democracynow--2020-11-10--As U.S. Faces Out-of-Control Pandemic, Pfizer Raises Hope for Vaccine, But Many Questions Remain

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : As the number of coronavirus cases worldwide tops more than 51 million , the U.S. pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced Monday a Phase 3 , late-stage study found their potential COVID-19 vaccine shows more than 90 % effectiveness .
This is Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on CNN .
AMY GOODMAN : The two-dose vaccine still faces several challenges , including how to store and transport it , since it must be refrigerated at subzero temperatures .
In response to the news , Vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NEWS : Thanks to the public-private partnership forged by President @ realDonaldTrump , @ pfizer announced its Coronavirus Vaccine trial is EFFECTIVE , preventing infection in 90 % of its volunteers , ” unquote .
Pfizer immediately debunked the claim , which referenced Operation Warp Speed , the federal effort to rush a vaccine to market .
Senior vice president and head of vaccine research , Kathrin Jansen , told The New York Times , quote , “ We were never part of the Warp Speed .
… We have never taken any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from anyone , ” she said .
Meanwhile , President-elect Joe Biden said Monday the coronavirus vaccine approval process must be guided by science , and warned a vaccine likely won ’ t be available for months .
He spoke after meeting with the 12-member coronavirus task force that he has just appointed to advise him during the transition before his January 20th inauguration .
It includes Dr. Rick Bright , the whistleblower from the Trump administration who said his early warnings about the pandemic were ignored .
AMY GOODMAN : President-elect Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. relationship with the World Health Organization .
This comes as the U.S. passed 10 million COVID cases on Monday , with the most recent 1 million infections happening faster than any previous million — in just 10 days .
Well , for more , we ’ re joined by Laurie Garrett , Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer , former senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations .
She ’ s the author of a number of books , including Ebola : Story of an Outbreak and The Coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World Out of Balance .
It ’ s great to have you with us , Laurie .
Thanks so much for joining us .
If you can first start off by responding to the Pfizer announcement yesterday ?
LAURIE GARRETT : Well , on the front end , I have to say it ’ s great news .
It ’ s always encouraging to see positive results in a vaccine trial , especially at this stage in an epidemic , very quickly .
And , you know , it ’ s hopeful .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There has been no scientific release .
There ’ s no published data .
We don ’ t have anything to go with except what the lawyers at Pfizer massaged carefully into a single-page press release .
So , we have to take that with a big caveat .
And the other thing that has to be considered very carefully is that this president is in the process of carrying out retribution , vindictive firings all across his government , getting rid of people who have stood up to him in various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ astounding was yesterday , firing the secretary of defense .
And Steve Hahn , the head of FDA , has been consistently on Trump ’ s hit list .
He stood up to the president regarding hydroxychloroquine , regarding convalescent plasma therapy and other things that the president claimed would treat or cure or eliminate COVID , but they wouldn ’ t .
And so , we could have a situation now where , in the coming days , Steve Hahn ’ s head would go on a platter , and the FDA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speedy steps to usher this vaccine through the next stage that could allow it to potentially get an emergency approval before the new year .
AMY GOODMAN : Laurie Garrett , just very quickly , explain what you mean by Esper — the significance of him in relation to the vaccine .
He is in charge of Operation Warp Speed ?
He ’ s the secretary of defense .
LAURIE GARRETT : No , my reason for raising that is that it ’ s very clear the president has now offed , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government , from USAID , from the Energy Commission , from all sorts of different agencies and departments around the government .
If he targets Steve Hahn , as he has threatened to do many times — he has threatened Steve Hahn , the FDA commissioner , with firing on multiple occasions .
If he offs him , it would be very hard to imagine how the FDA could proceed for a rapid approval of this vaccine .
Meanwhile , I mean , there are issues about the vaccine .
Because of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial designs were set up , it is possible to claim victory based on seven days of data .
And that ’ s what this study did .
They had two arms of volunteers — one were placebo recipients , one were vaccine recipients .
The two arms are blinded , so none of the people executing the study know who is getting what .
And that ’ s good , and that ’ s how it should be .
And one arm had eight cases , and the other arm had 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the arm with the eight cases was the vaccine recipient arm , then that gives it what they call 90 % effectiveness in protecting against infection .
But the window of looking at these people to see did they get coronavirus infected was seven days , seven days after their booster shot .
Well , you know , that ’ s a pretty short-term durability of immune response .
And if eight people got infected in just seven days , I wonder what the infection rate and the protection rate of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out over two months .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Laurie , what do we know about the trial participants ?
There was supposedly , I think , 44,000 of them .
Do we know anything about the breakdown in terms of vulnerable populations or not , or different nationalities ?
What do we know ?
LAURIE GARRETT : Actually , we know a great deal , and all of this was in the press release detailed — far more detail about that than the outcome of the research .
And , yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racially diverse , age diverse .
There are healthcare workers that are very directly exposed .
It actually , you know , on the face of it , looks like an excellent study panel .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And in terms of the capacity of Pfizer and BioNTech to produce 50 million doses of the vaccine this year and 1.3 billion , as they claim , in 2021 , has the U.S. already purchased some of these in advance ?
What ’ s the situation in terms of the rollout , if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Do we have any idea about that ?
LAURIE GARRETT : One of the key features of Operation Warp Speed on the U.S. side , and its equivalent efforts all over the world in wealthy countries , and in WHO ’ s hands , is to try and encourage drug companies to go ahead and gear up for manufacturing even before the trial results are in , so that we don ’ t — precisely to your point , we didn ’ t want to feet dragging , waiting for production capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been encouraged to gamble — and it ’ s a big financial gamble — to gamble that their vaccine will indeed work and to build up production capacity right away .
And so , Pfizer claims that they already have production capacity to make tens of millions of doses and that they will be revved up to make billions of doses sometime in late 2021 .
But at the front end , keep in mind , when you hear a figure like 50 million doses available , everybody has to take two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million human beings vaccinated , not 50 million .
And that means that there has to be determination of who gets in the front of the line and who gets in the second tier of the line .
And the National Academy of Medicine has held numerous hearings on this topic to try and come up with equitable , smart ways to decide , essentially , who goes first .
And obviously , frontline healthcare workers are at the front of that line .
AMY GOODMAN : And can you talk about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but of it having to be kept at subfreezing temperature — states across the country are asking how exactly are they going to be dealing with this — not only what this means in the United States , but around the world , especially in poorer countries ?
LAURIE GARRETT : Well , I ’ ve detailed a lot of this in a piece that ’ s published today by Foreign Policy , so people can look at that and see some of the — more references to things I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing I really want to underscore is , the Pfizer vaccine may be the first one we ’ re hearing about , but there are a lot of other ones , more than 200 in the pipeline .
And many of them will in fact be better vaccines , will have even better results and will be easier to transport , easier to store , easier — perhaps require only one dose , and so on .
So , you know , let ’ s not put all of our eggs in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on nucleic acid .
It ’ s made from mRNA , messenger RNA .
And this is the molecule that carries the blueprint from the DNA — right ?
— to the machinery inside the cell that manufactures proteins .
And so , what it ’ s doing is turning your cells , your human cells , into little factories to make the protein that ’ s on the outside , that sticks up on the outside , in multiple copies surrounding the virus .
And that way , making just that protein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system will see it and make antibodies against it .
So it ’ s programming your immune system to recognize the enemy .
The problem is that that mRNA is very unstable .
It is so unstable that it has to be stored at minus-100 degrees Fahrenheit .
Some reports say -110 degrees Fahrenheit , which is well below anybody ’ s freezer capacities .
And so , you either have to have very , very , very powerful freezers or a lot of dry ice .
And there we get to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been pointed out repeatedly that we have a global shortage of dry ice .
Dry ice has to be made from pure CO2 , and the primary source of pure CO2 in the whole sort of manufacturing chain for dry ice is burning ethanol .
And since the epidemic has resulted in a huge decrease in the burning of fossil fuels , it ’ s also , fortunately , resulted in a decrease in the emission of CO2 , including into this pure form to make dry ice .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of transport and use of this vaccine will be challenging .
And this was pointed out by the National Governors Association in a very blistering letter that they sent formally to Robert Redfield , the head of the CDC , and to the White House , saying , “ You ’ re asking us , as governors , to be prepared to do mass immunization of our populations without telling us details about the likely vaccine .
But we understand that at the front of the line are vaccines that require deep , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultra freezing .
We don ’ t have deep , deep , deep , deep ultra freezers .
Our health departments are woefully underfunded .
We don ’ t have the capacity to do this .
Where will the money come from ?
Where will the equipment come from ?
Who ’ s in charge of all of this ?
And how are we going to do this ?
” And the response from the White House so far was simply to say , “ Hey , you know , you should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talked about that at this meeting .
And Governor Cuomo , the head of the National Governors Association , didn ’ t show up for the meeting.
” JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Laurie , what do you make of the timing of this announcement coming just a couple of days after Joe Biden was declared the winner of the presidential debates ?
There ’ s , rightfully , some questions asked as to whether Pfizer and BioNTech could have made this announcement one or two days earlier or a week earlier ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ GARRETT : The CEO of Pfizer made it very clear , in multiple public appearances and in writing , more than three weeks ago , that he was not going to see his vaccine be a political football , that he wasn ’ t making guarantees to have it available by any deadline date that was set by the White House or by anybody else , but that the science would determine , he said , what date the information , the results would be released .
And we just have to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I wanted to ask you about Public Citizen saying that Pfizer should not have released this by press release without being able to provide further data , the questions , Laurie , about who this was tested on .
Health Research Group ’ s Michael Carome released this statement saying , quote — that statement said , quote — I ’ m going to go to it right now — “ The release of preliminary and incomplete clinical trial data by press release to the public is bad science .
Until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by staff at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the independent experts on the agency ’ s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee , enthusiasm for the apparently promising interim results announced by Pfizer and BioNTech must be tempered .
Crucial information absent from the companies ’ announcement is any evidence that the vaccine prevents serious COVID-19 cases or reduces hospitalizations and deaths due to the disease .
More importantly , critical safety data from the phase 3 trial of the … vaccine is not yet available.
” But who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who the trials have been conducted on , the concerns raised — in the United States , communities of color , Latinx and African American populations underrepresented in a lot of these vaccine trials , and Oxfam raising the concern the vaccine would be committed — Oxfam has said the vaccine would be , quote , “ 0 % effective to the people who can ’ t access or afford it.
” LAURIE GARRETT : Well , there ’ s a lot of truth and untruth in that mix of comments that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , Pfizer put out a very detailed list , as I already said to Juan , of the racial breakdown , age breakdown and susceptibility to COVID disease breakdown of the participants in their study .
And it is a very diverse group .
And I just — I don ’ t know who ’ s making claims otherwise , but they should look at the breakdown .
It ’ s been published and known for quite some time .
But the larger question : What does this vaccine , or anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moderna vaccine , which is also based on mRNA and will require deep freezing , and some of the other vaccines in the pipeline that have difficult either production issues or logistic issues associated with the nature of the vaccine — what does this mean for the rest of the world ?
And that ’ s a very legitimate question and a very troubling one , but one that the community has been confronting from the very beginning .
I mean , all the way back in February , there has been discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is a cooperative for vaccines , COVAX , set up by WHO in conjunction with several lead countries .
Almost every country in the world is now a member — notably not the United States , because Trump refused to be involved in anything that WHO had its fingerprints on .
But COVAX is a consortia of all the nations ’ both producers of vaccines and likely recipients committing to lowering their patent thresholds , making vaccines affordable and available for the whole world , and trying to rush them into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re not reliant on a single patent-based manufacturing site .
So , we ’ re learning from past experiences that we have to take innovative approaches to vaccine production , because , otherwise , it ’ s not available for the whole world .
Nevertheless , if a vaccine as difficult to make and to maintain in stable form as this one , the Pfizer vaccine , is becomes something that we try to execute worldwide , there will be very , very significant hurdles to overcome , both in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a mass scale .
So , I think a lot of us are really hoping that some of the more traditional types of vaccines , which are in the pipeline , which would be usable through systems already in existence for mass vaccination of children , will turn out to be successful and will eventually come forward for mass production .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Laurie , we ’ re in the midst now of the second surge , if in some places the third surge , in the numbers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has named his coronavirus task force .
How do you assess the task force that Biden has named ?
And what do you see as what should be the first , the key steps that that task force has to take ?
LAURIE GARRETT : Yeah , Juan , I argue in today ’ s piece in Foreign Policy that , you know , it ’ s a fine task force — good names , smart people .
And notably , exceptional differences compared to the current COVID task force in the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president-elect on the task force ; there are no financial interests associated with the president-elect or his family or close associates represented on the task force .
It is a public health and scientific task force .
And I ’ m confident that they will make decisions based on the seven principles of fighting COVID , which the president-elect published on his website on Monday morning .
And those clearly lay out a strategic scheme that ’ s in line with the kinds of things that Tony Fauci has been advocating and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has supported from the very beginning of this epidemic , that were never fully implement at any time , in any state , by any political leader in the United States of America , certainly not the president .
But let ’ s all be very clear .
And this is the key point I really lead with in my Foreign Policy piece , is we are in very dire times in the United States right now .
This surge that we ’ re in right now is going to surpass what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are looking very likely , because the administration will take no actions , to speak of , to control the spread of COVID for the next 70-plus days that Donald Trump is in charge of the country — we are looking very likely at 400,000 deaths cumulatively by Christmas .
We will go to the inauguration with an out-of-control epidemic in all 50 states .
It ’ s already out of control in 43 states .
We will have surges that require actions by governors and mayors that exceed what most of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID .
They ’ ll be very much like what we went through in New York in March , April and May .
And the euphoria that we saw yesterday on the stock markets around the world in response to the Pfizer vaccine announcement will turn to a downturn as lockdowns are put in place , and we ’ ll feel more economic pain .
So , while I am optimistic that this COVID task force put together by President-elect Biden will take promising steps and certainly take this epidemic very , very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the role of the United States as a world leader , and nationally , domestically , but there are 71 days left for this current president to screw up this epidemic further .
He is a vindictive individual .
He seems to be out of control right now in the White House .
And I just — I ’ m terrified for what things he will and will not do between now and January 20th .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: As the number of coronavirus cases worldwide tops more than 51 million, the U.S. pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced Monday a Phase 3, late-stage study found their potential COVID-19 vaccine shows more than 90% effectiveness. This is Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on CNN.
ALBERT BOURLA: Ninety percent is a game changer. Ninety percent, now you are hoping to have a tool in your war against this pandemic that could be significantly effective. How long this protection will last is something that we don’t know right now. … We believe that we are in a good situation to have up to 50 million doses this year globally. And I believe we are in a very, very good situation to have 1.3 billion doses globally.
AMY GOODMAN: The two-dose vaccine still faces several challenges, including how to store and transport it, since it must be refrigerated at subzero temperatures.
In response to the news, Vice President Mike Pence tweeted, ”HUGE NEWS: Thanks to the public-private partnership forged by President @realDonaldTrump, @pfizer announced its Coronavirus Vaccine trial is EFFECTIVE, preventing infection in 90% of its volunteers,” unquote. Pfizer immediately debunked the claim, which referenced Operation Warp Speed, the federal effort to rush a vaccine to market. Senior vice president and head of vaccine research, Kathrin Jansen, told The New York Times, quote, “We were never part of the Warp Speed. … We have never taken any money from the U.S. government, or from anyone,” she said.
Meanwhile, President-elect Joe Biden said Monday the coronavirus vaccine approval process must be guided by science, and warned a vaccine likely won’t be available for months. He spoke after meeting with the 12-member coronavirus task force that he has just appointed to advise him during the transition before his January 20th inauguration. It includes Dr. Rick Bright, the whistleblower from the Trump administration who said his early warnings about the pandemic were ignored.
PRESIDENT-ELECT JOE BIDEN: This group will advise on detailed plans built on a bedrock of science, and the key compassion, empathy and care for every American at its core, making rapid testing widely available — more widely available, much more widely available — and building a core of contact tracers who will track and curb this disease, while we prioritize getting vaccines first to the most at-risk populations.
AMY GOODMAN: President-elect Biden has also said he plans to repair the U.S. relationship with the World Health Organization. This comes as the U.S. passed 10 million COVID cases on Monday, with the most recent 1 million infections happening faster than any previous million — in just 10 days.
Well, for more, we’re joined by Laurie Garrett, Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer, former senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations. She’s the author of a number of books, including Ebola: Story of an Outbreak and The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance.
It’s great to have you with us, Laurie. Thanks so much for joining us. If you can first start off by responding to the Pfizer announcement yesterday?
LAURIE GARRETT: Well, on the front end, I have to say it’s great news. It’s always encouraging to see positive results in a vaccine trial, especially at this stage in an epidemic, very quickly. And, you know, it’s hopeful. But it is only a press release. There has been no scientific release. There’s no published data. We don’t have anything to go with except what the lawyers at Pfizer massaged carefully into a single-page press release. So, we have to take that with a big caveat.
And the other thing that has to be considered very carefully is that this president is in the process of carrying out retribution, vindictive firings all across his government, getting rid of people who have stood up to him in various agencies. I mean, the most astounding was yesterday, firing the secretary of defense. And Steve Hahn, the head of FDA, has been consistently on Trump’s hit list. He stood up to the president regarding hydroxychloroquine, regarding convalescent plasma therapy and other things that the president claimed would treat or cure or eliminate COVID, but they wouldn’t. And so, we could have a situation now where, in the coming days, Steve Hahn’s head would go on a platter, and the FDA would really not be able to take speedy steps to usher this vaccine through the next stage that could allow it to potentially get an emergency approval before the new year.
AMY GOODMAN: Laurie Garrett, just very quickly, explain what you mean by Esper — the significance of him in relation to the vaccine. He is in charge of Operation Warp Speed? He’s the secretary of defense.
LAURIE GARRETT: No, my reason for raising that is that it’s very clear the president has now offed, by my count, 10 people in the government, from USAID, from the Energy Commission, from all sorts of different agencies and departments around the government. If he targets Steve Hahn, as he has threatened to do many times — he has threatened Steve Hahn, the FDA commissioner, with firing on multiple occasions. If he offs him, it would be very hard to imagine how the FDA could proceed for a rapid approval of this vaccine.
Meanwhile, I mean, there are issues about the vaccine. Because of the nature of how the Operation Warp Speed trial designs were set up, it is possible to claim victory based on seven days of data. And that’s what this study did. They had two arms of volunteers — one were placebo recipients, one were vaccine recipients. The two arms are blinded, so none of the people executing the study know who is getting what. And that’s good, and that’s how it should be. And one arm had eight cases, and the other arm had 80 cases. And that looks like, since the arm with the eight cases was the vaccine recipient arm, then that gives it what they call 90% effectiveness in protecting against infection. But the window of looking at these people to see did they get coronavirus infected was seven days, seven days after their booster shot. Well, you know, that’s a pretty short-term durability of immune response. And if eight people got infected in just seven days, I wonder what the infection rate and the protection rate of this vaccine would be if you were looking out over two months.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Laurie, what do we know about the trial participants? There was supposedly, I think, 44,000 of them. Do we know anything about the breakdown in terms of vulnerable populations or not, or different nationalities? What do we know?
LAURIE GARRETT: Actually, we know a great deal, and all of this was in the press release detailed — far more detail about that than the outcome of the research. And, yes, it’s very, very racially diverse, age diverse. There are healthcare workers that are very directly exposed. It actually, you know, on the face of it, looks like an excellent study panel.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in terms of the capacity of Pfizer and BioNTech to produce 50 million doses of the vaccine this year and 1.3 billion, as they claim, in 2021, has the U.S. already purchased some of these in advance? What’s the situation in terms of the rollout, if it is approved, especially to vulnerable populations? Do we have any idea about that?
LAURIE GARRETT: One of the key features of Operation Warp Speed on the U.S. side, and its equivalent efforts all over the world in wealthy countries, and in WHO’s hands, is to try and encourage drug companies to go ahead and gear up for manufacturing even before the trial results are in, so that we don’t — precisely to your point, we didn’t want to feet dragging, waiting for production capacity to rev up. Instead, everybody has been encouraged to gamble — and it’s a big financial gamble — to gamble that their vaccine will indeed work and to build up production capacity right away.
And so, Pfizer claims that they already have production capacity to make tens of millions of doses and that they will be revved up to make billions of doses sometime in late 2021. But at the front end, keep in mind, when you hear a figure like 50 million doses available, everybody has to take two. So that’s actually 25 million human beings vaccinated, not 50 million. And that means that there has to be determination of who gets in the front of the line and who gets in the second tier of the line. And the National Academy of Medicine has held numerous hearings on this topic to try and come up with equitable, smart ways to decide, essentially, who goes first. And obviously, frontline healthcare workers are at the front of that line.
AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about the significance not only of the two-shot vaccine, but of it having to be kept at subfreezing temperature — states across the country are asking how exactly are they going to be dealing with this — not only what this means in the United States, but around the world, especially in poorer countries?
LAURIE GARRETT: Well, I’ve detailed a lot of this in a piece that’s published today by Foreign Policy, so people can look at that and see some of the — more references to things I’m going to say now. The first thing I really want to underscore is, the Pfizer vaccine may be the first one we’re hearing about, but there are a lot of other ones, more than 200 in the pipeline. And many of them will in fact be better vaccines, will have even better results and will be easier to transport, easier to store, easier — perhaps require only one dose, and so on. So, you know, let’s not put all of our eggs in this particular basket.
But it is based on nucleic acid. It’s made from mRNA, messenger RNA. And this is the molecule that carries the blueprint from the DNA — right? — to the machinery inside the cell that manufactures proteins. And so, what it’s doing is turning your cells, your human cells, into little factories to make the protein that’s on the outside, that sticks up on the outside, in multiple copies surrounding the virus. And that way, making just that protein, which is harmless, your immune system will see it and make antibodies against it. So it’s programming your immune system to recognize the enemy.
The problem is that that mRNA is very unstable. It is so unstable that it has to be stored at minus-100 degrees Fahrenheit. Some reports say -110 degrees Fahrenheit, which is well below anybody’s freezer capacities. And so, you either have to have very, very, very powerful freezers or a lot of dry ice. And there we get to the second part of the problem. It’s been pointed out repeatedly that we have a global shortage of dry ice. Dry ice has to be made from pure CO2, and the primary source of pure CO2 in the whole sort of manufacturing chain for dry ice is burning ethanol. And since the epidemic has resulted in a huge decrease in the burning of fossil fuels, it’s also, fortunately, resulted in a decrease in the emission of CO2, including into this pure form to make dry ice.
So, all sorts of steps in the chain of transport and use of this vaccine will be challenging. And this was pointed out by the National Governors Association in a very blistering letter that they sent formally to Robert Redfield, the head of the CDC, and to the White House, saying, “You’re asking us, as governors, to be prepared to do mass immunization of our populations without telling us details about the likely vaccine. But we understand that at the front of the line are vaccines that require deep, deep, deep, deep, deep ultra freezing. We don’t have deep, deep, deep, deep ultra freezers. Our health departments are woefully underfunded. We don’t have the capacity to do this. Where will the money come from? Where will the equipment come from? Who’s in charge of all of this? And how are we going to do this?” And the response from the White House so far was simply to say, “Hey, you know, you should have been at this meeting, because we talked about that at this meeting. And Governor Cuomo, the head of the National Governors Association, didn’t show up for the meeting.”
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Laurie, what do you make of the timing of this announcement coming just a couple of days after Joe Biden was declared the winner of the presidential debates? There’s, rightfully, some questions asked as to whether Pfizer and BioNTech could have made this announcement one or two days earlier or a week earlier? What’s your sense?
LAURIE GARRETT: The CEO of Pfizer made it very clear, in multiple public appearances and in writing, more than three weeks ago, that he was not going to see his vaccine be a political football, that he wasn’t making guarantees to have it available by any deadline date that was set by the White House or by anybody else, but that the science would determine, he said, what date the information, the results would be released. And we just have to take his word for it.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about Public Citizen saying that Pfizer should not have released this by press release without being able to provide further data, the questions, Laurie, about who this was tested on. Health Research Group’s Michael Carome released this statement saying, quote — that statement said, quote — I’m going to go to it right now — “The release of preliminary and incomplete clinical trial data by press release to the public is bad science. Until the trial results are independently reviewed and scrutinized by staff at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the independent experts on the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, enthusiasm for the apparently promising interim results announced by Pfizer and BioNTech must be tempered. Crucial information absent from the companies’ announcement is any evidence that the vaccine prevents serious COVID-19 cases or reduces hospitalizations and deaths due to the disease. More importantly, critical safety data from the phase 3 trial of the … vaccine is not yet available.” But who has been tested so far, I mean, who the trials have been conducted on, the concerns raised — in the United States, communities of color, Latinx and African American populations underrepresented in a lot of these vaccine trials, and Oxfam raising the concern the vaccine would be committed — Oxfam has said the vaccine would be, quote, “0% effective to the people who can’t access or afford it.”
LAURIE GARRETT: Well, there’s a lot of truth and untruth in that mix of comments that you just put out. First of all, Pfizer put out a very detailed list, as I already said to Juan, of the racial breakdown, age breakdown and susceptibility to COVID disease breakdown of the participants in their study. And it is a very diverse group. And I just — I don’t know who’s making claims otherwise, but they should look at the breakdown. It’s been published and known for quite some time.
But the larger question: What does this vaccine, or anything of its nature similar, like the Moderna vaccine, which is also based on mRNA and will require deep freezing, and some of the other vaccines in the pipeline that have difficult either production issues or logistic issues associated with the nature of the vaccine — what does this mean for the rest of the world? And that’s a very legitimate question and a very troubling one, but one that the community has been confronting from the very beginning. I mean, all the way back in February, there has been discussion of this.
COVAX was set up, which is a cooperative for vaccines, COVAX, set up by WHO in conjunction with several lead countries. Almost every country in the world is now a member — notably not the United States, because Trump refused to be involved in anything that WHO had its fingerprints on. But COVAX is a consortia of all the nations’ both producers of vaccines and likely recipients committing to lowering their patent thresholds, making vaccines affordable and available for the whole world, and trying to rush them into some form of generic manufacturing so that we’re not reliant on a single patent-based manufacturing site.
So, we’re learning from past experiences that we have to take innovative approaches to vaccine production, because, otherwise, it’s not available for the whole world. Nevertheless, if a vaccine as difficult to make and to maintain in stable form as this one, the Pfizer vaccine, is becomes something that we try to execute worldwide, there will be very, very significant hurdles to overcome, both in the distribution part and in the manufacturing side on a mass scale. So, I think a lot of us are really hoping that some of the more traditional types of vaccines, which are in the pipeline, which would be usable through systems already in existence for mass vaccination of children, will turn out to be successful and will eventually come forward for mass production.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Laurie, we’re in the midst now of the second surge, if in some places the third surge, in the numbers of coronavirus cases, and now President-elect Biden has named his coronavirus task force. How do you assess the task force that Biden has named? And what do you see as what should be the first, the key steps that that task force has to take?
LAURIE GARRETT: Yeah, Juan, I argue in today’s piece in Foreign Policy that, you know, it’s a fine task force — good names, smart people. And notably, exceptional differences compared to the current COVID task force in the White House, there are no relatives of the president-elect on the task force; there are no financial interests associated with the president-elect or his family or close associates represented on the task force. It is a public health and scientific task force. And I’m confident that they will make decisions based on the seven principles of fighting COVID, which the president-elect published on his website on Monday morning. And those clearly lay out a strategic scheme that’s in line with the kinds of things that Tony Fauci has been advocating and that most of the public health community has supported from the very beginning of this epidemic, that were never fully implement at any time, in any state, by any political leader in the United States of America, certainly not the president.
But let’s all be very clear. And this is the key point I really lead with in my Foreign Policy piece, is we are in very dire times in the United States right now. This surge that we’re in right now is going to surpass what we went through in the spring. We are looking very likely, because the administration will take no actions, to speak of, to control the spread of COVID for the next 70-plus days that Donald Trump is in charge of the country — we are looking very likely at 400,000 deaths cumulatively by Christmas. We will go to the inauguration with an out-of-control epidemic in all 50 states. It’s already out of control in 43 states. We will have surges that require actions by governors and mayors that exceed what most of them have ever done so far in fighting COVID. They’ll be very much like what we went through in New York in March, April and May. And the euphoria that we saw yesterday on the stock markets around the world in response to the Pfizer vaccine announcement will turn to a downturn as lockdowns are put in place, and we’ll feel more economic pain.
So, while I am optimistic that this COVID task force put together by President-elect Biden will take promising steps and certainly take this epidemic very, very, very seriously, both internationally, in the role of the United States as a world leader, and nationally, domestically, but there are 71 days left for this current president to screw up this epidemic further. He is a vindictive individual. He seems to be out of control right now in the White House. And I just — I’m terrified for what things he will and will not do between now and January 20th.


democracynow--2020-11-10--Headlines for November 10, 2020

Headlines for November 10, 2020

Attorney General William Barr upended long-standing Justice Department policy on Monday by announcing federal prosecutors could investigate “ specific allegations ” of voter fraud in last week ’ s election .
In response , the Justice Department ’ s chief election crimes prosecutor , Richard Pilger , resigned in protest .
Former Justice Department official Vanita Gupta criticized Barr , saying , “ this is about disruption , disinformation , and sowing chaos.
” This comes as top Republicans are backing President Trump ’ s refusal to concede the election , claiming — without providing any evidence — that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Associated Press , Biden has secured 290 votes in the Electoral College , and his lead in the popular vote is approaching 5 million .
On Monday , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell defended Trump ’ s decision not to concede to Biden .
The Trump campaign is also continuing to file numerous lawsuits in battleground states despite no evidence emerging of voter fraud .
Voting rights expert and author Ari Berman responded to the news by writing , “ There were no irregularities .
This is an attempted coup & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denounce it .
US attorneys need to resign in protest .
They are trying to overturn the election & subvert the will of the people.
” We ’ ll have more on this story later in the broadcast .

Attorney General William Barr upended long-standing Justice Department policy on Monday by announcing federal prosecutors could investigate “specific allegations” of voter fraud in last week’s election. In response, the Justice Department’s chief election crimes prosecutor, Richard Pilger, resigned in protest. Former Justice Department official Vanita Gupta criticized Barr, saying, “this is about disruption, disinformation, and sowing chaos.”
This comes as top Republicans are backing President Trump’s refusal to concede the election, claiming — without providing any evidence — that the vote was marred by fraud. According to the Associated Press, Biden has secured 290 votes in the Electoral College, and his lead in the popular vote is approaching 5 million. On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell defended Trump’s decision not to concede to Biden.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: “President Trump is 100% within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options.”
The Trump campaign is also continuing to file numerous lawsuits in battleground states despite no evidence emerging of voter fraud. Voting rights expert and author Ari Berman responded to the news by writing, “There were no irregularities. This is an attempted coup & every major figure in America needs to denounce it. US attorneys need to resign in protest. They are trying to overturn the election & subvert the will of the people.” We’ll have more on this story later in the broadcast.


democracynow--2020-11-11--Dahlia Lithwick: Trump's Ridiculous Coup Attempt Will Fail, But It Will Hurt Democracy in Long Run

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , finally , in these last few minutes , I wanted to go back to Dahlia Lithwick .
You talk about President Trump ’ s refusal to concede the election , which will bear on everything from Medicare for All to war and peace to climate change .
Your new piece for Slate is titled “ The Real Threat of Trump ’ s Ridiculous Coup Attempt.
” Can you talk about what ’ s happening right now ?
You have Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all for a peaceful transition — to a second Trump administration .
You have world leaders calling to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden , but the Republican leadership refuses to concede .
Talk about what ’ s happening right now , Dahlia .
DAHLIA LITHWICK : It ’ s such — it ’ s just a paradox , Amy , because you have to live in this world where it ’ s either a really truly terrible Peter Sellers movie about the Republican Party getting together to mollify somebody who is either a narcissist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality , and so they ’ re all trying to pander to him and make him feel good , right ?
Senator Chris Coons reported that , off the record , all sorts of Republicans are congratulating him and saying , you know , “ We just can ’ t say it out loud , because the president hasn ’ t quite gotten there.
” So , that ’ s the kind of Peter Sellers scenario .
And then there ’ s the one that you ’ ve just described , where there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denialism and these claims that this handful of lawsuits in Michigan and Pennsylvania are going to change the results of the election .
That ’ s not possible , I think we can stipulate .
Each of those are talking about a handful of votes .
And then you see these really disturbing actions — cleaning house at the Pentagon ; threatening to fire Chris Wray and Gina Haspel ; as you said , Pompeo either joking or not joking about whether there ’ s going to be a transition , refusing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team , that Biden ’ s team needs in order to prepare for national security disasters .
So , we ’ re living with this split screen .
And I think the entire country is trying to figure out : Is this just going to go away ?
Are the credits going to roll , and we get at the end ?
Or are we really in this slow-rolling denialist attempt to give this man a second term ?
And I think that we kind of toggle between those two realities every day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we just do need to take seriously the reality that , if anything , we ’ ve seen the GOP harden behind these claims that the election was stolen and that maybe Donald Trump wins a second term .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And we just have about 30 seconds , but your sense of this Hail Mary pass of Donald Trump to somehow run out the clock on the count and get the intervention of the Supreme Court before the electors have to meet in mid-December to actually vote in the Electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that the lawsuits are trivial and ridiculous .
There is , I think , no vehicle that would get to the Supreme Court that would overturn tens and thousands of votes in multiple states .
This is not a few hundred votes from Bush v. Gore .
I do think the effort to poison the waters , to muddy the question , to maybe signal to states , “ Hey , maybe your legislature could just send some electors that are not won in the popular election , ” that is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the thing to look at .
The lawsuits are a joke .
But I think the real question is : Does this turn into something that is hardened into an attempt to end this thing ?
AMY GOODMAN : We have to leave it there , Dahlia Lithwick .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, finally, in these last few minutes, I wanted to go back to Dahlia Lithwick. You talk about President Trump’s refusal to concede the election, which will bear on everything from Medicare for All to war and peace to climate change. Your new piece for Slate is titled “The Real Threat of Trump’s Ridiculous Coup Attempt.” Can you talk about what’s happening right now? You have Secretary of State Pompeo saying he’s all for a peaceful transition — to a second Trump administration. You have world leaders calling to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden, but the Republican leadership refuses to concede. Talk about what’s happening right now, Dahlia.
DAHLIA LITHWICK: It’s such — it’s just a paradox, Amy, because you have to live in this world where it’s either a really truly terrible Peter Sellers movie about the Republican Party getting together to mollify somebody who is either a narcissist or totally devoid of a sense of reality, and so they’re all trying to pander to him and make him feel good, right? Senator Chris Coons reported that, off the record, all sorts of Republicans are congratulating him and saying, you know, “We just can’t say it out loud, because the president hasn’t quite gotten there.” So, that’s the kind of Peter Sellers scenario.
And then there’s the one that you’ve just described, where there is a really quite alarming level of denialism and these claims that this handful of lawsuits in Michigan and Pennsylvania are going to change the results of the election. That’s not possible, I think we can stipulate. Each of those are talking about a handful of votes. And then you see these really disturbing actions — cleaning house at the Pentagon; threatening to fire Chris Wray and Gina Haspel; as you said, Pompeo either joking or not joking about whether there’s going to be a transition, refusing to turn over briefing books to the transition team, that Biden’s team needs in order to prepare for national security disasters.
So, we’re living with this split screen. And I think the entire country is trying to figure out: Is this just going to go away? Are the credits going to roll, and we get at the end? Or are we really in this slow-rolling denialist attempt to give this man a second term? And I think that we kind of toggle between those two realities every day. But I think my point was, we just do need to take seriously the reality that, if anything, we’ve seen the GOP harden behind these claims that the election was stolen and that maybe Donald Trump wins a second term.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And we just have about 30 seconds, but your sense of this Hail Mary pass of Donald Trump to somehow run out the clock on the count and get the intervention of the Supreme Court before the electors have to meet in mid-December to actually vote in the Electoral College?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: My sense is that the lawsuits are trivial and ridiculous. There is, I think, no vehicle that would get to the Supreme Court that would overturn tens and thousands of votes in multiple states. This is not a few hundred votes from Bush v. Gore. I do think the effort to poison the waters, to muddy the question, to maybe signal to states, “Hey, maybe your legislature could just send some electors that are not won in the popular election,” that is still in question. I think that’s the thing to look at. The lawsuits are a joke. But I think the real question is: Does this turn into something that is hardened into an attempt to end this thing?
AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there, Dahlia Lithwick. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.


democracynow--2020-11-11--Amid SCOTUS Fight over ACA, Advocates Say Medicare for All Remains Best Way to Expand Healthcare

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
As coronavirus cases soar across the United States , the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday on whether to strike down the Affordable Care Act in the middle of the pandemic .
A group of 18 Republican-led states filed the case , led by Texas and backed by the Trump administration .
They argue the ACA ’ s individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down , that the rest of Obamacare should fall with it .
But the response from the justices suggests a majority of the conservative-led court does not agree .
The oral arguments were conducted by telephone because of the pandemic .
This is Chief Justice John Roberts addressing Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins .
AMY GOODMAN : Like Chief Justice Roberts , Justice Brett Kavanaugh also suggested he ’ s not prepared to strike down the entire Obamacare .
This is what Kavanaugh said while questioning the pro-ACA lawyer Donald Verrilli .
AMY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this and discuss what ’ s at stake is Dahlia Lithwick , senior legal correspondent , Supreme Court reporter at Slate.com , and Dr. Steffie Woolhandler , primary care physician , co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program , professor at CUNY-Hunter College , lecturer at Harvard Medical School , recently co-authored an analysis that found , in Trump ’ s first three years , more than 2 million people lost healthcare , and thousands died early .
So , let ’ s begin with Dahlia Lithwick .
Were you surprised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court yesterday ?
Yes and no .
I think that a lot of what we saw happen yesterday is that this was truly a horrible case .
This was a terrible third attempt to have the Supreme Court strike down Obamacare .
The first two had failed .
This was even more ludicrous than the earlier cases .
And it was an astonishment that a lower court in Texas ever found grounds to say that this had basis .
We ’ ve seen so many conservative legal advocates who were on board for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off this case .
So , in some sense , it was sort of a “ How nihilist is the present court ?
” It turns out , not that nihilist .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Dahlia , why was it so much of a weaker case ?
And were you surprised by Justice Kavanaugh ’ s line of questioning ?
DAHLIA LITHWICK : It was a weaker case , in some sense , because as a statutory matter , Texas and the 18 states that joined Texas were trying to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the individual mandate — you ’ ll recall , in the first Obamacare case in 2012 , John Roberts famously flipped .
He said the individual mandate that required Americans to pay $ 695 in taxes every year was in fact a tax , it wasn ’ t a penalty .
He upheld all of the ACA .
So , what happened in 2017 , when Congress zeroed out the mandate — they couldn ’ t kill Obamacare legislatively — they zeroed it out , and then Texas comes forward and says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” which we can have a conversation about — it was one of the issues in the court — “ but because the mandate is unconstitutional , the entire 2,000-page ACA also falls.
” So , this is this doctrine of severability : Did Congress intend the entire thing , like a game of Jenga , to collapse if one provision is unconstitutional ?
And so , the answer , you know , both in terms of — was that a crazy Hail Mary ?
I think it was .
Presumptively , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be severed from the whole statute .
But I think that on the question of Brett Kavanaugh , I think it ’ s not all that surprising that he said , “ Look , even if I say this provision can ’ t stand , would I tear down the entirety of the statute , given that severability doctrine in the Supreme Court says you strongly presume that the law stands ?
” He ’ s not insane , I guess is my short answer .
And to pull down the whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be , I think , insane .
AMY GOODMAN : So , Dahlia Lithwick , we ’ ve played Kavanaugh , Chief Justice Roberts , Samuel Alito .
And then , if you could respond to — this was really the first time we saw Justice Amy Coney Barrett ask questions — the direction she went in ?
DAHLIA LITHWICK : Well , I think the answer to Sam Alito was the answer that Don Verrilli , who was representing Congress , gave , which was , “ Look , that individual mandate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , when it was zeroed out , people still really , really , really wanted Obamacare.
” And he sort of said , “ We thought of that as a stick .
It turns out we didn ’ t need the stick , because there were lots of carrots , and people wildly flocked to enter the ACA even without that penalty/tax.
” That was his answer .
So , while at the time we thought it was integral , it turns out , when it was zeroed out , there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That was his answer .
In terms of Justice Barrett , I think she was sort of strangely disconnected from a lot of the merits of this case .
She asked a whole bunch of very academic questions , a whole bunch of questions that seemed maybe a little orthogonal to the discussion .
I think it ’ s useful to remember she only sat on the 7th Circuit for a short time .
She was a law professor , first and foremost .
She came off looking very law professorish .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that much that tipped her hand about which way she would go .
AMY GOODMAN : Let me bring in Dr. Steffie Woolhandler .
As you listened to these oral arguments , you did not support the Affordable Care Act at the beginning , because you are a staunch supporter of Medicare for All .
Can you talk about what happened yesterday , what you think needs to happen at the Supreme Court and ultimately in this country ?
DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER : OK. Well , the Medicaid expansion was the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And to expand Medicaid , you never needed the individual mandate .
The individual mandate was a pretty bad idea , telling people that they had to go and turn their money over to a private insurance company if they earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid .
They had to give money to the private insurance industry , and we were going to penalize them through the tax system if they didn ’ t .
It was , in fact , a terrible idea , and it was put into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry wanted to get this new business of subsidized coverage .
They wanted the new business , but they did not want to be responsible if there was a big influx of very sick people .
And just remember , when we ’ ve expanded Medicaid in the past , when we expanded Medicare , there was no individual mandate .
You offer people good health insurance , and they ’ re going to be willing to take it .
What ’ s happened is now that the individual mandate , the penalty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became obvious that the individual mandate was never needed .
You know , so that was what this fight was about .
And , in fact , that ’ s what has changed over the last few years , is we now know we do not need an individual mandate .
It was a bad idea from the beginning , and it continues to be a very bad idea .
What we really need is to provide good insurance to everyone .
We call that single payer or Medicare for All .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest of the developed world has , like Canada , like Scotland .
And , you know , you enroll in insurance the day you ’ re born , and you keep it your entire life .
It ’ s not free ; you pay for it through your taxes .
But it ’ s a much more efficient system , because you don ’ t have all this administrative complexity and hassle that is eating up a huge share of U.S. healthcare spending , probably more than a third .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from a business to a public service , you save a lot of money , that allows you to cover everyone and also remove copayments and deductibles , which have been a major problem in the ACA , especially for people with exchange coverage .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , Dr. Woolhandler , I wanted to ask you — during Joe Biden ’ s run for the presidency , his counter to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and others who were pushing for Medicare for All was to expand Medicare coverage to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , given the results of the election right now , the prospects for expanding Medicare coverage is right now ?
DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER : OK. Well , there is another election in two years , so we don ’ t have to just focus on what can be done in the next 24 months .
We need to be focusing on what the American people need and what ’ s the correct system to get everybody covered for all medically necessary care , with complete free choice of doctor and hospital .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payer or a Medicare for All-type system .
I think it would be great if , in the meantime , we were able to lower the Medicare age .
Certainly , older adults who are not yet elderly have a lot of problems if they lose their job and lose their insurance .
Private insurers are not very happy to provide coverage for them .
If they do provide coverage because they are forced to under the Affordable Care Act , there ’ s often copayments and deductibles and restrictions in services provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it very expensive for older adults to buy private insurance .
So , I ’ d love to see the Medicare age lowered .
I ’ d really prefer that the Medicare age be lowered to zero , because that would give us that simple , administratively simple system that saves hundreds of billions of dollars , that we would need in order to cover everyone .
We don ’ t need to raise the total cost of healthcare .
We just need to go to an efficient system that excludes private health @ @

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
As coronavirus cases soar across the United States, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday on whether to strike down the Affordable Care Act in the middle of the pandemic. A group of 18 Republican-led states filed the case, led by Texas and backed by the Trump administration. They argue the ACA’s individual mandate is unconstitutional, should be struck down, that the rest of Obamacare should fall with it. But the response from the justices suggests a majority of the conservative-led court does not agree. The oral arguments were conducted by telephone because of the pandemic. This is Chief Justice John Roberts addressing Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins.
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: General Hawkins, on the severance question, I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job.
AMY GOODMAN: Like Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh also suggested he’s not prepared to strike down the entire Obamacare. This is what Kavanaugh said while questioning the pro-ACA lawyer Donald Verrilli.
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH: I tend to agree with you this a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents, meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place.
AMY GOODMAN: Joining us to unpack all of this and discuss what’s at stake is Dahlia Lithwick, senior legal correspondent, Supreme Court reporter at Slate.com, and Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, primary care physician, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, professor at CUNY-Hunter College, lecturer at Harvard Medical School, recently co-authored an analysis that found, in Trump’s first three years, more than 2 million people lost healthcare, and thousands died early.
So, let’s begin with Dahlia Lithwick. Were you surprised by what took place before the Supreme Court yesterday?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Hi, Amy.
Yes and no. I think that a lot of what we saw happen yesterday is that this was truly a horrible case. This was a terrible third attempt to have the Supreme Court strike down Obamacare. The first two had failed. This was even more ludicrous than the earlier cases. And it was an astonishment that a lower court in Texas ever found grounds to say that this had basis. We’ve seen so many conservative legal advocates who were on board for the other attempts to repeal Obamacare peel off this case. So, in some sense, it was sort of a “How nihilist is the present court?” It turns out, not that nihilist.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Dahlia, why was it so much of a weaker case? And were you surprised by Justice Kavanaugh’s line of questioning?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: It was a weaker case, in some sense, because as a statutory matter, Texas and the 18 states that joined Texas were trying to say that because of this tiny little provision, the individual mandate — you’ll recall, in the first Obamacare case in 2012, John Roberts famously flipped. He said the individual mandate that required Americans to pay $695 in taxes every year was in fact a tax, it wasn’t a penalty. He upheld all of the ACA.
So, what happened in 2017, when Congress zeroed out the mandate — they couldn’t kill Obamacare legislatively — they zeroed it out, and then Texas comes forward and says, “Now the mandate is unconstitutional,” which we can have a conversation about — it was one of the issues in the court — “but because the mandate is unconstitutional, the entire 2,000-page ACA also falls.”
So, this is this doctrine of severability: Did Congress intend the entire thing, like a game of Jenga, to collapse if one provision is unconstitutional? And so, the answer, you know, both in terms of — was that a crazy Hail Mary? I think it was. Presumptively, we think that provisions that are unlawful can be severed from the whole statute.
But I think that on the question of Brett Kavanaugh, I think it’s not all that surprising that he said, “Look, even if I say this provision can’t stand, would I tear down the entirety of the statute, given that severability doctrine in the Supreme Court says you strongly presume that the law stands?” He’s not insane, I guess is my short answer. And to pull down the whole statute because of one provision truly would be, I think, insane.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO: At the time of the first case, there was strong reason to believe that the individual mandate was like a part in an airplane that was essential to keep the plane flying, so that if that part was taken out, the plane would crash. But now the part has been taken out, and the plane has not crashed. So, if we were to decide this case the way you advocate, how would we explain why the individual mandate in its present form is essential to the operation of the act?
AMY GOODMAN: So, Dahlia Lithwick, we’ve played Kavanaugh, Chief Justice Roberts, Samuel Alito. And then, if you could respond to — this was really the first time we saw Justice Amy Coney Barrett ask questions — the direction she went in?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Well, I think the answer to Sam Alito was the answer that Don Verrilli, who was representing Congress, gave, which was, “Look, that individual mandate we thought was central, it turned out, when it was zeroed out, people still really, really, really wanted Obamacare.” And he sort of said, “We thought of that as a stick. It turns out we didn’t need the stick, because there were lots of carrots, and people wildly flocked to enter the ACA even without that penalty/tax.” That was his answer. So, while at the time we thought it was integral, it turns out, when it was zeroed out, there was no problem. People still love it. That was his answer.
In terms of Justice Barrett, I think she was sort of strangely disconnected from a lot of the merits of this case. She asked a whole bunch of very academic questions, a whole bunch of questions that seemed maybe a little orthogonal to the discussion. I think it’s useful to remember she only sat on the 7th Circuit for a short time. She was a law professor, first and foremost. She came off looking very law professorish. And I don’t think she said that much that tipped her hand about which way she would go.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me bring in Dr. Steffie Woolhandler. As you listened to these oral arguments, you did not support the Affordable Care Act at the beginning, because you are a staunch supporter of Medicare for All. Can you talk about what happened yesterday, what you think needs to happen at the Supreme Court and ultimately in this country?
DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: OK. Well, the Medicaid expansion was the best aspect of the Affordable Care Act. And to expand Medicaid, you never needed the individual mandate. The individual mandate was a pretty bad idea, telling people that they had to go and turn their money over to a private insurance company if they earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid. They had to give money to the private insurance industry, and we were going to penalize them through the tax system if they didn’t. It was, in fact, a terrible idea, and it was put into the Affordable Care Act because the private insurance industry wanted to get this new business of subsidized coverage. They wanted the new business, but they did not want to be responsible if there was a big influx of very sick people. And just remember, when we’ve expanded Medicaid in the past, when we expanded Medicare, there was no individual mandate. You offer people good health insurance, and they’re going to be willing to take it. What’s happened is now that the individual mandate, the penalty has been reduced to zero, it became obvious that the individual mandate was never needed. You know, so that was what this fight was about. And, in fact, that’s what has changed over the last few years, is we now know we do not need an individual mandate. It was a bad idea from the beginning, and it continues to be a very bad idea.
What we really need is to provide good insurance to everyone. We call that single payer or Medicare for All. It’s a type of system that the rest of the developed world has, like Canada, like Scotland. And, you know, you enroll in insurance the day you’re born, and you keep it your entire life. It’s not free; you pay for it through your taxes. But it’s a much more efficient system, because you don’t have all this administrative complexity and hassle that is eating up a huge share of U.S. healthcare spending, probably more than a third. So, by simplifying healthcare, moving it away from a business to a public service, you save a lot of money, that allows you to cover everyone and also remove copayments and deductibles, which have been a major problem in the ACA, especially for people with exchange coverage.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Dr. Woolhandler, I wanted to ask you — during Joe Biden’s run for the presidency, his counter to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and others who were pushing for Medicare for All was to expand Medicare coverage to lower ages. Where do you see, given the results of the election right now, the prospects for expanding Medicare coverage is right now?
DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: OK. Well, there is another election in two years, so we don’t have to just focus on what can be done in the next 24 months. We need to be focusing on what the American people need and what’s the correct system to get everybody covered for all medically necessary care, with complete free choice of doctor and hospital. We can really only do that through single payer or a Medicare for All-type system.
I think it would be great if, in the meantime, we were able to lower the Medicare age. Certainly, older adults who are not yet elderly have a lot of problems if they lose their job and lose their insurance. Private insurers are not very happy to provide coverage for them. If they do provide coverage because they are forced to under the Affordable Care Act, there’s often copayments and deductibles and restrictions in services provided, restrictions in networks, that make it very expensive for older adults to buy private insurance. So, I’d love to see the Medicare age lowered.
I’d really prefer that the Medicare age be lowered to zero, because that would give us that simple, administratively simple system that saves hundreds of billions of dollars, that we would need in order to cover everyone. We don’t need to raise the total cost of healthcare. We just need to go to an efficient system that excludes private health insurance.


democracynow--2020-11-11--"A Tremendous Jump for Progressive Forces": Puerto Rico Election Signals End of Two-Party Dominance

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
This is The Quarantine Report , as we turn to Puerto Rico , where where election authorities have discovered around 126 briefcases with hundreds of uncounted ballots from last week ’ s election .
It remains unclear what impact the ballots could have on the election results .
In the governor ’ s race , Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico ’ s pro-statehood New Progressive Party has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the vote in the tight race .
Another New Progressive candidate , Miguel Romero , has claimed victory in the close San Juan ’ s mayor ’ s race .
But in both races , election officials have been slow to certify the results .
We go now to San Juan to speak with the historian Rafael Bernabe , who was just elected to the Puerto Rican Senate as a member of the Citizens ’ Victory Movement .
He ’ s co-written several books , including Puerto Rico in the American Century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rico : Crisis and Alternatives .
Congratulations on your victory .
Can you talk about the significance , Rafael Bernabe , of your win and also the other people in the Puerto Rican Legislature , which look like you ’ re really going to be turning it around ?
SEN.-ELECT RAFAEL BERNABE : Yes .
One of the main — first of all , good morning , and very happy to be here with you .
One of the main differences , one of the main events , main aspects of these elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that two progressive forces did very well in the election .
As you mentioned , the governor , Pierluisi , won with a mere — he barely got 33 % of the vote .
The Puerto Rico Independence Party got around 15 % of the vote .
And the movement I belong to , which is the Movimiento Victoria Ciudadana , got also around 15 % of the vote .
That means that the progressive-left forces got around 30 % of the vote , which is almost as much as the person who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have a very significant increase in the electoral support for movements which are linked to the labor movement , to the women ’ s movement , to the environmental movement .
In our case , we elected at least four legislators : two representatives and two senators .
And we are still in the fight , in the struggle .
We think we may have another representative elected .
The Puerto Rico Independence Party elected two legislators : one representative and one senator .
So , this is a minority , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Legislature , which is going to be fighting against the austerity policies that we have been suffering in Puerto Rico for the longest time , against the anti-labor policies and anti-environmental policies that the Puerto Rican governments have been imposing on us , again , for many decades now .
So , it ’ s a very encouraging result for progressive forces in Puerto Rico , the results of these last elections .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Rafael Bernabe , one of the key things , as you mentioned , is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the monopoly of the two-party systems , of the statehood party and the commonwealth party , not only in terms of voting for alternative candidates , but also for staying home .
This was an all-time low in turnout among Puerto Rican voters .
Barely 50 % of the electorate voted , whereas in the past it ’ s been 80 , 85 % .
What happened there in terms of all the people who decided just to stay home ?
SEN.-ELECT RAFAEL BERNABE : Yeah , well , as you mention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the one hand , as you mentioned , the vote for the two historically dominant parties in Puerto Rico keeps going down .
The party that won the elections this time got barely 33 % of the vote .
The other historically dominant party , the Partido Popular , got around 31 % of the vote .
As I said , this is a new low for these parties .
It ’ s the result of the very deep economic crisis that we have been undergoing , and people turning away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to provide any alternative to the situation in which Puerto Rico finds itself .
And at the same time there are many people who are completely dissatisfied with these two parties , they are not yet convinced of voting for a pro-independence party or for a progressive-left , left-wing force , such as Victoria Ciudadana .
But they are already unwilling to vote for the parties that they historically voted for .
We have many statehood — supporters of statehood who did not go to vote for the PNP .
They would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PNP ; they didn ’ t go to vote .
They didn ’ t vote for the Partido Popular , either .
They didn ’ t vote for Victoria Ciudadana or the PIP , either .
But they stayed home , because they were so disgusted with the policies of the parties that they have historically supported , that they preferred not to vote .
There ’ s another element which should be factored in this consideration , which is that over the past decade migration from Puerto Rico has been extraordinary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been forced to leave the island because they can not find work , they can not find jobs in Puerto Rico .
So the electoral rolls in Puerto Rico are right now very inflated .
There are many people who are still listed as voters in Puerto Rico who no longer live in Puerto Rico , no longer vote in Puerto Rico .
So that will also bring down the figure for the percentage of the people who turned out to vote .
But as I said , there ’ s no question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the two parties that have historically dominated Puerto Rican politics by voting for the alternatives of the Partido Independentista and Victoria Ciudadana , and there were others who just stayed home .
But regardless of the way they expressed their protest , there is no question that the old monopoly of the two political parties that have dominated Puerto Rican politics for decades is coming to an end .
And that ’ s a very good thing .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And I wanted to ask you about the other aspect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referendum on status , which only gave the voters a choice between the current status or statehood .
You are known as an independentista .
And I ’ m wondering what you would say to those in the United States , especially in the Democratic Party and some so-called progressives , who really want to support statehood for Puerto Rico , because they think it would help change the balance of power in the U.S. Senate and in Congress .
What would you say to those folks who say it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a state ?
SEN.-ELECT RAFAEL BERNABE : Well , as I said , I ’ m a supporter of independence .
The Movimiento Victoria Ciudadana is not , as such , a movement that supports independence .
We include people who support different status options .
I am a supporter of independence , as you said .
I think the plebiscite that was just held is an indication — let me say , the objective of this plebiscite , by the proponents and the people who approved it , the present administration of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the plebiscite was to obtain a very strong , very clear , very forceful mandate for statehood in Puerto Rico .
And they failed to get that .
They got 52 % of the vote for statehood , and that means that 48 % of the people who voted voted against statehood .
So , it should be clear that there is not such a thing as a forceful , strong mandate or demand for statehood in Puerto Rico .
I think that the demand for progressives in the United States should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Puerto Rico should become should be a decision of the Puerto Rican people .
Progressives in the United States should not be pushing , I think , for statehood .
They should be pushing for the Puerto Rican people being able to decide what they want to become , and for them to be able to do that under conditions which are fair .
For example , Puerto Rico is going through a very deep economic crisis , much of which is the result of decisions taken by the U.S. Congress .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take responsibility for the situation in Puerto Rico .
It has to make a significant , some people would call it , reparation for the situation that we find in Puerto Rico , for the economic reconstruction of Puerto Rico .
And it has to enable , it has to open the space for , a process through which the Puerto Rican people can decide what they want to be .
Progressives in the United States , I think , should be defending that right of the Puerto Rican people to decide what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for statehood , but , rather , pushing for the right of the Puerto Rican people to decide .
Of course , some of us won ’ t support — AMY GOODMAN : Rafael Bernabe , I wanted to turn to someone who also won , as you did , the Afro-Puerto Rican human rights feminist and LGBTQI activist Ana Irma Rivera Lassén , who was elected to the Puerto Rican Senate .
She spoke to Democracy Now !
last week about her historic win .
AMY GOODMAN : That ’ s Ana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman of African descent — the first openly lesbian woman of African descent to be elected to the Puerto Rican Legislature .
She joins with you and María de Lourdes Santiago of the Independence Party in what people are calling , to what we know in the United States , is similar to The Squad .
And if you can talk about what this means for the people of Puerto Rico , all of your elections ?
SEN.-ELECT RAFAEL BERNABE : Yeah , absolutely .
Ana Irma Rivera Lassén , she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I should add .
And she was a candidate for the Senate .
She is a pioneer fighter for women ’ s rights , for gay and lesbian rights , for the struggle against racism in Puerto Rico .
She ’ s a former president of the Puerto Rico Bar Association .
So , she ’ s a very significant figure in the Puerto Rican public sphere as a defender of human rights , as a defender of democratic rights .
I think , as I said , that we have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minority , in the Legislature , which is going to be fighting for women ’ s rights , for workers ’ rights , for environmental protection , fighting the policies that are being imposed on us by the federally appointed federal control board .
And so , as I said , the tremendous increase in the vote for the Puerto Rico Independence Party , which went from around 3 % of the vote to 15 % of the vote , the vote that we got , which is , again , at around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means that we represent a force which is about a third — a third of the electorate voted for the Puerto Rican Independence Party and the Movimiento Victoria Ciudadana .
So , this is a tremendous jump for progressive forces in Puerto Rico in electoral terms .
Given the — AMY GOODMAN : Rafael Bernabe , I want to say thank you so much for being with us .
Yes , we know you as a professor , a sociologist , historian and politician , leading voice of the left in Puerto Rico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator , running as a member of , in English , the Citizens ’ Victory Movement .
And we ’ ll continue to follow what you do in the Legislature .
Next up , we look at the Supreme Court ’ s oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act .
It looks like the conservative court appears poised to uphold it .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. This is The Quarantine Report, as we turn to Puerto Rico, where where election authorities have discovered around 126 briefcases with hundreds of uncounted ballots from last week’s election. It remains unclear what impact the ballots could have on the election results.
In the governor’s race, Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico’s pro-statehood New Progressive Party has claimed victory after winning just a third of the vote in the tight race. Another New Progressive candidate, Miguel Romero, has claimed victory in the close San Juan’s mayor’s race. But in both races, election officials have been slow to certify the results.
We go now to San Juan to speak with the historian Rafael Bernabe, who was just elected to the Puerto Rican Senate as a member of the Citizens’ Victory Movement. He’s co-written several books, including Puerto Rico in the American Century: A History Since 1898 and Puerto Rico: Crisis and Alternatives.
Congratulations on your victory. Can you talk about the significance, Rafael Bernabe, of your win and also the other people in the Puerto Rican Legislature, which look like you’re really going to be turning it around?
SEN.-ELECT RAFAEL BERNABE: Yes. One of the main — first of all, good morning, and very happy to be here with you. One of the main differences, one of the main events, main aspects of these elections in Puerto Rico, is the fact that two progressive forces did very well in the election. As you mentioned, the governor, Pierluisi, won with a mere — he barely got 33% of the vote. The Puerto Rico Independence Party got around 15% of the vote. And the movement I belong to, which is the Movimiento Victoria Ciudadana, got also around 15% of the vote. That means that the progressive-left forces got around 30% of the vote, which is almost as much as the person who won the governorship got. So, we have a very significant increase in the electoral support for movements which are linked to the labor movement, to the women’s movement, to the environmental movement.
In our case, we elected at least four legislators: two representatives and two senators. And we are still in the fight, in the struggle. We think we may have another representative elected. The Puerto Rico Independence Party elected two legislators: one representative and one senator. So, this is a minority, but a significant force in the Puerto Rico Legislature, which is going to be fighting against the austerity policies that we have been suffering in Puerto Rico for the longest time, against the anti-labor policies and anti-environmental policies that the Puerto Rican governments have been imposing on us, again, for many decades now. So, it’s a very encouraging result for progressive forces in Puerto Rico, the results of these last elections.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Rafael Bernabe, one of the key things, as you mentioned, is that the voters seem to be turning away from the monopoly of the two-party systems, of the statehood party and the commonwealth party, not only in terms of voting for alternative candidates, but also for staying home. This was an all-time low in turnout among Puerto Rican voters. Barely 50% of the electorate voted, whereas in the past it’s been 80, 85%. What happened there in terms of all the people who decided just to stay home?
SEN.-ELECT RAFAEL BERNABE: Yeah, well, as you mention, there are two dimensions to this. On the one hand, as you mentioned, the vote for the two historically dominant parties in Puerto Rico keeps going down. The party that won the elections this time got barely 33% of the vote. The other historically dominant party, the Partido Popular, got around 31% of the vote. As I said, this is a new low for these parties. It’s the result of the very deep economic crisis that we have been undergoing, and people turning away from these parties that have not been able to provide any alternative to the situation in which Puerto Rico finds itself.
And at the same time there are many people who are completely dissatisfied with these two parties, they are not yet convinced of voting for a pro-independence party or for a progressive-left, left-wing force, such as Victoria Ciudadana. But they are already unwilling to vote for the parties that they historically voted for. We have many statehood — supporters of statehood who did not go to vote for the PNP. They would normally have gone to vote for the PNP; they didn’t go to vote. They didn’t vote for the Partido Popular, either. They didn’t vote for Victoria Ciudadana or the PIP, either. But they stayed home, because they were so disgusted with the policies of the parties that they have historically supported, that they preferred not to vote.
There’s another element which should be factored in this consideration, which is that over the past decade migration from Puerto Rico has been extraordinary. There are so many people that have been forced to leave the island because they cannot find work, they cannot find jobs in Puerto Rico. So the electoral rolls in Puerto Rico are right now very inflated. There are many people who are still listed as voters in Puerto Rico who no longer live in Puerto Rico, no longer vote in Puerto Rico. So that will also bring down the figure for the percentage of the people who turned out to vote.
But as I said, there’s no question that many people protested against the existing — the two parties that have historically dominated Puerto Rican politics by voting for the alternatives of the Partido Independentista and Victoria Ciudadana, and there were others who just stayed home. But regardless of the way they expressed their protest, there is no question that the old monopoly of the two political parties that have dominated Puerto Rican politics for decades is coming to an end. And that’s a very good thing.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I wanted to ask you about the other aspect of the election. There was also a referendum on status, which only gave the voters a choice between the current status or statehood. You are known as an independentista. And I’m wondering what you would say to those in the United States, especially in the Democratic Party and some so-called progressives, who really want to support statehood for Puerto Rico, because they think it would help change the balance of power in the U.S. Senate and in Congress. What would you say to those folks who say it’s a good thing for Puerto Rico to become a state?
SEN.-ELECT RAFAEL BERNABE: Well, as I said, I’m a supporter of independence. The Movimiento Victoria Ciudadana is not, as such, a movement that supports independence. We include people who support different status options. I am a supporter of independence, as you said.
I think the plebiscite that was just held is an indication — let me say, the objective of this plebiscite, by the proponents and the people who approved it, the present administration of the New Progressive Party — the objective of the plebiscite was to obtain a very strong, very clear, very forceful mandate for statehood in Puerto Rico. And they failed to get that. They got 52% of the vote for statehood, and that means that 48% of the people who voted voted against statehood. So, it should be clear that there is not such a thing as a forceful, strong mandate or demand for statehood in Puerto Rico.
I think that the demand for progressives in the United States should be self-determination for Puerto Rico. What Puerto Rico should become should be a decision of the Puerto Rican people. Progressives in the United States should not be pushing, I think, for statehood. They should be pushing for the Puerto Rican people being able to decide what they want to become, and for them to be able to do that under conditions which are fair. For example, Puerto Rico is going through a very deep economic crisis, much of which is the result of decisions taken by the U.S. Congress. I think the U.S. federal government has to take responsibility for the situation in Puerto Rico. It has to make a significant, some people would call it, reparation for the situation that we find in Puerto Rico, for the economic reconstruction of Puerto Rico. And it has to enable, it has to open the space for, a process through which the Puerto Rican people can decide what they want to be. Progressives in the United States, I think, should be defending that right of the Puerto Rican people to decide what their future should be — not pushing for statehood, but, rather, pushing for the right of the Puerto Rican people to decide. Of course, some of us won’t support —
AMY GOODMAN: Rafael Bernabe, I wanted to turn to someone who also won, as you did, the Afro-Puerto Rican human rights feminist and LGBTQI activist Ana Irma Rivera Lassén, who was elected to the Puerto Rican Senate. She spoke to Democracy Now! last week about her historic win.
SEN.-ELECT ANA IRMA RIVERA LASSÉN: [translated] I’ve received messages of joy from many people, women, Afro-descendants, LGBTQI people, people from many communities in Puerto Rico, who are conscious of making a Puerto Rico that is more inclusive, a Puerto Rico that represents all of us, and in the building of a more inclusive country, push for sustainable economic development, search for a solution on our status as a U.S. colony, be a country that is not just divided on what our status should be, but a country that focuses on the inclusion to defend people’s human rights and the basic necessities for our people that the Puerto Rican government must respect and guarantee. We have to approach this through a lens of inclusion.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Ana Irma Rivera Lassén, the first lesbian woman of African descent — the first openly lesbian woman of African descent to be elected to the Puerto Rican Legislature. She joins with you and María de Lourdes Santiago of the Independence Party in what people are calling, to what we know in the United States, is similar to The Squad. And if you can talk about what this means for the people of Puerto Rico, all of your elections?
SEN.-ELECT RAFAEL BERNABE: Yeah, absolutely. Ana Irma Rivera Lassén, she’s the president of the Movimiento Victoria Ciudadana, I should add. And she was a candidate for the Senate. She is a pioneer fighter for women’s rights, for gay and lesbian rights, for the struggle against racism in Puerto Rico. She’s a former president of the Puerto Rico Bar Association. So, she’s a very significant figure in the Puerto Rican public sphere as a defender of human rights, as a defender of democratic rights.
I think, as I said, that we have a new minority, but a very significant minority, in the Legislature, which is going to be fighting for women’s rights, for workers’ rights, for environmental protection, fighting the policies that are being imposed on us by the federally appointed federal control board. And so, as I said, the tremendous increase in the vote for the Puerto Rico Independence Party, which went from around 3% of the vote to 15% of the vote, the vote that we got, which is, again, at around 15% of the vote, that means that we represent a force which is about a third — a third of the electorate voted for the Puerto Rican Independence Party and the Movimiento Victoria Ciudadana. So, this is a tremendous jump for progressive forces in Puerto Rico in electoral terms. Given the —
AMY GOODMAN: Rafael Bernabe, I want to say thank you so much for being with us. Yes, we know you as a professor, a sociologist, historian and politician, leading voice of the left in Puerto Rico, now as a Puerto Rican state senator, running as a member of, in English, the Citizens’ Victory Movement. And we’ll continue to follow what you do in the Legislature.
Next up, we look at the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act. It looks like the conservative court appears poised to uphold it.