , his golf courses , or his Mar-a-Lago resort .
Still , his personal hospitality brand—which generates much of its income from properties that rely on globetrotting customers—was already showing signs of strain .
Now , with the international travel industry taking a hit from coronavirus , Trump ’ s properties could be in for hard times .
Coronavirus seems to have hit several of Trump ’ s known triggers—fears over the spread have rocked the stock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorite metrics for measuring the success of his economic policies .
And , of course , he ’ s a notorious germaphobe , who reacted to the threat of Ebola in 2014 by demanding that President Barack Obama issue strict travel bans : Six years later , these sorts of travel bans have been instituted in parts of Asia in an effort to combat coronavirus .
That , combined with quarantines and a general fear of travel , has quickly decimated Asia ’ s travel industry .
The Hyatt hotel chain , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China business is down 90 percent .
And by early February , the hotel market in New York City—where Trump still has one hotel , the Trump International Hotel and Tower—was feeling the loss of visitors from China , who had previously accounted for a growing percentage of the city ’ s tourists .
The Trump Organization—which , as a private business , reveals little public information about its actual profits—did not respond to requests for comment .
But there have been indications over the past few years that Trump ’ s hospitality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in New York City , for example , has reportedly experienced declines in profitability since Trump became president , with one of the few upswings coming in part due to a large booking by the entourage of the Saudi Arabian crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman .
Jan A .
De Roos , a professor emeritus of hotel finance and real estate at Cornell University , says that coronavirus fears and travel restrictions have seriously affected hotels around the country .
So far , he says , that has mainly impacted mid-range and lower-end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher-end hotels , like Trump ’ s string of properties , generally require fairly high occupancy rates just to break even .
Given the signs that some of Trump ’ s properties were already struggling , De Roos says it wouldn ’ t take much for coronavirus to hurt Trump more than most .
Most of the hotels with Trump ’ s name on them aren ’ t actually owned by Trump .
Typically , the Trump Organization has a management deal in which it is paid to run the day-to-day business of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president gets a cut of the profits at each location .
In 2018 , Trump earned about $ 5.8 million from these arrangements .
But many of the hotels are in parts of the world likely to be hit hard—or already being hit hard—by the virus .
For starters , there are two Trump-branded resorts in Indonesia that have yet to open ; they could be seriously affected if the Asian travel market stays moribund as they finish construction .
The Vancouver market , where Trump manages a branded hotel , was badly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and local industry experts are bracing for a similar downturn this time .
Trump ’ s biggest management fee was earned through a deal with the owners of a Trump-branded property in Hawaii , a tourism mecca entirely reliant on air travel .
His second biggest earner is his Chicago hotel , which has reportedly seen profits fall by 89 percent since Trump took office—a precipitous decline even before a potential coronavirus-related drop in business hits .
The most prominent hotel in Trump ’ s stable is arguably his luxury hotel in downtown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House .
It has become a clubhouse of sorts for Republican Party bigwigs and presidential supplicants hoping to impress the Trump by booking rooms .
De Roos says the DC property could be more or less immune from a coronavirus-inspired downturn because it appears to get so much of its business from political acolytes and interest groups trying to lobby for the president ’ s affection .
“ I think the saving grace…is the Old Post Office hotel , ” De Roos says .
“ It ’ s basically become known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But , even with all that political patronage , Trump ’ s DC hotel , which the president owns outright , may be struggling in other ways .
Last year , it generated $ 40.8 million in revenue , but under a lease agreement with the US government , which owns the physical building , the president is supposed to be paying a share of profits—if there are any—to the feds .
He doesn ’ t appear to have made any such payments .
And this past fall , the Trump family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotel , suggesting that all is not well .
In a package of promotional material prepared by a real estate firm hired by the Trump family , the hotel ’ s occupancy rate was listed at about 57 percent—significantly lower than competing hotels , and lower than what De Roos estimates the property would likely need in order to be profitable .
“ Four- or five-star hotels need to be at about 60 percent , ” he says .
“ Once you go below a certain level of occupancy , things get bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start to shedding staff fast.
” Another hotel property directly owned by Trump ( together with investor Phil Ruffin ) is his Las Vegas tower .
It generated $ 22.5 million for Trump last year , but it could be vulnerable to potential a decline in the trade expo business , which draws millions to Vegas each year .
The trade expo market has already been devastated in Asia , as corporations have begun rethinking whether to send employees to attend conventions in the wake of the outbreak .
It ’ s unclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s revenues at his Mar-a-Lago resort , which totaled roughly $ 22.7 million last year .
It ’ s a members-only club , but many members aren ’ t local and travel to Florida from elsewhere in the winter months .
Since he was elected , the club has hosted numerous political events and has become a magnet for overseas tourists hoping to get access to the president—in fact , several schemes to sell trips and access to the president at Mar-a-Lago have targeted Chinese citizens .
` Trump ’ s golf courses—especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if coronavirus continues to spread .
Last fall , Trump tried to pitch his golf resort in Doral , Florida , as a potential meeting site for the 2020 G-7 summit for world leaders—a plan that was ultimately scuttled after a bipartisan outcry .
It ’ s not clear how much of its usual clientele is international , but the course seemed to be struggling even before coronavirus .
( In the past , the company has blamed the course ’ s problems on the impact of the Zika virus and hurricanes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the British Isles , all of which are primarily marketed to international customers .
A large portion of the international players at courses in Scotland and Ireland are American , says Gordon Dalgleish , president of Perry Golf , which arranges golf tours , including to the Trump-owned courses .
That means there hasn ’ t been a major decline in business due to coronavirus , he says .
At least not yet .
“ At the premium properties , like St. Andrews , Gleneagles , or [ Trump-owned ] Turnberry , north @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming form the United States , ” Dalgleish says .
“ If you sat in the lobby , you ’ d hear a lot of American accents.
” The exclusivity of the courses Trump owns in the British Isles could help them avoid some of the initial shocks of a broader outbreak , Dalgleish says , because trips to play them are typically “ bucket list ” trips that customers would be reluctant to cancel .
Moreover , he says , the major travel season at these resorts doesn ’ t until late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared in Europe and is disrupting travel in Italy and Spain—spreads more widely , things could get bad there for Trump .
“ It ’ s the elephant in the room , who knows where it all plays out ?
” Dalgleish says .
“ If you ’ re in the tourism sector anywhere in the world , you ’ d be foolish to not be concerned about what happens next .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Coronavirus has already disrupted economies across Asia, tanked the US stock market, and taken a bite out of the earnings of the world’s wealthiest companies. Soon, there might be another financial casualty of the pathogen: President Donald Trump’s pocketbook.
Since he took office, Trump’s personal income has increasingly relied on his travel and resort business. That’s because he’s sold fewer condos, lost his product licensing deals, opened no major new properties, and no longer makes televisions shows. Of the $434 million in revenue the president disclosed earning in 2018, at least $336 million came from hotel management fees, his golf courses, or his Mar-a-Lago resort. Still, his personal hospitality brand—which generates much of its income from properties that rely on globetrotting customers—was already showing signs of strain. Now, with the international travel industry taking a hit from coronavirus, Trump’s properties could be in for hard times.
Coronavirus seems to have hit several of Trump’s known triggers—fears over the spread have rocked the stock market, which is one of his favorite metrics for measuring the success of his economic policies. And, of course, he’s a notorious germaphobe, who reacted to the threat of Ebola in 2014 by demanding that President Barack Obama issue strict travel bans:
Despite the ever increasing Ebola disaster, Obama refuses to stop flights from West Africa.It's almost like he's saying F-you to U.S. public — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2014
President Obama – close down the flights from Ebola infected areas right now, before it is too late! What the hell is wrong with you? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2014
Six years later, these sorts of travel bans have been instituted in parts of Asia in an effort to combat coronavirus. That, combined with quarantines and a general fear of travel, has quickly decimated Asia’s travel industry. The Hyatt hotel chain, for instance, reported last week that its China business is down 90 percent. And by early February, the hotel market in New York City—where Trump still has one hotel, the Trump International Hotel and Tower—was feeling the loss of visitors from China, who had previously accounted for a growing percentage of the city’s tourists.
The Trump Organization—which, as a private business, reveals little public information about its actual profits—did not respond to requests for comment. But there have been indications over the past few years that Trump’s hospitality business is facing challenges. That hotel in New York City, for example, has reportedly experienced declines in profitability since Trump became president, with one of the few upswings coming in part due to a large booking by the entourage of the Saudi Arabian crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman.
Jan A. De Roos, a professor emeritus of hotel finance and real estate at Cornell University, says that coronavirus fears and travel restrictions have seriously affected hotels around the country. So far, he says, that has mainly impacted mid-range and lower-end hotels. But, he adds, higher-end hotels, like Trump’s string of properties, generally require fairly high occupancy rates just to break even. Given the signs that some of Trump’s properties were already struggling, De Roos says it wouldn’t take much for coronavirus to hurt Trump more than most.
Most of the hotels with Trump’s name on them aren’t actually owned by Trump. Typically, the Trump Organization has a management deal in which it is paid to run the day-to-day business of the hotel. In return, the president gets a cut of the profits at each location.
In 2018, Trump earned about $5.8 million from these arrangements. But many of the hotels are in parts of the world likely to be hit hard—or already being hit hard—by the virus. For starters, there are two Trump-branded resorts in Indonesia that have yet to open; they could be seriously affected if the Asian travel market stays moribund as they finish construction. The Vancouver market, where Trump manages a branded hotel, was badly shaken by the 2003 SARS outbreak, and local industry experts are bracing for a similar downturn this time. Trump’s biggest management fee was earned through a deal with the owners of a Trump-branded property in Hawaii, a tourism mecca entirely reliant on air travel. His second biggest earner is his Chicago hotel, which has reportedly seen profits fall by 89 percent since Trump took office—a precipitous decline even before a potential coronavirus-related drop in business hits.
The most prominent hotel in Trump’s stable is arguably his luxury hotel in downtown Washington, D.C., just blocks from the White House. It has become a clubhouse of sorts for Republican Party bigwigs and presidential supplicants hoping to impress the Trump by booking rooms.
De Roos says the DC property could be more or less immune from a coronavirus-inspired downturn because it appears to get so much of its business from political acolytes and interest groups trying to lobby for the president’s affection. “I think the saving grace…is the Old Post Office hotel,” De Roos says. “It’s basically become known as a power place to hang out.”
But, even with all that political patronage, Trump’s DC hotel, which the president owns outright, may be struggling in other ways. Last year, it generated $40.8 million in revenue, but under a lease agreement with the US government, which owns the physical building, the president is supposed to be paying a share of profits—if there are any—to the feds. He doesn’t appear to have made any such payments. And this past fall, the Trump family announced plans to try to sell the hotel, suggesting that all is not well.
In a package of promotional material prepared by a real estate firm hired by the Trump family, the hotel’s occupancy rate was listed at about 57 percent—significantly lower than competing hotels, and lower than what De Roos estimates the property would likely need in order to be profitable.
“Four- or five-star hotels need to be at about 60 percent,” he says. “Once you go below a certain level of occupancy, things get bad really fast, and you have to start to shedding staff fast.”
Another hotel property directly owned by Trump (together with investor Phil Ruffin) is his Las Vegas tower. It generated $22.5 million for Trump last year, but it could be vulnerable to potential a decline in the trade expo business, which draws millions to Vegas each year. The trade expo market has already been devastated in Asia, as corporations have begun rethinking whether to send employees to attend conventions in the wake of the outbreak.
It’s unclear how the coronavirus would affect Trump’s revenues at his Mar-a-Lago resort, which totaled roughly $22.7 million last year. It’s a members-only club, but many members aren’t local and travel to Florida from elsewhere in the winter months. Since he was elected, the club has hosted numerous political events and has become a magnet for overseas tourists hoping to get access to the president—in fact, several schemes to sell trips and access to the president at Mar-a-Lago have targeted Chinese citizens.
`Trump’s golf courses—especially those marketed as international destinations—could also suffer if coronavirus continues to spread. Last fall, Trump tried to pitch his golf resort in Doral, Florida, as a potential meeting site for the 2020 G-7 summit for world leaders—a plan that was ultimately scuttled after a bipartisan outcry. It’s not clear how much of its usual clientele is international, but the course seemed to be struggling even before coronavirus. (In the past, the company has blamed the course’s problems on the impact of the Zika virus and hurricanes.)
Trump has three golf courses in the British Isles, all of which are primarily marketed to international customers. A large portion of the international players at courses in Scotland and Ireland are American, says Gordon Dalgleish, president of Perry Golf, which arranges golf tours, including to the Trump-owned courses. That means there hasn’t been a major decline in business due to coronavirus, he says. At least not yet.
“At the premium properties, like St. Andrews, Gleneagles, or [Trump-owned] Turnberry, north of 50 percent of their traffic is coming form the United States,” Dalgleish says. “If you sat in the lobby, you’d hear a lot of American accents.”
The exclusivity of the courses Trump owns in the British Isles could help them avoid some of the initial shocks of a broader outbreak, Dalgleish says, because trips to play them are typically “bucket list” trips that customers would be reluctant to cancel. Moreover, he says, the major travel season at these resorts doesn’t until late April. But if coronavirus—which has already appeared in Europe and is disrupting travel in Italy and Spain—spreads more widely, things could get bad there for Trump.
“It’s the elephant in the room, who knows where it all plays out?” Dalgleish says. “If you’re in the tourism sector anywhere in the world, you’d be foolish to not be concerned about what happens next.”


motherjones--2020-02-27--Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Have a Plan to Get Rid of the Filibuster

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has fought his way to the front of the Democratic race for president by promising bold changes that would profoundly reshape the country .
But he ’ s been cool to at least one fundamental reform long pushed by other Democrats : eliminating the filibuster .
After progressives have watched their priorities , including a swath of legislation pushed in the Obama administration , fail in the Senate at the hands of its arcane and anti-majoritarian 60-vote threshold for passing legislation , many voters and some of his opponents have scratched their heads at Sanders ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg have challenged Sanders on the issue , including on Tuesday night ’ s debate stage .
“ The filibuster is giving a veto to the gun industry , ” Warren said at the event .
“ It gives a veto to the oil industry .
It ’ s going to give a veto on immigration.
” She continued , referring to Sanders , that “ many people on this stage do not support rolling back the filibuster .
Until we ’ re ready to do that , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg piled on , making an incisive point about how the filibuster has been used as a tool to extend minority control : “ How are we going to support a revolution if you won ’ t even support a rule change ?
” he said .
“ We are in the state where Strom Thurmond used the filibuster to block civil rights legislation repeatedly.
” Sanders , facing attacks on multiple fronts in a chaotic and messy debate , didn ’ t answer these critiques .
But afterwards , Mother Jones asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to explain the frontrunner ’ s position .
Weaver tried to brush off the entire discussion , as a Senate parliamentarian might say , as not germane to the presidential election .
“ Last time I knew , the president had no control over who controlled the filibuster .
That ’ s controlled by the leadership of the United States Senate , ” he said .
Instead of “ having an academic argument about the filibuster when the Senate is going to decide that , in a presidential campaign let ’ s talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do.
” Sanders ’ campaign touts his ability to deliver a political revolution , one where a wave of young voters and disaffected citizens sweep him into the White House with the momentum and energy to push major reforms like universal healthcare and a Green New Deal through a reticent Congress and onto Sanders ’ Oval Office desk .
To admit that the filibuster needs to go in order to do so acknowledges the limits of this premise .
But voters who are doubtful about the power of his promised revolution want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major reforms when Obama , who came to office with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress , was quickly bogged down in negotiations and only managed to pass a watered-down version of his health care law through Congress by the barest margins .
On Monday , a 69-year-old voter named Maurice told me while attending a Buttigieg event in North Charleston that he was interested in learning how the candidates would “ take control of Congress ” to pass legislation .
“ I know about his type of politics , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who didn ’ t want his last name used , said he worried that the senator didn ’ t seem to have a plan for getting past Congress ’ roadblocks .
Despite brushing off the question of ending the filibuster , Sanders has acknowledged that it could be an obstacle to passing his agenda by offering a route around it—though its one that few voters have heard , and perhaps even fewer would understand .
While Weaver expressed a degree of deference to the body ’ s autonomy from the executive branch , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate is very protective of its prerogatives , ” he outlined a plan that would constitute in many ways a more radical hijacking of the upper chamber .
Over the past year , Sanders has indicated that Medicare-for-All and other major reforms could be passed through a process known as budget reconciliation , which allows senators to approve legislation with a simple majority .
But budget reconciliation , a process created by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to smooth out wrinkles in Congress ’ appropriations process , has serious limitations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ major legislation , including key reforms to Obama ’ s Affordable Care Act , under current rules the Senate parliamentarian is charged with advising the presiding officer of the Senate—that is , the vice president—if a bill meets the qualifications for this special process .
Sanders ’ plan is to simply have his vice president ignore contrary advice from the Senate parliamentarian and allow passage of any bill with 50 or more votes .
“ A lot of legislation has been passed under budget reconciliation rules and I think that will come into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ He has said the 60 vote threshold will not be a barrier with his vice president sitting in the chair.
” While the solution might technically mean that the president wouldn ’ t have to push for any changes to Senate rules , it would constitute the executive branch directly overruling the parliamentarian ’ s rulings which are the outcome of those rules , turning governing into a process of navigating hard-to-understand rules and then having an administration ignore their result .
“ This would represent a tremendous escalation of partisanship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control over the Senate , ” Gregory Koger , a political scientist at the University of Miami , told Vox last year .
For a candidate who has called for reimposing the separation of powers on an executive branch that , particularly under Donald Trump , has pushed to exercise those powers in unprecedented ways , Sanders ’ proposal seems to run contrary to such rhetoric .
It remains one that his opponents continue to press him on—and that voters do not fully understand .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has fought his way to the front of the Democratic race for president by promising bold changes that would profoundly reshape the country. But he’s been cool to at least one fundamental reform long pushed by other Democrats: eliminating the filibuster.
After progressives have watched their priorities, including a swath of legislation pushed in the Obama administration, fail in the Senate at the hands of its arcane and anti-majoritarian 60-vote threshold for passing legislation, many voters and some of his opponents have scratched their heads at Sanders’ reticence. In South Carolina, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg have challenged Sanders on the issue, including on Tuesday night’s debate stage.
To admit that the filibuster needs to go acknowledges the limits of Sanders’ revolution.
“The filibuster is giving a veto to the gun industry,” Warren said at the event. “It gives a veto to the oil industry. It’s going to give a veto on immigration.” She continued, referring to Sanders, that “many people on this stage do not support rolling back the filibuster. Until we’re ready to do that, we can’t have real change.”
Buttigieg piled on, making an incisive point about how the filibuster has been used as a tool to extend minority control: “How are we going to support a revolution if you won’t even support a rule change?” he said. “We are in the state where Strom Thurmond used the filibuster to block civil rights legislation repeatedly.”
Sanders, facing attacks on multiple fronts in a chaotic and messy debate, didn’t answer these critiques. But afterwards, Mother Jones asked his longtime adviser, Jeff Weaver, to explain the frontrunner’s position. Weaver tried to brush off the entire discussion, as a Senate parliamentarian might say, as not germane to the presidential election. “Last time I knew, the president had no control over who controlled the filibuster. That’s controlled by the leadership of the United States Senate,” he said. Instead of “having an academic argument about the filibuster when the Senate is going to decide that, in a presidential campaign let’s talk about the things the president is going to do.”
Sanders’ campaign touts his ability to deliver a political revolution, one where a wave of young voters and disaffected citizens sweep him into the White House with the momentum and energy to push major reforms like universal healthcare and a Green New Deal through a reticent Congress and onto Sanders’ Oval Office desk. To admit that the filibuster needs to go in order to do so acknowledges the limits of this premise. But voters who are doubtful about the power of his promised revolution want to hear how he plans to enact major reforms when Obama, who came to office with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, was quickly bogged down in negotiations and only managed to pass a watered-down version of his health care law through Congress by the barest margins.
On Monday, a 69-year-old voter named Maurice told me while attending a Buttigieg event in North Charleston that he was interested in learning how the candidates would “take control of Congress” to pass legislation. “I know about his type of politics,” he said of Sanders, but Maurice, who didn’t want his last name used, said he worried that the senator didn’t seem to have a plan for getting past Congress’ roadblocks.
“This would represent a tremendous escalation.”
Despite brushing off the question of ending the filibuster, Sanders has acknowledged that it could be an obstacle to passing his agenda by offering a route around it—though its one that few voters have heard, and perhaps even fewer would understand. While Weaver expressed a degree of deference to the body’s autonomy from the executive branch, saying “they are separate bodies and the Senate is very protective of its prerogatives,” he outlined a plan that would constitute in many ways a more radical hijacking of the upper chamber.
Over the past year, Sanders has indicated that Medicare-for-All and other major reforms could be passed through a process known as budget reconciliation, which allows senators to approve legislation with a simple majority. But budget reconciliation, a process created by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to smooth out wrinkles in Congress’ appropriations process, has serious limitations. Though it has been used to pass major legislation, including key reforms to Obama’s Affordable Care Act, under current rules the Senate parliamentarian is charged with advising the presiding officer of the Senate—that is, the vice president—if a bill meets the qualifications for this special process.
Sanders’ plan is to simply have his vice president ignore contrary advice from the Senate parliamentarian and allow passage of any bill with 50 or more votes. “A lot of legislation has been passed under budget reconciliation rules and I think that will come into play here again,” Weaver said. “He has said the 60 vote threshold will not be a barrier with his vice president sitting in the chair.”
While the solution might technically mean that the president wouldn’t have to push for any changes to Senate rules, it would constitute the executive branch directly overruling the parliamentarian’s rulings which are the outcome of those rules, turning governing into a process of navigating hard-to-understand rules and then having an administration ignore their result. “This would represent a tremendous escalation of partisanship in the Senate, and of presidential control over the Senate,” Gregory Koger, a political scientist at the University of Miami, told Vox last year.
For a candidate who has called for reimposing the separation of powers on an executive branch that, particularly under Donald Trump, has pushed to exercise those powers in unprecedented ways, Sanders’ proposal seems to run contrary to such rhetoric. It remains one that his opponents continue to press him on—and that voters do not fully understand.


motherjones--2020-02-27--Bill Barr Unloads a Wild Theory About Progressive Politics

To Attorney General Bill Barr , a large percentage of the American electorate amounts to nothing more than “ 25-year-olds living in the government ’ s basement , focusing [ their ] energies on obtaining a larger allowance rather than getting a job and moving out.
” The chief law enforcement officer of the United States railed against progressives in a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention on Wednesday , calling liberals “ militant and totalitarian.
” “ While they seek power through the democratic process , ” he said , “ their policy agenda has become more aggressively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The comment is reminiscent of former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney ’ s 2012 remarks that 47 percent of Americans have a sense of entitlement , are “ dependent upon government , ” and “ believe that they are victims.
” But Barr ’ s statements go even further .
Barr went on to quote Alexis de Tocqueville , who feared that American democracy would allow people to rely on the state to take care of them—a common but misguided belief about social welfare in general .
Barr then made the tenuous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a sort of despotism in its own right .
“ It would be totalitarianism beneath a veneer of democratic choice , ” he said .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
To Attorney General Bill Barr, a large percentage of the American electorate amounts to nothing more than “25-year-olds living in the government’s basement, focusing [their] energies on obtaining a larger allowance rather than getting a job and moving out.”
The chief law enforcement officer of the United States railed against progressives in a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention on Wednesday, calling liberals “militant and totalitarian.” “While they seek power through the democratic process,” he said, “their policy agenda has become more aggressively collectivist, socialist, and explicitly revolutionary.”
The comment is reminiscent of former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s 2012 remarks that 47 percent of Americans have a sense of entitlement, are “dependent upon government,” and “believe that they are victims.” But Barr’s statements go even further.
Barr went on to quote Alexis de Tocqueville, who feared that American democracy would allow people to rely on the state to take care of them—a common but misguided belief about social welfare in general. Barr then made the tenuous logical leap that dependence on the government is a sort of despotism in its own right.
“It would be totalitarianism beneath a veneer of democratic choice,” he said.
Watch the video below:


motherjones--2020-02-28--Medicare for All May Not Be the Poison Pill Biden and Buttigieg Are Banking on

South Carolinians who turned on the television this week likely watched a 30-second ad in which Pete Buttigieg explains that some of his opponents in the Democratic presidential primary “ say it ’ s Medicare for All or nothing.
” “ The choice should be yours , ” as it would be under his health care plan , Buttigieg says .
Those who logged into Facebook probably saw a digital ad from Joe Biden lashing out at fellow 2020 hopefuls who “ want to get rid of ” the Affordable Care Act and “ destroy Obama ’ s legacy ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Buttigieg are making , of course , is that Medicare for All , the government–run , single–payer health care plan favored by Bernie Sanders , is unpopular , and that the field ’ s moderates can siphon support from the current frontrunner by highlighting the differences in their plans .
But there ’ s a countervailing narrative emerging in the Palmetto State : Medicare for All may not be as unpopular among Democratic primary voters as Sanders ’ rivals bet .
In December , the left-leaning think tank Data for Progress asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether they would support “ a single , government-run plan ” with no premiums , co-pays , or deductibles—a proposal that tracks most closely with the plans put forward by Sanders and Warren .
Seventy-seven respondents said they would back such a plan , with 49 percent saying they would “ strongly ” support it and 28 percent saying they “ somewhat ” would .
The favorability was even higher among black respondents , who make up nearly two-thirds of South Carolina ’ s Democratic voting bloc ; eighty percent of them said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan .
The poll also found equally strong support for “ improving and expanding Medicare so it becomes the primary insurer for all Americans , ” which tracks most closely with what Buttigieg ’ s “ Medicare for All Who Want It Proposal.
” The takeaway was this : “ Medicare for All ” is not necessarily a poison pill .
The poll was commissioned by Medicare for All NOW , an advocacy group founded by former Cigna executive Wendell Potter .
His group has been operating an organizing campaign across South Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ educate voters—particularly black , rural voters—about a single–payer system in advance of Saturday ’ s primary .
But there ’ s reason to think that South Carolinians might be open to a heavier federal hand .
It is one of 14 states that refused to take advantage of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act , leaving a vast number of poor adults uninsured .
Lack of Medicaid funding correlates highly with the closing of rural hospitals ; at least four have shuttered in South Carolina since 2010 , the year the ACA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care mandate , those trends are likely to persist .
“ The black vote is largely taken for granted—that it will be Democratic and largely establishment , ” says Kerri Evelyn Harris , who lost a House primary in Delaware last year and now serves as Medicare for All NOW ’ s movement director .
“ And yet , when you show up and explain the implications of an election and what particular policies will mean to them and their community , they ’ re moved by that.
” The group has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been invited to black churches and community gatherings to talk about Medicare for All .
Elena Kershaw , who does organizing for the group in the Columbia area , says she ’ s spoken with older South Carolinians who support single–payer health care because under the current system , they have both Medicare or Medicaid coverage and are still paying out-of-pocket for many expenses .
“ And it ’ s about their children and children ’ s children , ” Kershaw adds .
There is , of course , always “ anecdata @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who does marketing for some of the health care providers in Greenville and attended Pete Buttigieg ’ s health equity roundtable with black community leaders in Greenville on Thursday , told me that “ people want to feel like that part of their life is under their control , “ she said .
“ I don ’ t know how receptive folks are to having their private plans taken away .
But affordability is really what it all comes down to—whatever saves people the most money.
” It ’ s unclear how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the health care plan he champions .
In some cases , it ’ s very much so : Nisi Moses , another Medicare for All NOW organizer from Florence , SC , told me she encountered a voter who didn ’ t want to learn more about Medicare for All because it ’ s so closely tied to Sanders .
In others , not so much : Melinda Williams , who canvassed for Sanders in Sumter , said she convinced a voter to move her vote from Biden to Sanders after she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All .
A retired doctor I met at a Sanders rally in Myrtle Beach told me he ’ s voting for Sanders even though he disagrees with Sanders ’ vision of “ free health care for everyone.
” The latest polls leading into Saturday ’ s contest suggest Sanders is less of a threat than was imagined after his victory in Nevada .
An NBC News/Marist poll conducted in the days leading up to Nevada had put Sanders just behind Biden among South Carolina voters , but the gap between them has widened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But no matter which way the polls go , there are signs that the health care industry is scared .
On Tuesday , South Carolinians started seeing advertisements warning them that a “ one-size fits all government health insurance system ” would “ double everyone ’ s income taxes ” and that they ’ d “ pay more to wait longer for worse care.
” The last-minute , $ 200,000 ad buy was placed by the Partnership for America ’ s Health Future , a consortium of pharmaceutical , hospital , and health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lose the most under a single–payer health care system .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
South Carolinians who turned on the television this week likely watched a 30-second ad in which Pete Buttigieg explains that some of his opponents in the Democratic presidential primary “say it’s Medicare for All or nothing.” “The choice should be yours,” as it would be under his health care plan, Buttigieg says. Those who logged into Facebook probably saw a digital ad from Joe Biden lashing out at fellow 2020 hopefuls who “want to get rid of” the Affordable Care Act and “destroy Obama’s legacy” in the process.
The wager Biden and Buttigieg are making, of course, is that Medicare for All, the government–run, single–payer health care plan favored by Bernie Sanders, is unpopular, and that the field’s moderates can siphon support from the current frontrunner by highlighting the differences in their plans. But there’s a countervailing narrative emerging in the Palmetto State: Medicare for All may not be as unpopular among Democratic primary voters as Sanders’ rivals bet.
In December, the left-leaning think tank Data for Progress asked 767 likely South Carolina Democratic primary voters whether they would support “a single, government-run plan” with no premiums, co-pays, or deductibles—a proposal that tracks most closely with the plans put forward by Sanders and Warren. Seventy-seven percent of respondents said they would back such a plan, with 49 percent saying they would “strongly” support it and 28 percent saying they “somewhat” would. The favorability was even higher among black respondents, who make up nearly two-thirds of South Carolina’s Democratic voting bloc; eighty percent of them said they would support a Medicare for All-type plan. The poll also found equally strong support for “improving and expanding Medicare so it becomes the primary insurer for all Americans,” which tracks most closely with what Buttigieg’s “Medicare for All Who Want It Proposal.” The takeaway was this: “Medicare for All” is not necessarily a poison pill.
The poll was commissioned by Medicare for All NOW, an advocacy group founded by former Cigna executive Wendell Potter. His group has been operating an organizing campaign across South Carolina since early February in an effort to educate voters—particularly black, rural voters—about a single–payer system in advance of Saturday’s primary.
But there’s reason to think that South Carolinians might be open to a heavier federal hand. It is one of 14 states that refused to take advantage of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, leaving a vast number of poor adults uninsured. Lack of Medicaid funding correlates highly with the closing of rural hospitals; at least four have shuttered in South Carolina since 2010, the year the ACA became law. Without a stronger federal health care mandate, those trends are likely to persist.
“The black vote is largely taken for granted—that it will be Democratic and largely establishment,” says Kerri Evelyn Harris, who lost a House primary in Delaware last year and now serves as Medicare for All NOW’s movement director. “And yet, when you show up and explain the implications of an election and what particular policies will mean to them and their community, they’re moved by that.”
The group has nine paid organizers on the ground and has been invited to black churches and community gatherings to talk about Medicare for All. Elena Kershaw, who does organizing for the group in the Columbia area, says she’s spoken with older South Carolinians who support single–payer health care because under the current system, they have both Medicare or Medicaid coverage and are still paying out-of-pocket for many expenses. “And it’s about their children and children’s children,” Kershaw adds.
There is, of course, always “anecdata” to the contrary. Stephanie Priester, who does marketing for some of the health care providers in Greenville and attended Pete Buttigieg’s health equity roundtable with black community leaders in Greenville on Thursday, told me that “people want to feel like that part of their life is under their control, “ she said. “I don’t know how receptive folks are to having their private plans taken away. But affordability is really what it all comes down to—whatever saves people the most money.”
It’s unclear how much voters in South Carolina associate Sanders with the health care plan he champions. In some cases, it’s very much so: Nisi Moses, another Medicare for All NOW organizer from Florence, SC, told me she encountered a voter who didn’t want to learn more about Medicare for All because it’s so closely tied to Sanders. In others, not so much: Melinda Williams, who canvassed for Sanders in Sumter, said she convinced a voter to move her vote from Biden to Sanders after she told a supporter Sanders backed Medicare for All. A retired doctor I met at a Sanders rally in Myrtle Beach told me he’s voting for Sanders even though he disagrees with Sanders’ vision of “free health care for everyone.”
The latest polls leading into Saturday’s contest suggest Sanders is less of a threat than was imagined after his victory in Nevada. An NBC News/Marist poll conducted in the days leading up to Nevada had put Sanders just behind Biden among South Carolina voters, but the gap between them has widened since Tuesday’s Democratic debate. But no matter which way the polls go, there are signs that the health care industry is scared. On Tuesday, South Carolinians started seeing advertisements warning them that a “one-size fits all government health insurance system” would “double everyone’s income taxes” and that they’d “pay more to wait longer for worse care.” The last-minute, $200,000 ad buy was placed by the Partnership for America’s Health Future, a consortium of pharmaceutical, hospital, and health insurance lobbyists, all of whom stand to lose the most under a single–payer health care system.


motherjones--2020-02-28--A Third of Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force Is at a Conservative Convention

On Wednesday night , President Trump announced that he was putting Vice President Mike Pence in charge of the White House coronavirus task force .
The next day , Pence got right to work—by heading to the Conservative Political Action Convention , a pro-Trump conservative confab outside Washington .
“ President Trump has no higher priority than the health , safety , and well-being of the American people , ” Pence told the MAGA hat-wearing crowd .
He touted Trump ’ s “ unprecedented actions ” to prevent the virus ’ spread in the United States , where the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He reassured the crowd , “ We are ready for anything.
” Four other task force members also had plenty of time in their schedules to address the event , along with a gaggle of high-level White House officials who have been on hand to feed red meat to some of Trump ’ s most loyal fans .
And if they ’ ve mentioned the virus at all , their message has been consistent : Don ’ t worry , be happy .
In the CPAC bubble , America is still the greatest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is strong , and everyone is winning again , and if the stock market suffered the biggest one-day loss since the financial crisis in 2008 because of the coronavirus , well , seize the moment to buy low .
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney went so far as to dismiss concerns over the epidemic as a media conspiracy conjured up to destroy Trump .
“ They think this will bring down the president , that ’ s what this is all about , ” Mulvaney told the CPAC crowd early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the event , Mulvaney hyped Trump ’ s “ extraordinary steps ” to halt the spread of the virus , notably banning noncitizens from entering the country from China .
And he downplayed the seriousness of the virus .
“ The flu kills people , ” he said .
“ This is not Ebola .
It ’ s not SARS , it ’ s not MERS .
It ’ s not a death sentence , it ’ s not the same as the Ebola crisis.
” Among the task force members at CPAC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the former Virginia attorney general known for being an immigration hardliner , who suggested that the virus might create the need for even harsher limits on who could enter the country .
He insisted that despite what you ’ ve heard from the media , Trump “ has been whipping us with wet noodles ” these past weeks to address the epidemic .
Panel moderator Deneen Borelli , a Fox News commentator , asked Cuccinelli whether it was important to secure to border to combat the spread of the virus because “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diseases.
” He said Immigration and Customs Enforcement had lots of experience with diseases at the border , including TB and measles .
But he said the scale of the coronavirus had the potential to be much bigger and might require even more drastic measures .
“ We do not have facilities that can quarantine tens , scores , hundreds of thousands of people , ” he said .
“ This creates a new wrinkle to the crisis .
We have to look at new ways to bar entry.
” Unlike the rosy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have put on the virus ’ threat to the United States , Cuccinelli was more measured in his assessment .
“ This is , to a certain extent , a math challenge , ” he said .
“ It is scary .
We do need to prepare as a society that this could get worse.
” But not to fear , he said , “ President Trump has made your safety and the safety of America the priority of his administration.
” Larry Kudlow , director of the White House National Economic Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more optimistic .
Speaking Friday on a panel with Ivanka Trump , he said , “ This will turn out to be a low-risk proposition , not a high-risk proposition .
The numbers so far are very low .
We ’ re in good shape .
It just goes to show you what a country with freedom can do even with public health .
That ’ s what makes us different .
We have the finest public health system in the world.
” Kudlow ticked off a number of rosy economic indicators—consumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveys were showing that the virus was not disrupting supply chains .
The stock market , which fell 1,000 points Friday morning because of the virus , was simply an opportunity for the savvy long-term investor to find some bargains , according to Kudlow , who advised the crowd , “ You might think about buying the dip.
” Other task force members on the CPAC schedule are Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar , who oversees the Centers for Disease Control , and Robert O ’ Brien , the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is headlining the event ’ s Friday night dinner .
While they aren ’ t on the task force , many other administration officials have come to address the crowd and chat up the administration ’ s accomplishments , including White House adviser Kellyanne Conway , Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao , Education Secretary Betsy DeVos , and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
And of course , virtually the entire Trump family is on the program , including Don Jr. , Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner , Lara Trump , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak on Saturday afternoon .
CPAC is the country ’ s largest and longest-running conservative political convention , drawing upward of 19,000 people—the sort of large gathering that is being canceled all around the world to prevent the spread of the coronavirus .
One can only hope that the administration officials are taking the CDC ’ s advice and washing their hands .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Wednesday night, President Trump announced that he was putting Vice President Mike Pence in charge of the White House coronavirus task force. The next day, Pence got right to work—by heading to the Conservative Political Action Convention, a pro-Trump conservative confab outside Washington. “President Trump has no higher priority than the health, safety, and well-being of the American people,” Pence told the MAGA hat-wearing crowd. He touted Trump’s “unprecedented actions” to prevent the virus’ spread in the United States, where the risk of contracting it “remains low.” He reassured the crowd, “We are ready for anything.”
Four other task force members also had plenty of time in their schedules to address the event, along with a gaggle of high-level White House officials who have been on hand to feed red meat to some of Trump’s most loyal fans. And if they’ve mentioned the virus at all, their message has been consistent: Don’t worry, be happy. In the CPAC bubble, America is still the greatest country in the world. The economy is strong, and everyone is winning again, and if the stock market suffered the biggest one-day loss since the financial crisis in 2008 because of the coronavirus, well, seize the moment to buy low.
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney went so far as to dismiss concerns over the epidemic as a media conspiracy conjured up to destroy Trump. “They think this will bring down the president, that’s what this is all about,” Mulvaney told the CPAC crowd early Friday. Like other administration officials at the event, Mulvaney hyped Trump’s “extraordinary steps” to halt the spread of the virus, notably banning noncitizens from entering the country from China. And he downplayed the seriousness of the virus. “The flu kills people,” he said. “This is not Ebola. It’s not SARS, it’s not MERS. It’s not a death sentence, it’s not the same as the Ebola crisis.”
Among the task force members at CPAC was acting Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli, the former Virginia attorney general known for being an immigration hardliner, who suggested that the virus might create the need for even harsher limits on who could enter the country. He insisted that despite what you’ve heard from the media, Trump “has been whipping us with wet noodles” these past weeks to address the epidemic. Panel moderator Deneen Borelli, a Fox News commentator, asked Cuccinelli whether it was important to secure to border to combat the spread of the virus because “people who come here illegally could have diseases.”
He said Immigration and Customs Enforcement had lots of experience with diseases at the border, including TB and measles. But he said the scale of the coronavirus had the potential to be much bigger and might require even more drastic measures. “We do not have facilities that can quarantine tens, scores, hundreds of thousands of people,” he said. “This creates a new wrinkle to the crisis. We have to look at new ways to bar entry.” Unlike the rosy glow Mulvaney and others in the administration have put on the virus’ threat to the United States, Cuccinelli was more measured in his assessment. “This is, to a certain extent, a math challenge,” he said. “It is scary. We do need to prepare as a society that this could get worse.” But not to fear, he said, “President Trump has made your safety and the safety of America the priority of his administration.”
Larry Kudlow, director of the White House National Economic Council and another task force member, was far more optimistic. Speaking Friday on a panel with Ivanka Trump, he said, “This will turn out to be a low-risk proposition, not a high-risk proposition. The numbers so far are very low. We’re in good shape. It just goes to show you what a country with freedom can do even with public health. That’s what makes us different. We have the finest public health system in the world.” Kudlow ticked off a number of rosy economic indicators—consumer confidence up!—and said Federal Reserve surveys were showing that the virus was not disrupting supply chains. The stock market, which fell 1,000 points Friday morning because of the virus, was simply an opportunity for the savvy long-term investor to find some bargains, according to Kudlow, who advised the crowd, “You might think about buying the dip.”
Other task force members on the CPAC schedule are Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, who oversees the Centers for Disease Control, and Robert O’Brien, the president’s national security adviser, who is headlining the event’s Friday night dinner. While they aren’t on the task force, many other administration officials have come to address the crowd and chat up the administration’s accomplishments, including White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. And of course, virtually the entire Trump family is on the program, including Don Jr., Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner, Lara Trump, and the president himself, who is scheduled to speak on Saturday afternoon.
CPAC is the country’s largest and longest-running conservative political convention, drawing upward of 19,000 people—the sort of large gathering that is being canceled all around the world to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. One can only hope that the administration officials are taking the CDC’s advice and washing their hands.


motherjones--2020-02-28--Candace Owens Just Made the Most Absurd Possible Argument Against Colin Kaepernick

Conservative activist and diehard Trump defender Candace Owens employed some impressively twisted logic in her tirade against “ race hustler ” Colin Kaepernick at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday .
Having taken objection to a Thanksgiving tweet from the former star quarterback which read , “ The US government has stolen over 1.5 billion acres of land from Indigenous people , ” Owens resorted to the same flawed rationale the colonists started using back in 1492 : Native Americans needed to be civilized , because they were cannibals .
“ Did cannibalism get lost in Colin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
( Accounts of Aztec cannibalism come mostly from 16th-century Spanish explorers who exaggerated Indigenous people ’ s “ savagery ” to justify their conquest of the Americas—a point she reduces to “ political correctness.
” ) She then directed her vitriol at Al Sharpton , Jesse Jackson , Ta-Nehisi Coates ( whose name she mispronounced ) , CNN , the New York Times , and MSNBC .
“ To every single one of you race hustlers who have extorted black pain to line your own pockets , ” she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ youth against seeing the opportunities that lay beneath their feet here in America in the land of the free , in the home of the free , in the home of the brave , I say this to you : There will be a Blexit .
A black exit .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Conservative activist and diehard Trump defender Candace Owens employed some impressively twisted logic in her tirade against “race hustler” Colin Kaepernick at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday.
Having taken objection to a Thanksgiving tweet from the former star quarterback which read, “The US government has stolen over 1.5 billion acres of land from Indigenous people,” Owens resorted to the same flawed rationale the colonists started using back in 1492: Native Americans needed to be civilized, because they were cannibals. “Did cannibalism get lost in Colin’s flowery depiction of Indigenous people?” she said. (Accounts of Aztec cannibalism come mostly from 16th-century Spanish explorers who exaggerated Indigenous people’s “savagery” to justify their conquest of the Americas—a point she reduces to “political correctness.”)
Candace Owens used her speech at CPAC to attack Colin Kaepernick and did so by explaining the practice of cannibalism among the Aztecs. pic.twitter.com/oAa6EheFF0 — Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) February 28, 2020
She then directed her vitriol at Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ta-Nehisi Coates (whose name she mispronounced), CNN, the New York Times, and MSNBC. “To every single one of you race hustlers who have extorted black pain to line your own pockets,” she said, “who have blindfolded the black youth against seeing the opportunities that lay beneath their feet here in America in the land of the free, in the home of the free, in the home of the brave, I say this to you: There will be a Blexit. A black exit.”


motherjones--2020-02-28--Joe Biden’s Last Stand

Joe Biden’s Last Stand

Joe Biden ’ s rally in Conway , South Carolina , on Monday evening started late and was already running long before the former vice president went ahead and took one last question from a young man in the crowd .
It might have been a tricky one for a less experienced politician—if the campaign had been vetting questions , it would have been someone ’ s job to nix it—more of a statement than a query , rambling , and not closely tied to the campaign ’ s main themes .
It started off about fears of what population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concluded by asking how Biden would empower women in poor countries “ who are dealing with machismo ?
” I couldn ’ t tell you exactly what happened next , but Biden didn ’ t miss a beat , offering a response that was far-reaching , complex , and lasting 20 minutes .
He took the audience on a grand tour spanning campus assault , the Violence Against Women Act , and even , briefly , English common law on wife-beating dating back to 1390 .
“ I want to make a controversial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point .
“ If someone in this room took off all her clothes and walked out the door , no man has a right to touch her.
” This was not , in fact , a controversial statement .
But the crowd loved it .
If anyone else had given this answer , you might wonder about them .
But with Biden , it doesn ’ t seem off : It seems right .
While the famously verbose politician took his time delivering his stump speech that night , but he seemed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity they presented to to tell stories , to be the Joe Biden that has delighted crowds for decades .
All through the summer and fall , Biden ’ s campaign viewed South Carolina as his strongest early primary state , based largely on the support of African American voters who make up around 60 percent of the Democratic electorate .
Since then , his polls have dipped , and poor performances in Iowa , New Hampshire , and Nevada have persuaded some voters that Biden might not be the strongest candidate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be the Joe Biden they remember from his years as Barack Obama ’ s vice president .
But then came a strong debate performance on Tuesday in Charleston , followed by the endorsement of the state ’ s preeminent Democratic politician , Rep. Jim Clyburn , and a string of polls showing Biden regaining ground .
Winning in South Carolina tomorrow is considered make or break for Biden .
Even a small margin of victory would show weakness in a contest that just a few months ago he was expected to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he makes his last stops in the final hours before Saturday ’ s primary , it could be the beginning of either a comeback—or a strong and very-Bidenesque final act .
Monday ’ s rally took place on the campus of Carolina Coastal University just inland from Myrtle Beach , but students were far outnumbered by Gen Xers and Baby Boomers from the surrounding area , a magnet for out-of-state transplants and retirees .
The crowd included moms from Tennessee who had moved to South Carolina the schools , moms from New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio , Florida , and California .
They were all united by abiding fondness for Biden , their distaste with Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders , and an even greater antipathy for President Donald Trump .
All together , they represented a group expected to play a large role in primary : suburban white voters .
While no Democrat will get far in South Carolina without support from African Americans , as is happening nationwide , other demographics disillusioned with the president are beginning to enter the state party ’ s fold .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dem primary in SC this year , ” Tyler Jones , a Democratic consultant in Charleston , tweeted Thursday .
“ The independent/moderate , white , suburban anti-Trump vote ( esp .
on the coast ) has skyrocketed since 2016.
” And , he said , “ it ’ ll help Biden on Saturday.
” That prediction tracked with the scene at Biden ’ s rally , where supporters voiced similar sentiments over and over : “ He ’ s a man of honor and integrity , ” “ I think he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ I ’ ve always liked Uncle Joe.
” They seemed to agree that Sanders was not their man , saying “ I can ’ t stand Bernie , ” “ I don ’ t believe he can deliver what he promises , ” and offering a prayer , “ Oh please God , not Sanders.
” But the crowd would suck it up and vote for Sanders over Trump .
“ I would have to , ” “ anybody who can get that pathological liar out of the White House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my dog over ” Trump .
On Friday morning , Joe Biden went to church in Sumter , a blue dot an hour east of Columbia .
The crowd was older , about half white and half black—like Sumter itself—and filled with true Biden believers .
“ I ’ m heavy leaning ” toward Biden , said Doug Seaver , 51 , as he waited for the event to get underway , hoping his remarks would “ seal the deal.
” His mother , Diane Bethea , 73 , however , was doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden household , ” she said .
“ I have no interest in Bernie Sanders .
Joe has been a rock solid Democrat his whole life.
” But to be clear , her son added , “ we ’ d vote for an empty tin can ” over Trump .
Willie Dennis , 84 , said he ’ s supported Biden since Barack Obama chose him to be his vice president .
“ All who are not for him , I told them you ’ re not my friend , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Ditto , ” added his wife , Gardenia R. Dennis .
These are the people Biden is now counting on in South Carolina .
Middle aged and older folks , both white and Black , who know him and trust him , who are ready to follow him as he launches into stories and down twisting tangents , alongside the suburban voters who hope he can provide a path that will lead them out of Trump ’ s America .
But first , they ’ ll have to launch him out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into cars and pulled out of the church and on to the road , two young Sanders supporters were going door to door on foot , headed straight their way .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Joe Biden’s rally in Conway, South Carolina, on Monday evening started late and was already running long before the former vice president went ahead and took one last question from a young man in the crowd. It might have been a tricky one for a less experienced politician—if the campaign had been vetting questions, it would have been someone’s job to nix it—more of a statement than a query, rambling, and not closely tied to the campaign’s main themes. It started off about fears of what population growth would do to the planet and concluded by asking how Biden would empower women in poor countries “who are dealing with machismo?”
The final hours before Saturday’s primary could be the beginning of a comeback—or a very-Bidenesque final act.
I couldn’t tell you exactly what happened next, but Biden didn’t miss a beat, offering a response that was far-reaching, complex, and lasting 20 minutes. He took the audience on a grand tour spanning campus assault, the Violence Against Women Act, and even, briefly, English common law on wife-beating dating back to 1390. “I want to make a controversial statement,” he said at one point. “If someone in this room took off all her clothes and walked out the door, no man has a right to touch her.” This was not, in fact, a controversial statement. But the crowd loved it.
If anyone else had given this answer, you might wonder about them. But with Biden, it doesn’t seem off: It seems right. While the famously verbose politician took his time delivering his stump speech that night, but he seemed to savor the audience questions, and the opportunity they presented to to tell stories, to be the Joe Biden that has delighted crowds for decades.
All through the summer and fall, Biden’s campaign viewed South Carolina as his strongest early primary state, based largely on the support of African American voters who make up around 60 percent of the Democratic electorate. Since then, his polls have dipped, and poor performances in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada have persuaded some voters that Biden might not be the strongest candidate to take on President Donald Trump—that he might not be the Joe Biden they remember from his years as Barack Obama’s vice president.
But then came a strong debate performance on Tuesday in Charleston, followed by the endorsement of the state’s preeminent Democratic politician, Rep. Jim Clyburn, and a string of polls showing Biden regaining ground. Winning in South Carolina tomorrow is considered make or break for Biden. Even a small margin of victory would show weakness in a contest that just a few months ago he was expected to win by 20 or more points. As he makes his last stops in the final hours before Saturday’s primary, it could be the beginning of either a comeback—or a strong and very-Bidenesque final act.
Monday’s rally took place on the campus of Carolina Coastal University just inland from Myrtle Beach, but students were far outnumbered by Gen Xers and Baby Boomers from the surrounding area, a magnet for out-of-state transplants and retirees. The crowd included moms from Tennessee who had moved to South Carolina the schools, moms from New York seeking lower taxes, and retirees from Ohio, Florida, and California. They were all united by abiding fondness for Biden, their distaste with Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders, and an even greater antipathy for President Donald Trump. All together, they represented a group expected to play a large role in primary: suburban white voters.
“Oh please God, not Sanders.”
While no Democrat will get far in South Carolina without support from African Americans, as is happening nationwide, other demographics disillusioned with the president are beginning to enter the state party’s fold. “I’ve long predicted a whiter Dem primary in SC this year,” Tyler Jones, a Democratic consultant in Charleston, tweeted Thursday. “The independent/moderate, white, suburban anti-Trump vote (esp. on the coast) has skyrocketed since 2016.” And, he said, “it’ll help Biden on Saturday.”
That prediction tracked with the scene at Biden’s rally, where supporters voiced similar sentiments over and over: “He’s a man of honor and integrity,” “I think he’s got the best shot,” and “I’ve always liked Uncle Joe.” They seemed to agree that Sanders was not their man, saying “I can’t stand Bernie,” “I don’t believe he can deliver what he promises,” and offering a prayer, “Oh please God, not Sanders.” But the crowd would suck it up and vote for Sanders over Trump. “I would have to,” “anybody who can get that pathological liar out of the White House,” and “I would vote for my dog over” Trump.
On Friday morning, Joe Biden went to church in Sumter, a blue dot an hour east of Columbia. The crowd was older, about half white and half black—like Sumter itself—and filled with true Biden believers. “I’m heavy leaning” toward Biden, said Doug Seaver, 51, as he waited for the event to get underway, hoping his remarks would “seal the deal.” His mother, Diane Bethea, 73, however, was doubt free. “This is a Joe Biden household,” she said. “I have no interest in Bernie Sanders. Joe has been a rock solid Democrat his whole life.” But to be clear, her son added, “we’d vote for an empty tin can” over Trump.
Willie Dennis, 84, said he’s supported Biden since Barack Obama chose him to be his vice president. “All who are not for him, I told them you’re not my friend,” he said with only a hint of a smile. “Ditto,” added his wife, Gardenia R. Dennis.
These are the people Biden is now counting on in South Carolina. Middle aged and older folks, both white and Black, who know him and trust him, who are ready to follow him as he launches into stories and down twisting tangents, alongside the suburban voters who hope he can provide a path that will lead them out of Trump’s America. But first, they’ll have to launch him out of South Carolina.
As attendees piled into cars and pulled out of the church and on to the road, two young Sanders supporters were going door to door on foot, headed straight their way.


motherjones--2020-02-28--Court Blocks Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” Scheme

A federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration ’ s infamous “ Remain in Mexico ” policy Friday , putting an immediate stop to a scheme that has prevented asylum seekers from setting foot in the United States and reshaped the asylum process .
On Friday , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ’ s injunction against the system , officially called the Migrant Protection Protocols , finding that the policy “ is invalid in its entirety.
” The scheme has forced more than 60,000 people , mostly from Central America , to return to Mexican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US-Mexico border and remain there as their cases move through immigration court in the United States .
Since it was first implemented in January 2019 , human rights organizations have said this policy puts an already vulnerable population at higher risk , with hundreds of cases of kidnappings , extortion , rape , and murder reported among asylum seekers waiting in Mexico in the last year .
“ The court forcefully rejected the Trump administration ’ s assertion that it could strand asylum seekers in Mexico and subject them to grave danger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union .
“ It ’ s time for the administration to follow the law and stop putting asylum seekers in harm ’ s way.
” The case , Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf , was brought on behalf of 11 individual asylum seekers , with assistance from Innovation Law Lab , the Central American Resource Center of Northern California , Centro Legal de la Raza , the University of San Francisco School of Law Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic , Al Otro Lado , and the Tahirih @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration’s infamous “Remain in Mexico” policy Friday, putting an immediate stop to a scheme that has prevented asylum seekers from setting foot in the United States and reshaped the asylum process.
On Friday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s injunction against the system, officially called the Migrant Protection Protocols, finding that the policy “is invalid in its entirety.” The scheme has forced more than 60,000 people, mostly from Central America, to return to Mexican border cities after asking for asylum at the US-Mexico border and remain there as their cases move through immigration court in the United States.
Since it was first implemented in January 2019, human rights organizations have said this policy puts an already vulnerable population at higher risk, with hundreds of cases of kidnappings, extortion, rape, and murder reported among asylum seekers waiting in Mexico in the last year.
“The court forcefully rejected the Trump administration’s assertion that it could strand asylum seekers in Mexico and subject them to grave danger,” says Judy Rabinovitz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s time for the administration to follow the law and stop putting asylum seekers in harm’s way.”
The case, Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, was brought on behalf of 11 individual asylum seekers, with assistance from Innovation Law Lab, the Central American Resource Center of Northern California, Centro Legal de la Raza, the University of San Francisco School of Law Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic, Al Otro Lado, and the Tahirih Justice Center.


motherjones--2020-02-28--With the Supreme Court Looming, Virginia Shores Up Abortion Rights

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear its first abortion case since the appointment of conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch , Virginia just took a preemptive step to protect the right to an abortion , no matter what happens in the courts .
Last year , Virginia elected its first state government controlled entirely by Democrats in more than two decades .
The legislature has made good on Democrats ’ campaign promises to push a popular progressive agenda by passing protections for LGBTQ residents , gun control , and now the Reproductive Health Protection Act , which removes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginians believe that they should have access to reproductive health care that is not full of restrictions , ” says Charniele Herring , majority leader of the Virginia House of Delegates .
“ I think many Virginians—conservatives and progressives alike—do not like the idea of a politician entering the caregiver ’ s office to dictate what protocol should be used.
” The law , passed Thursday in the House of Delegates , will repeal Virginia ’ s mandatory waiting period , which requires patients to wait 24 hours after a consultation to receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nurse midwives and nurse practitioners to perform first-trimester abortion services and remove the requirement that providers give counseling to patients seeking abortions .
It will also eliminate the requirement for an ultrasound before an abortion , a practice that can be traumatizing for patients .
The American Medical Association says mandatory ultrasounds provide no “ additional medically necessary information.
” The state Senate passed the bill earlier in the week , and Gov .
Ralph Northam , who has been outspoken in his support for abortion rights , is expected to sign it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were politically charged , ” says Herring , “ and it had nothing do with the provision of good care.
” Republican lawmakers have argued that enacting these changes would make women seeking abortions less safe and stressed the need for tightly regulating the procedure .
Herring says that in particular , some of her colleagues expressed concerns about repealing restrictions on nurse practitioners performing abortions .
However , studies have found nurse practitioners perform abortions just as safely as doctors .
Democratic state lawmakers across the country have passed similar abortion protections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on abortion access have ramped up in conservative states .
In 2019 , nine states—Illinois , New York , Rhode Island , Vermont , Maine , California , Nevada , New Jersey , and Hawaii—passed legislation protecting or expanding the right to an abortion .
Maine also voted to allow certified nurse midwives and nurse practitioners to provide non-surgical abortions .
Four states codified Roe v. Wade by enshrining the right to an abortion in their state law .
Herring says she hopes Virginia will be the next state to codify the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are a record number of women from both parties in the legislature .
“ When women are elected and in power , ” she says , “ there will be a tendency that we make sure that we are protecting our interests .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear its first abortion case since the appointment of conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, Virginia just took a preemptive step to protect the right to an abortion, no matter what happens in the courts.
Last year, Virginia elected its first state government controlled entirely by Democrats in more than two decades. The legislature has made good on Democrats’ campaign promises to push a popular progressive agenda by passing protections for LGBTQ residents, gun control, and now the Reproductive Health Protection Act, which removes onerous restrictions on abortion access.
“Virginians believe that they should have access to reproductive health care that is not full of restrictions,” says Charniele Herring, majority leader of the Virginia House of Delegates. “I think many Virginians—conservatives and progressives alike—do not like the idea of a politician entering the caregiver’s office to dictate what protocol should be used.”
The law, passed Thursday in the House of Delegates, will repeal Virginia’s mandatory waiting period, which requires patients to wait 24 hours after a consultation to receive an abortion. It will allow certified nurse midwives and nurse practitioners to perform first-trimester abortion services and remove the requirement that providers give counseling to patients seeking abortions. It will also eliminate the requirement for an ultrasound before an abortion, a practice that can be traumatizing for patients. The American Medical Association says mandatory ultrasounds provide no “additional medically necessary information.”
The state Senate passed the bill earlier in the week, and Gov. Ralph Northam, who has been outspoken in his support for abortion rights, is expected to sign it.
“Those restrictions in the code were politically charged,” says Herring, “and it had nothing do with the provision of good care.”
Republican lawmakers have argued that enacting these changes would make women seeking abortions less safe and stressed the need for tightly regulating the procedure. Herring says that in particular, some of her colleagues expressed concerns about repealing restrictions on nurse practitioners performing abortions. However, studies have found nurse practitioners perform abortions just as safely as doctors.
Democratic state lawmakers across the country have passed similar abortion protections in the past year, as attacks on abortion access have ramped up in conservative states. In 2019, nine states—Illinois, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Hawaii—passed legislation protecting or expanding the right to an abortion. Maine also voted to allow certified nurse midwives and nurse practitioners to provide non-surgical abortions. Four states codified Roe v. Wade by enshrining the right to an abortion in their state law.
Herring says she hopes Virginia will be the next state to codify the right to an abortion. She notes that there are a record number of women from both parties in the legislature. “When women are elected and in power,” she says, “there will be a tendency that we make sure that we are protecting our interests.”