vox--2020-05-22--A crash course in contact tracing: What it’s like to track Covid-19

For two hours every day , 27-year-old Claire McGlave calls up sick people .
She asks them how they are feeling now and when they first began to feel unwell , which McGlave uses as a starting point to tabulate every single person they may have been in contact with since they started shedding Covid-19 .
The patient on the other end of the line offers up the phone numbers of their friends and family , and McGlave repeats the process for anyone who was potentially exposed to the virus .
The message throughout is simple : Stay inside and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called contact tracing , and it ’ s becoming one of the fastest-growing industries in America .
In Massachusetts , where McGlave lives , the governor ’ s office has hired 1,600 contact tracers to help connect the dots within the state ’ s 53,000 confirmed coronavirus cases .
That number of tracers is on the low end compared to other state efforts .
California intends to hire 10,000 tracers , and New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo wants to raise an “ army ” of people making these phone calls .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in countries like South Korea , which famously curbed the spread of the coronavirus early with comprehensive testing and aggressive isolation measures for those who contracted the illness .
The salary isn ’ t bad either : New Jersey intends to pay its contact tracers between $ 20 and $ 25 an hour .
But while this legion of full-time contact tracers will saturate the workforce , a huge portion of the labor is still being conducted on a purely volunteer basis .
McGlave is one of those volunteers .
She earned her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ School of Public Health last year and has been working the contact-tracing phone lines for her local government since March .
The salary isn ’ t bad either : New Jersey intends to pay its contact tracers between $ 20 and $ 25 an hour McGlave says she ’ s happy to volunteer her public health expertise because disadvantaged communities around the state simply aren ’ t getting the resources they need .
The job has brought her much closer to the economic carnage of this pandemic .
McGlave has been forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolated for two weeks , even when they ’ re desperate to go back to work .
These are the patients suffering the most , she says , those who could never afford to stay home .
McGlave knows that the United States is working from behind .
As many as 20 percent of New York City residents might already have Covid-19 antibodies , hinting at widespread community infection that , at about 3.7 million people , vastly supersedes the 1 million confirmed cases nationally .
But McGlave thinks any contact tracing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep one person out of the hospital , it ’ ll all be worth it .
Read our conversation below .
How did you start contact tracing ?
I graduated in December with a master ’ s from the Harvard School of Public Health , and in the beginning of March , the governor convened a volunteer public health volunteer corps .
He emailed all the current students and alumni saying we needed a big force of people if anyone was interested .
And the students created this organization overnight .
They recruited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
They dispatched us .
We basically got randomly assigned to towns and cities in need .
We ’ re in groups of eight to 15 depending on the size .
I answered the email because I ’ ve been working so hard to finish school , and this huge public health incident was happening right outside my door and there was nothing I could do about it .
It seemed like a cool opportunity .
What are you doing for money right now ?
I ’ m really lucky because I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Health .
I started in February as a data scientist .
The volunteer work is a pretty natural bridge .
I work with data all day , but I really like talking to people .
It ’ s nice to have that contrast .
What was the boot camp like to pick up your contact tracing skills ?
This group trained 600 students in two weeks .
We had confidentiality training , because you ’ re looking at people ’ s health records .
We did an online crash course about why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do it .
Each team has its own setup for coordinating volunteers .
We could get anywhere from five to 30 cases a day .
We have to figure out who ’ s gon na take each one , who needs a Spanish speaker .
It took a bit to get the coordination logistics down .
When you get assigned a new case , what are your first steps to figure out who they ’ ve been in contact with ?
It really varies day to day .
I ’ ve had days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days where five people in a row will pick up .
The general idea is we introduce ourselves , we say we ’ re from their local board of public health and that we know they ’ ve tested positive for coronavirus .
We want to chat about how they ’ re feeling now , if they have any symptoms .
At the beginning of the call , we do a bit of socializing .
Some people love to talk , and other people are a little more private , which I totally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk , and other people are a little more private , which I totally understand ” We try to talk through the timeline of when they should be isolating at home versus quarantining at home .
It ’ s pretty complicated .
You want to isolate until three days after you have no symptoms or fever , and then you start your two weeks of quarantine .
That takes a little bit of time to explain .
Once we ’ ve established the plan , we ask them about who they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they started showing symptoms .
As far as we know right now , that ’ s when people start shedding the virus .
We ask if they were at work , if they were already at home , if they ’ ve been to the grocery store .
And if they do list people , even in the same household , we reach out to them and do the same process .
These conversations are tricky .
We don ’ t want anyone feeling like they did something wrong because they went to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health training , we ’ re aware of the social determinants of how they were in a position to be infected .
Maybe they didn ’ t have access to child care and had to go into work .
You have to be sensitive about those issues , and because we actually live in these communities , we know how to talk to them in an effective way .
When you ’ re tracking the people the sick person has been in contact with , how much of that work requires poring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how much of it is purely anecdotal and based on the phone numbers the person is supplying you with ?
The way we ’ ve been doing it has all been anecdotal .
We ask people to just list the names .
The vast majority of people have been pretty careful , because we ’ re doing this late in the process .
This would ’ ve been different in February .
People usually either say , “ Yeah , I ’ ve been going to my grocery store job , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staying at home with my wife or whoever else I ’ m living with.
” Some people have been hesitant to give out their contacts ’ information , which I completely understand .
But we ’ re careful to say that when we reach those people , we won ’ t reveal their identity .
What tone do you strike to put people at ease ?
I imagine you ’ re trying to be as disarming as possible .
How do you approach those conversations ?
We have scripts from leadership .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to optimally do it .
They gave us some guidance on that .
But it ’ s tricky .
The conversation at the beginning is super important to get a sense of where someone is at .
If someone is anxious , we can say that we ’ re giving them tools to help them and their community .
But other people don ’ t seem to care at all and are just mad .
We engage in a different way , “ Let ’ s talk this through .
I know this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inconvenient .
I hear you.
” The resources we give out are from the state and have the state emblem on them .
I think that helps people understand that this is serious .
That ’ s where social and emotional intelligence comes in .
Our first instinct is to email people , but a lot of people we ’ re talking to don ’ t have wifi at home .
This disease has impacted our population based on where they started .
The vast majority of people we ’ re talking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not go into work .
Has there been anything about a job , where you ’ re talking over and over again to people who have or had coronavirus , that ’ s put some of your anxieties about this pandemic at ease ?
It definitely has .
At first it really scared me to hear people ’ s stories , especially how long people are waiting to go to a hospital because they ’ re scared , which I completely understand .
The other side of that coin is that people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are pretty lonely .
Sometimes having a conversation with them can be good .
To help catalyze all of their worries into some evidence-based strategies to help their communities feels really good .
But some of the conversations are hard because a lot of people really need to go back to work and want to know when they can .
That ’ s heart-wrenching .
Are those conversations generally the same ?
Or do you feel like you ’ re meeting a new set of anxieties every time ?
“ Almost every person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d say there are three archetypes they fall into .
“ I didn ’ t get this virus on purpose .
I need to go back to work .
I need to take care of my kids .
It was really scary to get sick.
” Almost every person I talk to wants another test .
They say , “ Oh , you say I can go back in 14 days on this date .
I have to go get another test first , right ?
To make sure I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to say , “ No , you have to just trust the timeline.
” That ’ s when people get frustrated , and I have to explain that we ’ re short on tests .
How different are the conversations when you ’ re calling a contact who might not have gotten sick yet ?
It depends .
If someone is in the same household as someone who ’ s gotten sick , they understand the severity of it .
They get the seriousness of the situation .
People who haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask if they really have to isolate .
I understand that , I ’ d have the same reaction .
So I just talk them through the science of flattening the curve .
I also talked about how the contact tracing work really helps us understand when we can relax the physical distancing measures .
People get really excited about that .
The more we double down on this now , the shorter we ’ ll have to do this for .
But that ’ s a big ask .
Are you willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a long time ?
I ’ ve had conversations that are 90 seconds , and I ’ ve had a conversation that ’ s lasted a half hour .
That was with a mother with three kids and no opportunities for child care , and no money coming in , and doesn ’ t have direct deposit so she hasn ’ t gotten her stimulus check yet .
That ’ s the beauty of having all these volunteers , we have time .
We ’ re only assigned a few cases a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her town ’ s website with her and look at the food pantry and help her get some diapers .
That ’ s really worth it .
It ’ s pretty shocking , coming from the luxury of working from home and having a full-time job .
I feel really lucky leveraging what we learned in school to direct action .
We ’ ve seen a lot in the news right now about the sheer magnitude of how many people in America have had coronavirus .
When you consider how vigilant a country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracing program and how we ’ re just now starting to stock up with people like you , are we late to this response ?
My mom is also in public health , and when I told her I was going to start contact tracing , she was like , “ Oh , a little late , huh ?
What ’ s the point ?
” But I think it ’ s better than doing nothing , and since we ’ re so short on tests and on protective equipment , if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of a hospital bed , that ’ s more than enough for me .
It ’ s definitely effective , but it would ’ ve been much more effective if we ’ d started earlier .
We ’ re also working on distributing this model to other states .
We have scripts in many different languages , we have protocols , and we ’ re going to try to share it so other states don ’ t have to reinvent the wheel .
You mentioned that you ’ re a data person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this experience made you want to pivot your career aspirations to something that involves more person-to-person interaction ?
It definitely has .
It ’ s invigorated my motivation to work on policy .
I really respect the people who are doing the micro person-to-person work .
It ’ s incredibly draining .
I ’ m only doing this for two hours a day .
I don ’ t know how the people who are doing shifts are holding up .
My original idea was that I ’ d do data stuff to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create policy .
Now , this situation has made me both frustrated and excited to see opportunities where we can protect the most vulnerable people in our population .
That could be really exciting .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

For two hours every day, 27-year-old Claire McGlave calls up sick people. She asks them how they are feeling now and when they first began to feel unwell, which McGlave uses as a starting point to tabulate every single person they may have been in contact with since they started shedding Covid-19. The patient on the other end of the line offers up the phone numbers of their friends and family, and McGlave repeats the process for anyone who was potentially exposed to the virus. The message throughout is simple: Stay inside and help flatten the curve. This is called contact tracing, and it’s becoming one of the fastest-growing industries in America.
In Massachusetts, where McGlave lives, the governor’s office has hired 1,600 contact tracers to help connect the dots within the state’s 53,000 confirmed coronavirus cases. That number of tracers is on the low end compared to other state efforts. California intends to hire 10,000 tracers, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to raise an “army” of people making these phone calls. The goal is to replicate the success seen in countries like South Korea, which famously curbed the spread of the coronavirus early with comprehensive testing and aggressive isolation measures for those who contracted the illness. The salary isn’t bad either: New Jersey intends to pay its contact tracers between $20 and $25 an hour. But while this legion of full-time contact tracers will saturate the workforce, a huge portion of the labor is still being conducted on a purely volunteer basis. McGlave is one of those volunteers. She earned her master’s degree from the Harvard School of Public Health last year and has been working the contact-tracing phone lines for her local government since March.
The salary isn’t bad either: New Jersey intends to pay its contact tracers between $20 and $25 an hour
McGlave says she’s happy to volunteer her public health expertise because disadvantaged communities around the state simply aren’t getting the resources they need. The job has brought her much closer to the economic carnage of this pandemic. McGlave has been forced to tell people that they need to remain isolated for two weeks, even when they’re desperate to go back to work. These are the patients suffering the most, she says, those who could never afford to stay home.
McGlave knows that the United States is working from behind. As many as 20 percent of New York City residents might already have Covid-19 antibodies, hinting at widespread community infection that, at about 1.67 million people, supersedes the 1 million confirmed cases nationally. But McGlave thinks any contact tracing is better than nothing. If she can keep one person out of the hospital, it’ll all be worth it. Read our conversation below.
How did you start contact tracing?
I graduated in December with a master’s from the Harvard School of Public Health, and in the beginning of March, the governor convened a volunteer public health volunteer corps. He emailed all the current students and alumni saying we needed a big force of people if anyone was interested. And the students created this organization overnight. They recruited 2,000 people from institutions all over the state. They dispatched us. We basically got randomly assigned to towns and cities in need. We’re in groups of eight to 15 depending on the size. I answered the email because I’ve been working so hard to finish school, and this huge public health incident was happening right outside my door and there was nothing I could do about it. It seemed like a cool opportunity.
What are you doing for money right now?
I’m really lucky because I’m working at the School of Public Health. I started in February as a data scientist. The volunteer work is a pretty natural bridge. I work with data all day, but I really like talking to people. It’s nice to have that contrast.
What was the boot camp like to pick up your contact tracing skills?
This group trained 600 students in two weeks. We had confidentiality training, because you’re looking at people’s health records. We did an online crash course about why contact tracing is needed and why we do it. Each team has its own setup for coordinating volunteers. We could get anywhere from five to 30 cases a day. We have to figure out who’s gonna take each one, who needs a Spanish speaker. It took a bit to get the coordination logistics down.
When you get assigned a new case, what are your first steps to figure out who they’ve been in contact with?
It really varies day to day. I’ve had days where nobody answers the phone, and days where five people in a row will pick up. The general idea is we introduce ourselves, we say we’re from their local board of public health and that we know they’ve tested positive for coronavirus. We want to chat about how they’re feeling now, if they have any symptoms. At the beginning of the call, we do a bit of socializing. Some people love to talk, and other people are a little more private, which I totally understand.
“Some people love to talk, and other people are a little more private, which I totally understand”
We try to talk through the timeline of when they should be isolating at home versus quarantining at home. It’s pretty complicated. You want to isolate until three days after you have no symptoms or fever, and then you start your two weeks of quarantine. That takes a little bit of time to explain. Once we’ve established the plan, we ask them about who they’ve been in contact with two days before they started showing symptoms. As far as we know right now, that’s when people start shedding the virus. We ask if they were at work, if they were already at home, if they’ve been to the grocery store. And if they do list people, even in the same household, we reach out to them and do the same process.
These conversations are tricky. We don’t want anyone feeling like they did something wrong because they went to the grocery store. Because of our public health training, we’re aware of the social determinants of how they were in a position to be infected. Maybe they didn’t have access to child care and had to go into work. You have to be sensitive about those issues, and because we actually live in these communities, we know how to talk to them in an effective way.
When you’re tracking the people the sick person has been in contact with, how much of that work requires poring over public records or other data, and how much of it is purely anecdotal and based on the phone numbers the person is supplying you with?
The way we’ve been doing it has all been anecdotal. We ask people to just list the names. The vast majority of people have been pretty careful, because we’re doing this late in the process. This would’ve been different in February. People usually either say, “Yeah, I’ve been going to my grocery store job,” or, “I’ve been staying at home with my wife or whoever else I’m living with.” Some people have been hesitant to give out their contacts’ information, which I completely understand. But we’re careful to say that when we reach those people, we won’t reveal their identity.
What tone do you strike to put people at ease? I imagine you’re trying to be as disarming as possible. How do you approach those conversations?
We have scripts from leadership. They write out a phone call on how to optimally do it. They gave us some guidance on that. But it’s tricky. The conversation at the beginning is super important to get a sense of where someone is at. If someone is anxious, we can say that we’re giving them tools to help them and their community. But other people don’t seem to care at all and are just mad. We engage in a different way, “Let’s talk this through. I know this is frustrating, I know this is inconvenient. I hear you.” The resources we give out are from the state and have the state emblem on them. I think that helps people understand that this is serious. That’s where social and emotional intelligence comes in. Our first instinct is to email people, but a lot of people we’re talking to don’t have wifi at home. This disease has impacted our population based on where they started. The vast majority of people we’re talking to didn’t have the choice to not go into work.
Has there been anything about a job, where you’re talking over and over again to people who have or had coronavirus, that’s put some of your anxieties about this pandemic at ease?
It definitely has. At first it really scared me to hear people’s stories, especially how long people are waiting to go to a hospital because they’re scared, which I completely understand. The other side of that coin is that people who are staying at home and are isolating are pretty lonely. Sometimes having a conversation with them can be good. To help catalyze all of their worries into some evidence-based strategies to help their communities feels really good. But some of the conversations are hard because a lot of people really need to go back to work and want to know when they can. That’s heart-wrenching.
Are those conversations generally the same? Or do you feel like you’re meeting a new set of anxieties every time?
“Almost every person I talk to wants another test”
I’d say there are three archetypes they fall into. “I didn’t get this virus on purpose. I need to go back to work. I need to take care of my kids. It was really scary to get sick.” Almost every person I talk to wants another test. They say, “Oh, you say I can go back in 14 days on this date. I have to go get another test first, right? To make sure I don’t have it?” I have to say, “No, you have to just trust the timeline.” That’s when people get frustrated, and I have to explain that we’re short on tests.
How different are the conversations when you’re calling a contact who might not have gotten sick yet?
It depends. If someone is in the same household as someone who’s gotten sick, they understand the severity of it. They get the seriousness of the situation. People who haven’t gotten sick, they’ll ask if they really have to isolate. I understand that, I’d have the same reaction. So I just talk them through the science of flattening the curve. I also talked about how the contact tracing work really helps us understand when we can relax the physical distancing measures. People get really excited about that. The more we double down on this now, the shorter we’ll have to do this for. But that’s a big ask.
Are you willing to stay on the phone with someone for a long time?
I’ve had conversations that are 90 seconds, and I’ve had a conversation that’s lasted a half hour. That was with a mother with three kids and no opportunities for child care, and no money coming in, and doesn’t have direct deposit so she hasn’t gotten her stimulus check yet. That’s the beauty of having all these volunteers, we have time. We’re only assigned a few cases a day, so I can go on her town’s website with her and look at the food pantry and help her get some diapers. That’s really worth it. It’s pretty shocking, coming from the luxury of working from home and having a full-time job. I feel really lucky leveraging what we learned in school to direct action.
We’ve seen a lot in the news right now about the sheer magnitude of how many people in America have had coronavirus. When you consider how vigilant a country like South Korea was with their contact tracing program and how we’re just now starting to stock up with people like you, are we late to this response?
My mom is also in public health, and when I told her I was going to start contact tracing, she was like, “Oh, a little late, huh? What’s the point?” But I think it’s better than doing nothing, and since we’re so short on tests and on protective equipment, if we can do anything to keep one person out of a hospital bed, that’s more than enough for me. It’s definitely effective, but it would’ve been much more effective if we’d started earlier. We’re also working on distributing this model to other states. We have scripts in many different languages, we have protocols, and we’re going to try to share it so other states don’t have to reinvent the wheel.
You mentioned that you’re a data person in your studies. Has anything about this experience made you want to pivot your career aspirations to something that involves more person-to-person interaction?
It definitely has. It’s invigorated my motivation to work on policy. I really respect the people who are doing the micro person-to-person work. It’s incredibly draining. I’m only doing this for two hours a day. I don’t know how the people who are doing shifts are holding up. My original idea was that I’d do data stuff to make sure other people have the material to create policy. Now, this situation has made me both frustrated and excited to see opportunities where we can protect the most vulnerable people in our population. That could be really exciting.


vox--2020-05-21--“It is an official death sentence for Hong Kong”: China moves to pass national security law

As Hong Kong approaches the anniversary of its massive pro-democracy protests , China is moving to impose a sweeping national security law that could directly undermine Hong Kong ’ s freedoms and special status , and inflame tensions after a year of political turmoil .
The National People ’ s Congress — a rubber stamp for the Chinese government — is set to pass legislation that is intended to curtail foreign interference or activities that undermine the state .
That could directly target the anti-government activists who have challenged Beijing ’ s authority .
The Chinese government has tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for fomenting the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong .
Hong Kong is supposed to be governed according to the “ one country , two systems ” rule .
The “ one country ” part means it is officially part of China , while the “ two systems ” part gives it a degree of autonomy , including rights like freedom of the press that are absent in mainland China .
China is supposed to abide by this arrangement until 2047 , but it has been eroding those freedoms and trying to bring Hong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
Last spring , Hong Kong ’ s legislature tried to pass an extradition bill that critics feared would allow the Chinese government to arbitrarily detain Hongkongers .
That ignited massive protests , leading to months of unrest that sometimes turned violent .
The bill was withdrawn , but the demonstrations continued , as the fight transformed into a larger battle to protect Hong Kong ’ s democratic institutions .
The coronavirus pandemic and the social distancing measures required to slow its spread put a lot of that public activism on hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and has used the pandemic to further crackdown on the pro-democracy movement , including by arresting pro-democracy lawmakers in April .
Now , China has introduced this national security law , which is a much more direct step toward what Beijing has been trying to accomplish for years : one country , one system .
“ It is an official death sentence for Hong Kong , it ’ s nothing less than that , ” Alvin Y. H. Cheung , an affiliated scholar at NYU ’ s US-Asia Law Institute , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s moves are still unclear , including how it will be implemented and what the political and economic fallout for Hong Kong will be .
Pro-democracy advocates have denounced the legislation .
Beijing ’ s attempts to interfere in Hong Kong ’ s affairs in the past— the extradition rules being one , but far from the only , example — have fueled widespread resistance .
Samuel Chu , the managing director of the Hong Kong Democracy Council , a US-based pro-democracy group , said China ’ s decision to step in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully reign in Hong Kong .
“ I think that this — not only in a short-term way — will antagonize the pro-democracy movement even more , and would generate a kind of response that China is not prepared [ for ] .
” This has always been China ’ s plan — if not necessarily its playbook China has , at least rhetorically , honored the “ one country , two systems ” rule .
In practice , it has sought greater and greater control over Hong Kong .
But Beijing has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of its boldest moves have been met with resistance .
That includes a 2003 attempt to pass a national security law under Article 23 of Hong Kong ’ s Basic Law ( the closest thing Hong Kong has to a constitution ) .
This would have also established rules against subverting the state and foreign interference , but the law got shelved after mass protests .
And in 2014 , when Beijing reneged on its promise to give Hong Kong universal suffrage , the Umbrella Revolution erupted .
And then , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Hong Kong ’ s legislature tried to pass that controversial extradition bill , and months and months of demonstrations ensued .
For a long time , China and pro-Beijing lawmakers in Hong Kong continued to dream of passing a national security law under Hong Kong ’ s Article 23 , and Beijing had been prodding Hong Kong in recent weeks to take it up again .
But now , China is dispensing with all that , and doing it all itself .
Ho-Fung Hung , a professor of political economy at Johns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stepped in directly because it learned a lesson from the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests , which ultimately defeated the legislation and embarrassed China .
“ It will be a huge embarrassment if it tried to push through the local legislature that is eventually shelved because of local protests , ” Hung said .
“ Beijing didn ’ t want to reach that event .
Beijing even didn ’ t trust the local legislature , so it adopted this kind of extreme route to directly legislate.
” “ And it is a big risky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it tears down all the remaining pretension of ‘ one country , two systems.
’ ” China ’ s dramatic escalation also comes as the whole world — and the media , which had devoted a lot of attention to the Hong Kong protests — is distracted by the coronavirus pandemic , and as Hong Kong itself is under social distancing restrictions .
The imposition of those rules gave Hong Kong some cover to quell protests ( while also helping to successfully control the outbreak there ) .
But China had long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the protesters , or even more peaceful challenges to its authority , such as when pro-democracy candidates in Hong Kong dominated local elections .
And now , China has at least hinted at how it plans to consolidate its control .
“ It is such a big development because it ’ s basically Beijing asserting more fervently that ‘ no , we actually have this type of authority that we can impose on Hong Kong , ’ ” Jacob Stokes , a senior policy analyst for China at the US Institute of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even the nominal idea of “ one country , two systems ” somewhat farcical , he added .
“ China ’ s sort of turning Hong Kong from what it was before and to , in a way , just another city in China , ” Stokes said .
“ And that ’ s what the protest movement is trying to avoid.
” What comes next ?
No one knows .
Though China ’ s planned action makes it clear that it has basically decided stop pretending that it cares about “ one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials are still trying to frame this rhetorically as strengthening and protecting Hong Kong ’ s government .
“ We will ensure the long-term stability of ‘ one country , two systems , ’ ” Wang Yang , head of the Chinese People ’ s Political Consultative Conference , said , according to the Washington Post .
What this means for Hong Kongers is still uncertain .
The law has not yet been approved , and the details are still fuzzy .
According to the New York Times , Chinese officials have indicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s led to unrest in Hong Kong .
But that is largely disinformation ; China has blamed outsiders for fueling violence in Hong Kong to deny the grassroots resistance .
The law could have the chilling effect on dissent that China desires , snuffing out all but the most extreme protests .
The opposite also seems possible : that China ’ s actions — proof positive of why many Hongkongers felt they had to continue to protest — might escalate tensions even more .
Hong Kong had already been divided between two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who support the police ) and “ yellow ” ( those who support the protesters ) .
But many of those “ yellow ” backers disagreed with some of the Hong Kong protesters ’ more radical tactics , like storming the Legislative Council or occupying a university campus .
But China ’ s incursions may make it harder for pro-democracy Hongkongers to advocate for a more moderate stance .
“ They will eventually be pushed to become either totally pro-Beijing agenda , or pro-confrontational protesters , ” Hung , the Johns Hopkins professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disappearance of the middle ground and really will become more polarized.
” Many of Hong Kong ’ s protesters were young , fighting to preserve what freedom they had left .
“ All the things that were ostensibly promised are , as it turns out , just no longer there , ” Cheung said .
“ At this point , what do they have left to lose ?
It really is a powder keg now , and I dread to think how this will play out.
” The first real test for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Traditionally , Hong Kong hosts a vigil honoring the Tiananmen Square massacre , Beijing ’ s June 4 , 1989 , bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters .
In China , the event has been scrubbed from history .
But in Hong Kong , thousands memorialize it .
Hong Kong ’ s social distancing measures banning mass gatherings are in effect until June 4 , though organizers have called on Hongkongers to “ be water , ” a reference to strategy the leaderless protesters used in Hong Kong throughout 2019 , and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recognize the day .
Chu , the managing director of the US-based Hong Kong Democracy Council , said activists have recognized this could be the first year China prevents this gathering from happening .
“ Not allowing it to happen — again , I think it ’ s a lesson not learned well by the Hong Kong and Chinese government , that every time they prevent something this is exactly what galvanizes the grassroots.
” “ It ’ s going to be a little bit of test to see the reaction , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think you will see the ongoing creativity and resilience continue.
” How will the rest of the world respond ?
China ’ s actions will test the international community .
The United Kingdom and the European Union both condemned the move .
US State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said in a statement to Reuters that “ any effort to impose national security legislation that does not reflect the will of the people of Hong Kong would be highly destabilizing , and would be met with strong condemnation from the United States and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced this national security law , Pompeo had warned China against encroaching in Hong Kong , saying it could threaten the State Department ’ s review of Hong Kong ’ s special trade status , which grants exceptions on trade and commerce for Hong Kong that are not available to mainland China .
Last year , President Donald Trump signed the Hong Kong Freedom and Democracy Act , which requires the secretary of state to assess whether Hong Kong should still be granted special trade status under US law , based on whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly autonomous and honoring the rule of law .
The law also calls on the president to impose sanctions on officials who violate human rights in Hong Kong .
“ Our decision on whether or not to certify Hong Kong as having ‘ a high degree of autonomy ’ from China is still pending , ” Pompeo said at a press conference Wednesday .
“ We ’ re closely watching what ’ s going on there.
” Revoking Hong Kong ’ s status would be a dramatic step , with uncertain consequences .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ signal to China , but it could have repercussions for both the US and Hong Kong .
The US could lose tens of billions in trade , and it could jeopardize Hong Kong ’ s standing as a global financial hub , dealing another blow to the city .
The Trump administration has recently been pushing back hard against China as it is considering ways of punishing Beijing for its early mishandling of the coronavirus .
That may motivate the US to take a tougher stance on Hong Kong .
At the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a move , and Beijing may be betting that the US has too much at stake to take such a drastic step .
When asked about the proposed national security law on Thursday , Trump said he didn ’ t know what the US would do .
“ I don ’ t know what it is , because nobody knows yet .
If it happens , we ’ ll address that issue very strongly.
” The US may not want to exhaust this leverage .
It might also not also be ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hong Kong ’ s autonomy is completely lost .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As Hong Kong approaches the anniversary of its massive pro-democracy protests, China is moving to impose a sweeping national security law that could directly undermine Hong Kong’s freedoms and special status, and inflame tensions after a year of political turmoil.
The National People’s Congress — a rubber stamp for the Chinese government — is set to pass legislation that is intended to curtail foreign interference or activities that undermine the state. That could directly target the anti-government activists who have challenged Beijing’s authority. The Chinese government has tried to blame outsiders, including the US, for fomenting the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong is supposed to be governed according to the “one country, two systems” rule. The “one country” part means it is officially part of China, while the “two systems” part gives it a degree of autonomy, including rights like freedom of the press that are absent in mainland China. China is supposed to abide by this arrangement until 2047, but it has been eroding those freedoms and trying to bring Hong Kong more tightly under its control for years.
Last spring, Hong Kong’s legislature tried to pass an extradition bill that critics feared would allow the Chinese government to arbitrarily detain Hongkongers. That ignited massive protests, leading to months of unrest that sometimes turned violent. The bill was withdrawn, but the demonstrations continued, as the fight transformed into a larger battle to protect Hong Kong’s democratic institutions.
The coronavirus pandemic and the social distancing measures required to slow its spread put a lot of that public activism on hold. But Beijing has used the pandemic to further crack down on the pro-democracy movement, including by arresting pro-democracy lawmakers in April.
Now, China has introduced this national security law, which is a much more direct step toward what Beijing has been trying to accomplish for years: one country, one system.
“It is an official death sentence for Hong Kong; it’s nothing less than that,” Alvin Y. H. Cheung, an affiliated scholar at NYU’s US-Asia Law Institute, told me.
The full implications of Beijing’s moves are still unclear, including how it will be implemented and what the political and economic fallout for Hong Kong will be.
Pro-democracy advocates have denounced the legislation. Beijing’s attempts to interfere in Hong Kong’s affairs in the past — the extradition rules being one, but far from the only, example — have fueled widespread resistance.
Samuel Chu, the managing director of the Hong Kong Democracy Council, a US-based pro-democracy group, said China’s decision to step in directly shows it has been unable to fully rein in Hong Kong. “I think that this — not only in a short-term way — will antagonize the pro-democracy movement even more, and would generate a kind of response that China is not prepared [for].”
This has always been China’s plan — if not necessarily its playbook
China has, at least rhetorically, honored the “one country, two systems” rule. In practice, it has sought greater and greater control over Hong Kong.
But Beijing has also had to tread carefully, as some of its boldest moves have been met with resistance. That includes a 2003 attempt to pass a national security law under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law (the closest thing Hong Kong has to a constitution). This would have established rules against subverting the state and foreign interference, but the law got shelved after mass protests.
And in 2014, when Beijing reneged on its promise to give Hong Kong universal suffrage, the Umbrella Revolution erupted. And then there was last summer, when Hong Kong’s legislature tried to pass a controversial extradition bill, and months and months of demonstrations ensued.
For a long time, China and pro-Beijing lawmakers in Hong Kong continued to dream of passing a national security law under Hong Kong’s Article 23, and Beijing had been prodding Hong Kong in recent weeks to take it up again.
But now China is dispensing with all that, and doing it itself.
Ho-Fung Hung, a professor of political economy at Johns Hopkins University, said Beijing may have stepped in directly because it learned a lesson from the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests, which ultimately defeated the legislation and embarrassed China.
“It will be a huge embarrassment if it tried to push through the local legislature that is eventually shelved because of local protests,” Hung said. “Beijing didn’t want to reach that event. Beijing even didn’t trust the local legislature, so it adopted this kind of extreme route to directly legislate.”
“And it is a big, risky move,” he added, “because it tears down all the remaining pretension of ‘one country, two systems.’”
China’s dramatic escalation also comes as the whole world — and the media, which had devoted a lot of attention to the Hong Kong protests — is distracted by the coronavirus pandemic, and as Hong Kong itself is under social distancing restrictions. The imposition of those rules gave Hong Kong some cover to quell protests (while also helping to successfully control the outbreak there).
But China had long made it clear it had no tolerance for the protesters, or even more peaceful challenges to its authority, such as when pro-democracy candidates in Hong Kong dominated local elections. And now China has at least hinted at how it plans to consolidate its control.
“It is such a big development because it’s basically Beijing asserting more fervently that, ‘No, we actually have this type of authority that we can impose on Hong Kong,’” Jacob Stokes, a senior policy analyst for China at the US Institute of Peace, told me.
It makes even the nominal idea of “one country, two systems” somewhat farcical, he added. “China’s sort of turning Hong Kong from what it was before into, in a way, just another city in China,” Stokes said. “And that’s what the protest movement is trying to avoid.”
What comes next? No one knows.
Though China’s planned action makes it clear that it has basically decided to stop pretending it cares about “one country, two systems,” its officials are still trying to frame this rhetorically as strengthening and protecting Hong Kong’s government.
“We will ensure the long-term stability of ‘one country, two systems,’” Wang Yang, head of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, said, according to the Washington Post.
What this means for Hongkongers is still uncertain. The law has not yet been approved, and the details remain fuzzy. According to the New York Times, Chinese officials have indicated the law is targeting foreign influence that’s led to unrest in Hong Kong. But that is largely disinformation; China has blamed outsiders for fueling violence in Hong Kong to deny the grassroots resistance.
The law could have the chilling effect on dissent that China desires, snuffing out all but the most extreme protests. The opposite also seems possible: that China’s actions — proof positive of why many Hongkongers felt they had to continue to protest — might escalate tensions even more.
Hong Kong had already been divided between two camps: “blue” (those who support the police) and “yellow” (those who support the protesters). But many of those “yellow” backers disagreed with some of the Hong Kong protesters’ more radical tactics, like storming the Legislative Council or occupying a university campus.
But China’s incursions may make it harder for pro-democracy Hongkongers to advocate for a more moderate stance. “They will eventually be pushed to become either totally pro-Beijing agenda or pro-confrontational protesters,” Hung, the Johns Hopkins professor, noted. “It’s the disappearance of the middle ground and really will become more polarized.”
Many of Hong Kong’s protesters were young, fighting to preserve what freedom they had left. “All the things that were ostensibly promised are, as it turns out, just no longer there,” Cheung said. “At this point, what do they have left to lose? It really is a powder keg now, and I dread to think how this will play out.”
The first real test for dissent in Hong Kong may come soon. Traditionally, Hong Kong hosts a vigil honoring the Tiananmen Square massacre, Beijing’s June 4, 1989, bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters.
In China, the event has been scrubbed from history. But in Hong Kong, thousands memorialize it. Hong Kong’s social distancing measures banning mass gatherings are in effect until June 4, though organizers have called on Hongkongers to “be water,” a reference to a strategy the leaderless protesters used in Hong Kong throughout 2019, and are calling for Hongkongers to find other ways to recognize the day.
Chu, the managing director of the US-based Hong Kong Democracy Council, said activists have recognized this could be the first year China prevents this gathering from happening.
“Not allowing it to happen — again, I think it’s a lesson not learned well by the Hong Kong and Chinese government, that every time they prevent something this is exactly what galvanizes the grassroots.”
“It’s going to be a little bit of test to see the reaction,” he added, “but I think you will see the ongoing creativity and resilience continue.”
How will the rest of the world respond?
China’s actions will test the international community. The United Kingdom and the European Union both condemned the move.
US State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said in a statement to Reuters that “any effort to impose national security legislation that does not reflect the will of the people of Hong Kong would be highly destabilizing, and would be met with strong condemnation from the United States and the international community.”
A day before China announced this national security law, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had warned China against encroaching in Hong Kong, saying it could threaten the State Department’s review of Hong Kong’s special trade status, which grants exceptions on trade and commerce for Hong Kong that are not available to mainland China.
Last year, President Donald Trump signed the Hong Kong Freedom and Democracy Act, which requires the secretary of state to assess whether Hong Kong should still be granted special trade status under US law, based on whether Hong Kong’s government is still mostly autonomous and honoring the rule of law. The law also calls on the president to impose sanctions on officials who violate human rights in Hong Kong.
“Our decision on whether or not to certify Hong Kong as having ‘a high degree of autonomy’ from China is still pending,” Pompeo said at a press conference Wednesday. “We’re closely watching what’s going on there.”
Revoking Hong Kong’s status would be a dramatic step, with uncertain consequences. It would undoubtedly send a strong signal to China, but it could have repercussions for both the US and Hong Kong. The US could lose tens of billions in trade, and it could jeopardize Hong Kong’s standing as a global financial hub, dealing another blow to the city.
The Trump administration has recently been pushing back hard against China as it is considering ways of punishing Beijing for its early mishandling of the coronavirus. That may motivate the US to take a tougher stance on Hong Kong. At the same time, China could retaliate for such a move, and Beijing may be betting that the US has too much at stake to take such a drastic step.
When asked about the proposed national security law on Thursday, Trump said he didn’t know what the US would do. “I don’t know what it is, because nobody knows yet. If it happens, we’ll address that issue very strongly.”
The US may not want to exhaust this leverage. It might also not be ready to say that, at this point, Hong Kong’s autonomy is completely lost.


vox--2020-05-22--The plaintiff of Roe v. Wade made a big revelation on her deathbed. Here’s what it means.

So says Norma McCorvey at the beginning of AKA Jane Roe , a new documentary about her life as the plaintiff in the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade .
When McCorvey , identified in court papers as Jane Roe , became pregnant in 1969 , abortion was illegal in her state .
She sued for the right to end her pregnancy , and though the case took years — enough time for her to give birth and place the child for adoption — she eventually won , establishing the right to an abortion for all Americans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCorvey became an abortion-rights advocate .
But then , in the 1990s , she had a public change of heart , teaming up with the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and working to get Roe v. Wade overturned .
McCorvey , who died in 2017 , has become a crucial figure for anti-abortion advocates — a conservative film dramatizing her embrace of the anti-abortion movement is currently in the works , as Cassie da Costa notes at the Daily Beast .
But now there ’ s another chapter in McCorvey ’ s story .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ before her death , she says that her transformation into an anti-abortion advocate was an act , and that she was paid to serve as a “ trophy ” for conservative groups .
“ I took their money and they put me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say , ” she tells director Nick Sweeney .
McCorvey ’ s admission in the film , which premiers on FX on Friday , made headlines across the country and shocked many abortion-rights advocates — including McCorvey ’ s former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ featured in the documentary .
But some say it ’ s not surprising that McCorvey , who reversed course several times in her life , would do so again before she died .
And while both sides of the abortion debate have at times claimed McCorvey as a symbol , the complexity of her life may make her more representative of most Americans ’ feelings about abortion than if she ’ d stuck to one ideology .
“ The fact that she was a complicated person who I think had complicated attitudes toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better symbol for abortion in America , because Americans ’ views themselves are contradictory , ” Mary Ziegler , a law professor at Florida State University and the author of Abortion and the Law in America : Roe v. Wade to the Present , told Vox .
McCorvey was an advocate for abortion rights .
Then she very publicly changed her mind .
Norma McCorvey grew up poor in Louisiana and Texas , with an abusive mother and an absent father .
Around the age of 10 , she says in AKA Jane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from home , robbed a gas station , and checked into a hotel .
A hotel maid caught them kissing , and McCorvey was arrested and ultimately sent to a reform school .
Then , at 15 , she was sent to live with a relative who sexually abused her .
She was married at 16 , to a husband who also abused her , and had a child who was ultimately adopted by her mother .
She left her husband and had another child , who was also adopted .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
By then she was living on the streets , she says in AKA Jane Roe , and addicted to drugs and alcohol .
At the time , abortion was legal in some states , such as New York , but illegal in Texas , where McCorvey lived .
She went to an illegal abortion doctor , but was too scared to go through with the procedure .
“ A lot of women didn ’ t make it out , ” she says in the film .
“ They would bleed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney , who told her about Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee , two attorneys who wanted to represent a woman seeking an abortion in Texas .
They took her case , and it went all the way to the Supreme Court .
Essentially overnight , Roe v. Wade changed the landscape of abortion in America .
Prior to 1973 , people with unwanted pregnancies in states like Texas had few options : travel somewhere where abortion was legal , or visit the kind of facility that had so frightened McCorvey .
But after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to open across the country .
Meanwhile , Roe became the foundation for a number of court decisions that limited how much states could restrict abortion , as it was now affirmed as a constitutional right .
But the battle was far from over , as anti-abortion groups sprang up or expanded and began supporting restrictions on abortions .
On the other side , abortion providers and advocates campaigned for widespread access to the procedure .
McCorvey first joined the latter camp .
She approached Charlotte Taft , then the director of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 1980s and introduced herself , saying , “ I ’ m Jane Roe , ” Taft told Vox .
She appeared at local abortion-rights events , then at national ones , represented by Allred .
But privately , McCorvey was conflicted about her role in the abortion debate .
“ On occasion , Norma would call me after she ’ d been drinking , and she would say things like , the playground is empty because of me , ” Taft , who also appears in AKA Jane Roe , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ambivalence , even about being Jane Roe.
” Then , in 1995 , McCorvey was baptized as a Christian and joined the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue .
She also disavowed the case that bore her pseudonym .
“ We ’ ve had two generations of women — well , almost three generations now — of women who have grown up with Roe vs. Wade , ” she said at the time .
“ They have literally been handed the right to slaughter their own children.
” At the time , McCorvey had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Connie Gonzales , for many years .
But after her baptism , she said , “ I am not a lesbian .
I ’ m just a child in Christ now.
” Many on the anti-abortion side saw her conversion as a huge victory .
“ The heart of the person who most symbolized abortion in this country has been touched and captured , if you will , ” Bill Price , the president of Texans United for Life , told the New York Times in 1995 .
And ever since , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a symbol of the idea that abortion had never helped women , ” Ziegler , the law professor , said .
“ If it hadn ’ t helped McCorvey , and McCorvey hadn ’ t really been in favor of abortion , ” opponents asked , “ then , really were any women benefitting from abortion ?
” But with AKA Jane Roe , the narrative of McCorvey ’ s life has changed yet again .
In the film , McCorvey tells Sweeney that she was , essentially , playing a part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Operation Rescue .
“ I ’ m a good actress , ” she says .
Asked if she was used by the anti-abortion movement , she says , “ I think it was a mutual thing , ” noting that she was paid .
In the film , Rev .
Rob Schenck , a former leader in Operation Rescue , also says that McCorvey was “ on the payroll ” at various times , and Sweeney uncovers documents showing that McCorvey received more than $ 450,000 in gifts from anti-abortion groups .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCorvey and is now the leader of the anti-abortion group Operation Save America , tells Sweeney that McCorvey was not paid .
At the time of her “ deathbed confession , ” McCorvey also said that people should have the right to an abortion .
“ If a young woman wants to have an abortion , fine , ” she says .
“ It ’ s no skin off my ass .
You know , that ’ s why they call it ‘ choice.
’ ” Her deathbed reversal may be just one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s revelation , coming at the end of her life , is certainly incendiary .
As Monica Hesse writes at the Washington Post , when the other participants in the documentary , including Allred , Schenck , and Taft , see the footage , “ one by one , they all gasp.
” “ Every part of me was surprised and shocked ” to hear her words , Sweeney told Vox .
But others aren ’ t sure whether to take the confession at face value .
Taft , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became an anti-abortion activist for money .
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s at all that simple , ” she said , noting McCorvey ’ s ambivalence about abortion .
“ The part of her that worried , ‘ uh-oh , is this something wrong ?
’ needed to be cleansed , ” she said .
And while McCorvey assures Sweeney in AKA Jane Roe that “ I ’ m not acting now , ” she ’ s always been a skilled architect of her own story , Ziegler said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the media in general have been inclined to frame her as kind of a victim , someone who was manipulated by these social movements , but there are stories from very early on that she was a completely capable , independent actor who could manipulate people on her own.
” “ The possibility that she could have been manipulating abortion opponents and getting paid to do it back in the day , ” and even perhaps altering her story now to reach a more satisfying conclusion , “ none of that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ She was a complex woman with her own goals.
” In a way , that complexity perhaps makes her a more apt symbol for the abortion debate in America than she would be if she fit either side ’ s narrative more closely .
As Ziegler notes , most Americans support Roe v. Wade and don ’ t want to see it overturned .
But in some polls , majorities of Americans also favor restrictions on abortion , like banning it later in pregnancy .
And in focus groups , voters ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal , and don ’ t necessarily line up with political party or ideology .
“ Attitudes about abortion , when you get into the weeds , are so messy , ” Ziegler said .
“ McCorvey being messy kind of captured that better than the perfect test-case plaintiff would.
” McCorvey ’ s story has implications for plaintiffs in future abortion cases McCorvey has gotten so much attention in part because few women like her have been at the center of abortion cases — let alone the case that made abortion legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suits are brought by clinics and doctors , not by patients .
But a case before the Supreme Court now , June Medical Services v. Gee , could change that .
In Gee , the state of Louisiana and abortion opponents are arguing that doctors do not have legal standing to bring suit on behalf of their patients .
If the Supreme Court agrees with them , then more ordinary people like McCorvey , rather than those who have made abortion rights part of their life ’ s work , will find themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Roe v. Wade .
In some ways , McCorvey ’ s story is “ kind of a cautionary tale ” for would-be future plaintiffs , Ziegler said .
The kind of attention she received in the 1970s , 80s , and 90s would only be magnified for people who bring suit today , in an age of social media and wall-to-wall news coverage .
“ People who are in that position now would see what happened to McCorvey only more so , ” Ziegler said .
“ The stakes for a plaintiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even higher.
” But the story of the former Jane Roe is also a reminder that if more patients do become plaintiffs in abortion cases , Americans shouldn ’ t expect them to perfect symbols for reproductive rights or any other cause .
There ’ s a temptation “ to reduce somebody like Norma to an emblem or a trophy , ” Sweeney said , “ and I think in doing that , we really dehumanize somebody , because we ignore their complexity.
” McCorvey “ was at the center of this huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ but at the end of the day , she was just a person .
She was Norma.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

“This is my deathbed confession.”
So says Norma McCorvey at the beginning of AKA Jane Roe, a new documentary about her life as the plaintiff in the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. When McCorvey, identified in court papers as Jane Roe, became pregnant in 1969, abortion was illegal in her state. She sued for the right to end her pregnancy, and though the case took years — enough time for her to give birth and place the child for adoption — she eventually won, establishing the right to an abortion for all Americans.
After Roe v. Wade was decided, McCorvey became an abortion-rights advocate. But then, in the 1990s, she had a public change of heart, teaming up with the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and working to get Roe v. Wade overturned. McCorvey, who died in 2017, has become a crucial figure for anti-abortion advocates — a conservative film dramatizing her embrace of the anti-abortion movement is currently in the works, as Cassie da Costa notes at the Daily Beast.
But now there’s another chapter in McCorvey’s story. In AKA Jane Roe, filmed shortly before her death, she says her transformation into an anti-abortion advocate was an act, and that she was paid to serve as a “trophy” for conservative groups. “I took their money and they put me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say,” she tells director Nick Sweeney.
McCorvey’s admission in the film, which premiers on FX Friday, made headlines across the country and shocked many abortion-rights advocates — including McCorvey’s former attorney, Gloria Allred, who is featured in the documentary.
But some say it’s not surprising that McCorvey, who reversed course several times in her life, would do so again before she died. And while both sides of the abortion debate have at times claimed McCorvey as a symbol, the complexity of her life may make her more representative of most Americans’ feelings about abortion than if she’d stuck to one ideology.
“The fact that she was a complicated person who I think had complicated attitudes toward abortion throughout her life makes her a better symbol for abortion in America, because Americans’ views themselves are contradictory,” Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University and the author of Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present, told Vox.
McCorvey was an advocate for abortion rights. Then she very publicly changed her mind.
Norma McCorvey grew up poor in Louisiana and Texas, with an abusive mother and an absent father. Around the age of 10, she says in AKA Jane Roe, she and another girl ran away from home, robbed a gas station, and checked into a hotel. A hotel maid caught them kissing, and McCorvey was arrested and ultimately sent to a reform school.
Then, at 15, she was sent to live with a relative who sexually abused her. She was married at 16, to a husband who also abused her, and had a child who was ultimately adopted by her mother. She left her husband and had another child, who was also adopted. At 21, she became pregnant a third time. By then she was living on the streets, she says in AKA Jane Roe, and addicted to drugs and alcohol.
At the time, abortion was legal in some states, such as New York, but illegal in Texas, where McCorvey lived. She went to an illegal abortion doctor, but was too scared to go through with the procedure. “A lot of women didn’t make it out,” she says in the film. “They would bleed to death.”
Then McCorvey consulted an adoption attorney, who told her about Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, two attorneys who wanted to represent a woman seeking an abortion in Texas. They took her case, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Essentially overnight, Roe v. Wade changed the landscape of abortion in America. Prior to 1973, people with unwanted pregnancies in states like Texas had few options: travel somewhere where abortion was legal, or visit the kind of facility that had so frightened McCorvey. But after the decision, legal abortion clinics began to open across the country. Meanwhile, Roe became the foundation for a number of court decisions that limited how much states could restrict abortion, as it was now affirmed as a constitutional right.
But the battle was far from over, as anti-abortion groups sprang up or expanded and began supporting restrictions on abortions. On the other side, abortion providers and advocates campaigned for widespread access to the procedure.
McCorvey first joined the latter camp. She approached Charlotte Taft, then the director of a clinic in Dallas, at an event in the 1980s and introduced herself, saying, “I’m Jane Roe,” Taft told Vox. She appeared at local abortion-rights events, then at national ones, represented by Allred.
But privately, McCorvey was conflicted about her role in the abortion debate. “On occasion, Norma would call me after she’d been drinking, and she would say things like, the playground is empty because of me,” Taft, who also appears in AKA Jane Roe, told Vox. “She had a lot of ambivalence, even about being Jane Roe.”
Then, in 1995, McCorvey was baptized as a Christian and joined the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. She also disavowed the case that bore her pseudonym.
“We’ve had two generations of women — well, almost three generations now — of women who have grown up with Roe vs. Wade,” she said at the time. “They have literally been handed the right to slaughter their own children.”
At the time, McCorvey had been in a relationship with a woman, Connie Gonzales, for many years. But after her baptism, she said, “I am not a lesbian. I’m just a child in Christ now.”
Many on the anti-abortion side saw her conversion as a huge victory. “The heart of the person who most symbolized abortion in this country has been touched and captured, if you will,” Bill Price, the president of Texans United for Life, told the New York Times in 1995.
And ever since, for abortion opponents, McCorvey has been “a symbol of the idea that abortion had never helped women,” Ziegler, the law professor, said. “If it hadn’t helped McCorvey, and McCorvey hadn’t really been in favor of abortion,” opponents asked, “then, really were any women benefitting from abortion?”
But with AKA Jane Roe, the narrative of McCorvey’s life has changed yet again. In the film, McCorvey tells Sweeney that she was, essentially, playing a part when she disavowed abortion as an activist with Operation Rescue. “I’m a good actress,” she says.
Asked if she was used by the anti-abortion movement, she says, “I think it was a mutual thing,” noting that she was paid. In the film, Rev. Rob Schenck, a former leader in Operation Rescue, also says that McCorvey was “on the payroll” at various times, and Sweeney uncovers documents showing that McCorvey received more than $450,000 in gifts from anti-abortion groups. Rev. Flip Benham, who baptized McCorvey and is now the leader of the anti-abortion group Operation Save America, tells Sweeney that McCorvey was not paid.
At the time of her “deathbed confession,” McCorvey also said people should have the right to an abortion.
“If a young woman wants to have an abortion, fine,” she says. “It’s no skin off my ass. You know, that’s why they call it ‘choice.’”
Her deathbed reversal may be just one more part of a complicated life
McCorvey’s revelation, coming at the end of her life, is certainly incendiary. As Monica Hesse writes at the Washington Post, when the other participants in the documentary, including Allred, Schenck, and Taft, see the footage, “one by one, they all gasp.”
“Every part of me was surprised and shocked” to hear her words, Sweeney told Vox.
But others aren’t sure whether to take the confession at face value. Taft, for example, doesn’t believe that McCorvey simply became an anti-abortion activist for money. “I don’t think it’s at all that simple,” she said, noting McCorvey’s ambivalence about abortion. “The part of her that worried, ‘uh-oh, is this something wrong?’ needed to be cleansed,” she said.
And while McCorvey assures Sweeney in AKA Jane Roe that “I’m not acting now,” she’s always been a skilled architect of her own story, Ziegler said. “People on social media and in the media in general have been inclined to frame her as kind of a victim, someone who was manipulated by these social movements, but there are stories from very early on that she was a completely capable, independent actor who could manipulate people on her own.”
“The possibility that she could have been manipulating abortion opponents and getting paid to do it back in the day,” and even perhaps altering her story now to reach a more satisfying conclusion, “none of that would surprise me,” Ziegler said. “She was a complex woman with her own goals.”
In a way, that complexity perhaps makes her a more apt symbol for the abortion debate in America than she would be if she fit either side’s narrative more closely. As Ziegler notes, most Americans support Roe v. Wade and don’t want to see it overturned. But in some polls, majorities of Americans also favor restrictions on abortion, like banning it later in pregnancy. And in focus groups, voters’ views on abortion tend to be highly personal, and don’t necessarily line up with political party or ideology.
“Attitudes about abortion, when you get into the weeds, are so messy,” Ziegler said. “McCorvey being messy kind of captured that better than the perfect test-case plaintiff would.”
McCorvey’s story has implications for plaintiffs in future abortion cases
McCorvey has gotten so much attention in part because few women like her have been at the center of abortion cases — let alone the case that made abortion legal across America. Today, most abortion suits are brought by clinics and doctors, not by patients.
But a case before the Supreme Court now, June Medical Services v. Gee, could change that. In Gee, the state of Louisiana and abortion opponents are arguing that doctors do not have legal standing to bring suit on behalf of their patients. If the Supreme Court agrees with them, then more ordinary people like McCorvey, rather than those who have made abortion rights part of their life’s work, will find themselves at the center of incredibly controversial cases like Roe v. Wade.
In some ways, McCorvey’s story is “kind of a cautionary tale” for would-be future plaintiffs, Ziegler said. The kind of attention she received in the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s would only be magnified for people who bring suit today, in an age of social media and wall-to-wall news coverage. “People who are in that position now would see what happened to McCorvey only more so,” Ziegler said. “The stakes for a plaintiff in a case like that would be even higher.”
But the story of the former Jane Roe is also a reminder that if more patients do become plaintiffs in abortion cases, Americans shouldn’t expect them to be perfect symbols for reproductive rights or any other cause.
There’s a temptation “to reduce somebody like Norma to an emblem or a trophy,” Sweeney said, “and I think in doing that, we really dehumanize somebody, because we ignore their complexity.”
McCorvey “was at the center of this huge divisive issue,” he added, “but at the end of the day, she was just a person. She was Norma.”


vox--2020-05-22--Joe Biden receives swift blowback for claiming voters “ain’t black” if they support Trump

During a Friday interview on The Breakfast Club radio show , former Vice President Joe Biden made a controversial comment in an attempt to highlight his strength with black voters .
“ Well , I tell you what , if you have a problem figuring out whether you ’ re for me or Trump , then you ain ’ t black , ” Biden said as he signed off from a conversation with show host , Charlamagne tha God .
“ It don ’ t have nothing to do with Trump , it has to do with the fact — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Charlamagne responded .
Biden ’ s comment followed a wide-ranging interview , during which Charlamagne pressed him on everything from his implementation of the 1994 crime bill to his decision on a running mate .
His remark featured the presumptive Democratic nominee , a 77-year-old white man , attempting to determine blackness , and it prompted swift blowback on social media .
Some prominent activists and writers of color questioned why Biden was effectively taking support from black voters for granted , and trying to judge who was black .
Symone Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s campaign , later noted that Biden had made these statements “ in jest ” and reiterated that he was pointing out how his record compared to Trump ’ s .
Biden , himself , also apologized for the remarks during a call with black business leaders on Friday afternoon , according to CBS News correspondent Ed O ’ Keefe .
“ I should not have been so cavalier .
I ’ ve never , never , ever taken the African American community for granted , ” he said .
“ No one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on their race , their religion , their background.
” It ’ s unclear whether the exchange will have an enduring impact on the November election .
But the interview highlighted how Biden has relied on support from black voters , without always thinking through what could alienate them .
A concern over Biden ’ s comments centers on whether he can energize voters to go to the polls — and give them a reason to do so beyond opposition to the president .
Biden ’ s success in the primary was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Friday ’ s interview , Biden noted repeatedly that black voters were central to his success during the Democratic primary .
“ I told you , when I got to South Carolina , I won every single county .
I won a larger share of the black vote than anybody has , including Barack , ” he said .
In several key primary states , including South Carolina , Biden won overwhelmingly with black voters compared to Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , though this support was stratified by age .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina , for example , Biden won 61 percent of black voters overall while Sanders won 17 percent .
But across age groups , older black voters were more likely to support Biden than younger ones .
For example , 38 percent of black voters under 30 backed Sanders , while 36 percent backed Biden .
Since he ’ s become the presumptive nominee , a recurring concern that ’ s been raised about Biden ’ s candidacy is whether he ’ ll be able energize a broader base of voters — including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about him .
Younger voters of color were among those who raised concerns about his comments Friday and are squarely in the group he needs to effectively reach .
Democrats , after all , will need higher turnout to win in this cycle , and black voters , whose turnout rates dipped from the 2012 election to 2016 , are one of the key voting groups they have to connect with .
Biden ’ s statements on Friday indicated that he and his campaign are still wrestling with this issue .
Every day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

During a Friday interview on The Breakfast Club radio show, former Vice President Joe Biden made a controversial comment in an attempt to highlight his strength with black voters. “Well, I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black,” Biden said as he signed off from a conversation with show host Charlamagne tha God.
“It don’t have nothing to do with Trump, it has to do with the fact — I want something for my community,” Charlamagne responded.
Biden’s comment followed a wide-ranging interview, during which Charlamagne pressed him on everything from his implementation of the 1994 crime bill to his decision on a running mate.
His remark featured the presumptive Democratic nominee, a 77-year-old white man, attempting to determine blackness, and it prompted swift blowback on social media. Some prominent activists and writers of color questioned why Biden was effectively taking support from black voters for granted, and trying to judge who was black.
Somebody needs to tell Joe Biden that this comment to Charlamagne was a mistake.
Yes, Biden is a much better choice for black people than racist Trump.
But white people don’t get to tell black people what is black.
Biden still has to EARN our vote.pic.twitter.com/TPEV5ZpEYi — Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) May 22, 2020
Aimee Allison of She the People on the Biden remark: "Being ‘not Trump’ is not good enough to inspire voter turnout. If he wants any chance of winning he needs to stop threatening us with Trump and start giving us real power," starting w/ black woman as VP https://t.co/Z8hk0wlNGX — Josh Jamerson (@joshjame) May 22, 2020
Looooong sigh. White politicians should probably refrain from defining Blackness for Black people. Just a thought. — Adrianne Shropshire (@AdrianneShrop) May 22, 2020
Symone Sanders, a senior adviser for Biden’s campaign, later noted Biden had made these statements “in jest” and reiterated that he was pointing out how his record compared to Trump’s. Biden, himself, also apologized for the remarks during a call with black business leaders on Friday afternoon, according to CBS News correspondent Ed O’Keefe.
“I should not have been so cavalier. I’ve never, never, ever taken the African American community for granted,” he said. “No one should have to vote for any party based on their race, their religion, their background.”
The comments made at the end of the Breakfast Club interview were in jest, but let’s be clear about what the VP was saying: he was making the distinction that he would put his record with the African American community up against Trump’s any day. Period. — Symone D. Sanders (@SymoneDSanders) May 22, 2020
It’s unclear whether the exchange will have an enduring impact on the November election. But the interview highlighted how Biden has relied on support from black voters, without always thinking through what could alienate them. A concern over Biden’s comments centers on whether he can energize voters to go to the polls — and give them a reason to do so beyond opposition to the president.
Biden’s success in the primary was powered heavily by black voters
As part of Friday’s interview, Biden noted repeatedly that black voters were central to his success during the Democratic primary. “I told you, when I got to South Carolina, I won every single county. I won a larger share of the black vote than anybody has, including Barack,” he said.
In several key primary states, including South Carolina, Biden won overwhelmingly with black voters compared to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), though this support was stratified by age.
In the pivotal primary state of South Carolina, for example, Biden won 61 percent of black voters overall while Sanders won 17 percent. But across age groups, older black voters were more likely to support Biden than younger ones. For example, 38 percent of black voters under 30 backed Sanders, while 36 percent backed Biden.
Since he’s become the presumptive nominee, a recurring concern that’s been raised about Biden’s candidacy is whether he’ll be able to energize a broader base of voters — including those who’ve been less enthused about him. Younger voters of color were among those who raised concerns about his comments Friday and are squarely in the group he needs to effectively reach.
Democrats, after all, will need higher turnout to win in this cycle, and black voters, whose turnout rates dipped from the 2012 election to 2016, are one of the key voting groups they have to connect with.
Biden’s statements on Friday indicated that he and his campaign are still wrestling with this issue.


vox--2020-05-22--Trump claims he will “override the governors” who closed churches in the pandemic

At a press conference Friday afternoon , President Trump announced that he would order churches reopened despite the coronavirus pandemic — something he almost certainly does not have the power to do .
State governors , Trump claimed , need to allow churches to reopen “ right now , for this weekend.
” He added that “ if they don ’ t do it , I will override the governors.
” Trump also reportedly ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) to release guidance for houses of worship seeking to reopen .
There have been several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to church gatherings .
In April , at least 70 infections were linked to a church in Sacramento , California .
More recently , the CDC determined that “ among 92 attendees at a rural Arkansas church during March 6-11 , 35 ( 38 % ) developed laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 , and three persons died.
” Although many governors have either ordered churches closed or restricted gatherings within churches , some governors have allowed places of worship to reopen .
There have also been some court challenges to orders closing houses of faith , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least so far , has largely been marginal .
Trump ’ s power to override state governments is very limited State governments , not the White House , have the primary responsibility to decide how their states will react to the pandemic .
Congress could theoretically override some decisions by state governors .
The Constitution gives Congress the power to “ regulate commerce with foreign nations , and among the several states , ” a provision which gives Congress broad authority to regulate the national economy and to remove obstacles to interstate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a state order closing businesses , it could likely enact a federal law preempting that state order .
But even assuming that churches have a substantial enough impact on interstate commerce that Congress could order them reopened , Trump is not Congress .
Trump can invoke existing laws that give the federal executive branch some power to help manage a public health crisis , but those statutes largely permit the federal government to support ongoing state efforts to control a disease , or to quarantine seeking to enter the country or to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters asked White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany to identify which provision of federal law permits the president to override a governor ’ s public health order , McEnany did not do so .
Instead , her answer — ” the president will strongly encourage every governor to allow churches to reopen ” — appeared to concede that Trump only has the power to try to persuade governors to change their policies .
Yet while Trump almost certainly does not have the lawful authority to order churches reopened , he is the head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are likely to shape the views of many GOP partisans — some of whom are sitting judges .
Under the Supreme Court ’ s decision in Employment Division v. Smith ( 1990 ) , churches and other religious institutions may be subjected to the same laws as anyone else , so long as they are not singled out for inferior treatment .
As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for his Court in that case , “ the government ’ s ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct , like its ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy , ‘ can not depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector ’ s spiritual development.
’ ” But Smith has fallen out of favor with judicial conservatives , and it is likely that the Supreme Court ’ s Republican majority will overrule it in a case they are scheduled to hear in the fall .
Even if Smith is overruled , however , state governments may still regulate churches — or even close them down — so long as the rules regulating those churches are narrowly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as preventing the spread of a deadly disease .
While existing law provides that governors may close churches in order to protect human life , it is far from clear that an increasingly conservative judiciary will follow this law .
Last month , for example , Trump-appointed Judge Justin Walker wrote a highly partisan opinion that seemed to liken a Kentucky order , which allegedly banned drive-in church services , to tales of slaves being beaten for “ attending prayer meetings ” So , while Trump does not have the lawful authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is likely to influence politicians and at least some Republican judges .
That means that the courts could require churches to reopen long before the virus is under control — potentially leading to new outbreaks like the ones in California and Arkansas .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

At a press conference Friday afternoon, President Donald Trump announced he would order churches reopened despite the coronavirus pandemic — something he almost certainly does not have the power to do.
State governors, Trump claimed, need to allow churches to reopen “right now, for this weekend.” He added that “if they don’t do it, I will override the governors.”
Trump angrily reads his statement about reopening places of worship and then leaves without answering questions pic.twitter.com/HiZH7AyJhO — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 22, 2020
Trump also reportedly ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to release guidance for houses of worship seeking to reopen.
There have been several outbreaks of coronavirus that were traced back to church gatherings. In April, at least 70 infections were linked to a church in Sacramento, California. More recently, the CDC determined that “among 92 attendees at a rural Arkansas church during March 6-11, 35 (38%) developed laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and three persons died.”
Although many governors have either ordered churches closed or restricted gatherings within churches, some governors have allowed places of worship to reopen. There have also been some court challenges to orders closing houses of faith, but the impact of these challenges, at least so far, has largely been marginal.
Trump’s power to override state governments is very limited
State governments, not the White House, have the primary responsibility to decide how their states will react to the pandemic.
Congress could theoretically override some decisions by state governors. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,” a provision which gives Congress broad authority to regulate the national economy and to remove obstacles to interstate trade. So, if Congress disagreed with a state order closing businesses, it could likely enact a federal law preempting that state order.
But even assuming churches have a substantial enough impact on interstate commerce that Congress could order them reopened, Trump is not Congress. Trump can invoke existing laws that give the federal executive branch some power to help manage a public health crisis, but those statutes largely permit the federal government to support ongoing state efforts to control a disease, or to quarantine people seeking to enter the country or to cross state lines.
Notably, when reporters asked White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany to identify which provision of federal law permits the president to override a governor’s public health order, McEnany did not do so. Instead, her answer — “the president will strongly encourage every governor to allow churches to reopen” — appeared to concede that Trump only has the power to try to persuade governors to change their policies.
Trump may influence Republican judges to order churches reopened
Yet while Trump almost certainly does not have the lawful authority to order churches reopened, he is the head of the Republican Party and his words are likely to shape the views of many GOP partisans — some of whom are sitting judges.
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), churches and other religious institutions may be subjected to the same laws as anyone else, so long as they are not singled out for inferior treatment. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for his Court in that case, “the government’s ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, ‘cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector’s spiritual development.’”
But Smith has fallen out of favor with judicial conservatives, and it is likely the Supreme Court’s Republican majority will overrule it in a case they are scheduled to hear in the fall. Even if Smith is overruled, however, state governments may still regulate churches — or even close them down — so long as the rules regulating those churches are narrowly tailored to advance a compelling interest, such as preventing the spread of a deadly disease.
While existing law provides that governors may close churches in order to protect human life, it is far from clear that an increasingly conservative judiciary will follow this law. Last month, for example, Trump-appointed Judge Justin Walker wrote a highly partisan opinion that seemed to liken a Kentucky order, which allegedly banned drive-in church services, to tales of slaves being beaten for “attending prayer meetings.”
So, while Trump does not have the lawful authority to order churches reopened, his rhetoric is likely to influence politicians and at least some Republican judges. That means the courts could require churches to reopen long before the virus is under control — potentially leading to new outbreaks like the ones in California and Arkansas.


vox--2020-05-22--Today, Explained: Greatest Hits

Today, Explained: Greatest Hits

Today , Explained has always been a musical show .
Every episode features scoring and rich sound design .
And @ @ @ @ @ parody songs .
But while those were fun , I ’ m more proud of @ @ @ @ @ ve featured on the show .
Maybe because I wrote a lot of it .
@ @ @ @ @ years , listeners have asked , “ When are you guys going to drop an @ @ @ @ @ have an answer : today .
Today , Explained : Greatest Hits is now streaming @ @ @ @ @ of original songs on Spotify , Apple , Tidal , and Soundcloud .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ below .
Think of this as our gift for a summer that will invariably be @ @ @ @ @ .
Something to listen to while you stay six feet away .

Today, Explained has always been a musical show. Every episode features scoring and rich sound design. And of course there were the parody songs. But while those were fun, I’m more proud of the original music we’ve featured on the show. Maybe because I wrote a lot of it.
Over the past couple of years, listeners have asked, “When are you guys going to drop an album?” We finally have an answer: today.
Today, Explained: Greatest Hits is now streaming everywhere. Find our album of original songs on Spotify, Apple, Tidal, and Soundcloud. We’ve even embedded a stream below. Think of this as our gift for a summer that will invariably be a bit of a bummer. Something to listen to while you stay six feet away.