theintercept--2020-03-26--Abortion Providers File Emergency Lawsuit Challenging Texas Coronavirus Restrictions

Texas abortion providers filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday challenging state Attorney General Ken Paxton ’ s interpretation of an executive order banning nonessential medical procedures that Paxton says includes all abortion care .
The order , signed by Gov .
Greg Abbott on Sunday , advised health care providers to postpone “ surgeries and procedures that are not immediately medically necessary.
” Whether or not a procedure is necessary , it states , should be “ determined by the patient ’ s physician.
” The restriction on nonessential medical procedures was designed to free up personal protective equipment — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the front lines of the Covid-19 epidemic .
The bulk of the order was directed at loosening hospital regulations to increase capacity .
The restriction on nonessential medical procedures mimicked guidance released by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid .
Neither that guidance nor Abbott ’ s order specifies a list of banned procedures .
Nonetheless , on Monday , Paxton posted a warning that Abbott ’ s order meant that “ any type of abortion ” would be banned except those necessary to save a woman ’ s life .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote , “ will be met with the full force of the law ” — including possible criminal prosecution and jail time .
In response , the Center for Reproductive Rights , Planned Parenthood , and the Lawyering Project filed an emergency federal civil rights suit on behalf of Texas ’ s abortion providers , arguing that the state has no right to ban abortion even amid the epidemic .
Under Paxton ’ s interpretation , the order would deprive “ patients of the freedom to make a very personal decision in consultation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the more weighty given the increased health risks to pregnant persons during the Covid-19 pandemic , ” it reads .
Since the beginning of the Covid-19 outbreak , abortion providers have taken precautions to “ maximize the safety of their patients and staff and to conserve PPE , ” the lawsuit states .
Abortion does not generally require numerous medical staff or copious use of PPE , and rarely N95 respirators , which are so valuable for professionals providing front-line care .
Medication abortion — a protocol of two pharmaceuticals taken in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no PPE but would also be banned under Paxton ’ s interpretation .
The providers note that prior to Abbott ’ s order — and Paxton ’ s threats — medical professionals , including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , released a statement advising that abortion is essential health care .
“ The consequences of being unable to obtain an abortion profoundly impact a person ’ s life , health , and well-being.
” The lawsuit argues that Paxton ’ s “ threats are a blatant effort to exploit a public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-abortion agenda , without any benefit to the state in terms of preventing or resolving shortages of PPE or hospital capacity.
” As a result , providers have already had to turn away clients , and with no end to the epidemic in sight , unless blanket enforcement of the order is blocked , patients seeking care may have to wait months and some may be forced into childbearing .
“ Not only will these patients be deprived of their constitutional right to essential health care and self-determination , but forcing them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far greater strains on an already-taxed health care system , as prenatal care and delivery involve much greater exhaustion of hospital health care services and PPE than abortions , ” reads the lawsuit .
“ The Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout do not reduce patients ’ needs for abortion , ” the providers argue .
“ If anything , they make timely access to abortion even more urgent , while raising additional obstacles for patients seeking that care.
” Indeed , Texas has already erected a raft of barriers to access ; laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s abortion facilities .
The state requires patients to jump through a series of medically unnecessary hoops to receive care .
Lawmakers have gone so far as to suggest that abortion be reclassified as murder and that both abortion doctors and the patients they serve be eligible for the death penalty .
Anti-abortion politicians in Ohio have also tried to crackdown on abortion care amid the epidemic , and according to Rewire.News , Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser — an ally of Donald Trump ’ s — penned a letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Azar suggesting ways that the federal government could further block abortion access .
“ It ’ s unconscionable that the Texas attorney general is exploiting this pandemic to end abortion in the state , ” Nancy Northup , president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights , said in a statement .
“ Abortion care is time-sensitive and essential health care that has a profound impact on a person ’ s health and life , which is why it is protected as a constitutional right .
Texas is abusing the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suit … to stop it .
”

A group of Texas abortion providers filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday challenging state Attorney General Ken Paxton’s interpretation of an executive order banning nonessential medical procedures that Paxton says includes all abortion care.
The order, signed by Gov. Greg Abbott on Sunday, advised health care providers to postpone “surgeries and procedures that are not immediately medically necessary.” Whether or not a procedure is necessary, it states, should be “determined by the patient’s physician.” The restriction on nonessential medical procedures was designed to free up personal protective equipment — like N95 respirators — for medical staff on the front lines of the Covid-19 epidemic. The bulk of the order was directed at loosening hospital regulations to increase capacity.
The restriction on nonessential medical procedures mimicked guidance released by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Neither that guidance nor Abbott’s order specifies a list of banned procedures.
Nonetheless, on Monday, Paxton posted a warning that Abbott’s order meant that “any type of abortion” would be banned except those necessary to save a woman’s life. Anyone who violated the order, he wrote, “will be met with the full force of the law” — including possible criminal prosecution and jail time.
In response, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, and the Lawyering Project filed an emergency federal civil rights suit on behalf of Texas’s abortion providers, arguing that the state has no right to ban abortion even amid the epidemic.
Under Paxton’s interpretation, the order would deprive “patients of the freedom to make a very personal decision in consultation with their medical providers, which is all the more weighty given the increased health risks to pregnant persons during the Covid-19 pandemic,” it reads.
Since the beginning of the Covid-19 outbreak, abortion providers have taken precautions to “maximize the safety of their patients and staff and to conserve PPE,” the lawsuit states. Abortion does not generally require numerous medical staff or copious use of PPE, and rarely N95 respirators, which are so valuable for professionals providing front-line care. Medication abortion — a protocol of two pharmaceuticals taken in the earliest weeks of pregnancy — requires no PPE but would also be banned under Paxton’s interpretation.
The providers note that prior to Abbott’s order — and Paxton’s threats — medical professionals, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, released a statement advising that abortion is essential health care. “The consequences of being unable to obtain an abortion profoundly impact a person’s life, health, and well-being.”
The lawsuit argues that Paxton’s “threats are a blatant effort to exploit a public health crisis to advance an extreme, anti-abortion agenda, without any benefit to the state in terms of preventing or resolving shortages of PPE or hospital capacity.”
As a result, providers have already had to turn away clients, and with no end to the epidemic in sight, unless blanket enforcement of the order is blocked, patients seeking care may have to wait months and some may be forced into childbearing. “Not only will these patients be deprived of their constitutional right to essential health care and self-determination, but forcing them to continue their pregnancies will in fact impose far greater strains on an already-taxed health care system, as prenatal care and delivery involve much greater exhaustion of hospital health care services and PPE than abortions,” reads the lawsuit.
“The Covid-19 pandemic and its fallout do not reduce patients’ needs for abortion,” the providers argue. “If anything, they make timely access to abortion even more urgent, while raising additional obstacles for patients seeking that care.”
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
Indeed, Texas has already erected a raft of barriers to access; laws passed in 2013 shuttered half the state’s abortion facilities. The state requires patients to jump through a series of medically unnecessary hoops to receive care. Lawmakers have gone so far as to suggest that abortion be reclassified as murder and that both abortion doctors and the patients they serve be eligible for the death penalty.
Anti-abortion politicians in Ohio have also tried to crackdown on abortion care amid the epidemic, and according to Rewire.News, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser — an ally of Donald Trump’s — penned a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar suggesting ways that the federal government could further block abortion access.
“It’s unconscionable that the Texas attorney general is exploiting this pandemic to end abortion in the state,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “Abortion care is time-sensitive and essential health care that has a profound impact on a person’s health and life, which is why it is protected as a constitutional right. Texas is abusing the state’s emergency powers and we are filing suit … to stop it.”


theintercept--2020-03-31--Who Shot Courtney Copeland?

Who Shot Courtney Copeland?

What struck us , above all , was Shapearl ’ s awareness of what she knew and what she didn ’ t know , what she could prove and what she could only speculate about , coupled with her fierce determination as a mother to learn everything she could possibly learn about the last moments of her son ’ s life .
It proved a fateful meeting .
Shapearl spoke for the better part of an hour with quiet authority and a deep ground note of emotion , while effortlessly plucking from the pile of papers on the table in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed to illustrate the point she was making .
A mother grieving the immeasurable loss of her son , she was remarkably measured in laying out what she had learned about the circumstances of his murder , the inconsistencies and anomalies in what she had been told by the police , and her hypotheses about what may have happened the night he was killed .
at the office of the Invisible Institute , the nonprofit journalism studio where we work on the South Side of Chicago , on an afternoon early in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents she had collected in the course of investigating the 2016 murder of her 22-year-old son Courtney Copeland .
She had reached out to us via email several weeks earlier .
She was moved to do so by our role in bringing the police killing of Laquan McDonald to public attention .
Late in 2015 , the release of dashcam video showing a police officer shooting the 17-year-old boy 16 times had precipitated an unprecedented political upheaval in Chicago .
Horror at what the video showed — the execution of a child on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that the city had withheld it from the public for 13 months .
A cascade of events swiftly followed : The police superintendent and the head of the agency that investigated police shootings were fired ; the state ’ s attorney was voted out of office ; a task force appointed by the mayor stated that Chicago police “ have no regard for the sanctity of life when it comes to people of color ” ; and the U. S. Department of Justice concluded on the basis of a massive investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unconstitutional pattern of excessive force and deadly force , particularly against black and brown residents .
Taken together , the cratering of institutional legitimacy brought on a crisis of the civil order from which the city is still emerging .
The McDonald revelations at once confirmed longstanding distrust of the police in black neighborhoods and deepened that distrust .
Perhaps the single most telling measure of this collapse of public trust is the CPD ’ s homicide clearance rate — the percentage of cases in which the police identify a suspect ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested , charged , or convicted ) .
In 2017 , the clearance rate for murders that occurred during that year was 17.5 percent ; police identified suspects in 114 of 650 murders — less than 1 in 5 .
( According to a police source , that rate would be even lower if “ domestics ” — i.e.
, cases in which investigation was not required to identify the perpetrator — were removed . )
Moreover , the clearance rate when the victim is black is significantly lower than for cases in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The clearance rate for nonfatal shootings is even more dismal .
In 2017 , the police solved 7.2 percent of the nonfatal shootings that occurred that year .
Viewed from the perspective of communities besieged by violence , this figure translates into 93 percent impunity for shooters .
City and police officials regularly plead with community members to cooperate with police investigations and berate them for failing to do so , attributing lack of cooperation to fear of retaliation and the so-called no-snitch rule .
The DOJ report on its investigation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is the context in which Shapearl Wells reached out to us for help in investigating the murder of her son .
“ I don ’ t have a smoking gun that shows CPD killing my son , ” she wrote , but “ as a mother I ’ m looking for answers and CPD is doing everything to make sure I never get them.
” We agreed to join Shapearl in her investigation .
Today , three years later , we release the investigative podcast series Somebody , narrated by Shapearl , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At about 1:15 a.m. on March 4 , 2016 , Courtney Copeland was shot in his maroon BMW convertible .
He drove around the corner to the 25th District police station where he flagged down an officer for help .
An ambulance was summoned , but Courtney ’ s heart stopped en route to the hospital .
He was pronounced dead about 45 minutes after being shot .
Despite reports of two shots fired , police never found a bullet , other than the one lodged in Courtney ’ s neck .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ BMW , which seemed to contradict the notion that Courtney was shot inside his car .
And then there was an alarming account from the emergency room nurse who received Courtney , along with a paramedics ’ record , indicating that he had arrived in police handcuffs .
This only deepened Shapearl ’ s suspicions about her son ’ s interactions with officers that night .
Perhaps these discrepancies could be explained , we thought .
But the behavior of the police was highly suspect .
The city refused to release video footage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pulling up to the station for help .
And when Shapearl pleaded with detectives to do more to investigate her son ’ s murder , including interviewing the on-scene officers that night , they responded by berating her .
Together , we challenged official secrecy and eventually obtained the videos .
What they revealed opened up new lines of inquiry .
We won ’ t divulge more about our investigation here , other than to say that Shapearl did what the police didn ’ t do , what they won ’ t do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detectives only documented interviews with a handful of people , we interviewed dozens .
We consulted medical and forensics experts .
We tracked down new evidence .
And we surfaced a compelling list of suspects in Courtney ’ s murder .
In the end ( though in stories like this one there never truly is an end ) , we are left with what we know happened to Courtney , what we know we ’ ll never know , and what we know can ’ t possibly be true .
Somebody is Shapearl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrator of the series , its protagonist and central voice .
This is a departure for the genre of investigative journalism podcasts , which are typically hosted by reporters rather than by those who have directly suffered the injustices that journalists like us build careers on by exposing .
We only appear from time to time , as the investigation unfolds , to perform narrative housekeeping functions .
It has been our privilege to accompany Shapearl on her quest for justice .
We invite you to join us on the journey by subscribing @ @ @

Subscribe to the Somebody podcast on Apple Podcasts, iHeart Radio, Google Play, Stitcher, and other platforms .
Shapearl Wells arrived
at the office of the Invisible Institute, the nonprofit journalism studio where we work on the South Side of Chicago, on an afternoon early in 2017, armed with a large stack of documents she had collected in the course of investigating the 2016 murder of her 22-year-old son Courtney Copeland.
It proved a fateful meeting. Shapearl spoke for the better part of an hour with quiet authority and a deep ground note of emotion, while effortlessly plucking from the pile of papers on the table in front of her the particular document she needed to illustrate the point she was making. A mother grieving the immeasurable loss of her son, she was remarkably measured in laying out what she had learned about the circumstances of his murder, the inconsistencies and anomalies in what she had been told by the police, and her hypotheses about what may have happened the night he was killed.
What struck us, above all, was Shapearl’s awareness of what she knew and what she didn’t know, what she could prove and what she could only speculate about, coupled with her fierce determination as a mother to learn everything she could possibly learn about the last moments of her son’s life.
She had reached out to us via email several weeks earlier. She was moved to do so by our role in bringing the police killing of Laquan McDonald to public attention. Late in 2015, the release of dashcam video showing a police officer shooting the 17-year-old boy 16 times had precipitated an unprecedented political upheaval in Chicago. Horror at what the video showed — the execution of a child on a city street — was compounded by the fact that the city had withheld it from the public for 13 months. A cascade of events swiftly followed: The police superintendent and the head of the agency that investigated police shootings were fired; the state’s attorney was voted out of office; a task force appointed by the mayor stated that Chicago police “have no regard for the sanctity of life when it comes to people of color”; and the U. S. Department of Justice concluded on the basis of a massive investigation that the Chicago Police Department engages in an unconstitutional pattern of excessive force and deadly force, particularly against black and brown residents.
Taken together, the cratering of institutional legitimacy brought on a crisis of the civil order from which the city is still emerging. The McDonald revelations at once confirmed longstanding distrust of the police in black neighborhoods and deepened that distrust. Perhaps the single most telling measure of this collapse of public trust is the CPD’s homicide clearance rate — the percentage of cases in which the police identify a suspect (regardless of whether that person is ever arrested, charged, or convicted).
In 2017, the clearance rate for murders that occurred during that year was 17.5 percent; police identified suspects in 114 of 650 murders — less than 1 in 5. (According to a police source, that rate would be even lower if “domestics” — i.e., cases in which investigation was not required to identify the perpetrator — were removed.) Moreover, the clearance rate when the victim is black is significantly lower than for cases in which the victim is white or Hispanic.
The clearance rate for nonfatal shootings is even more dismal. In 2017, the police solved 7.2 percent of the nonfatal shootings that occurred that year. Viewed from the perspective of communities besieged by violence, this figure translates into 93 percent impunity for shooters.
City and police officials regularly plead with community members to cooperate with police investigations and berate them for failing to do so, attributing lack of cooperation to fear of retaliation and the so-called no-snitch rule. The DOJ report on its investigation of the CPD tells a different story:
The many family members of homicide victims with whom we met … expressed a lack of confidence in CPD because of how they had been treated. Their experience with CPD after a family member had been murdered had made them feel that CPD does not genuinely care about the murders of young black men and women, and do too little to investigate and resolve those homicides.
That is the context in which Shapearl Wells reached out to us for help in investigating the murder of her son. “I don’t have a smoking gun that shows CPD killing my son,” she wrote, but “as a mother I’m looking for answers and CPD is doing everything to make sure I never get them.”
We agreed to join Shapearl in her investigation. Today, three years later, we release the investigative podcast series Somebody, narrated by Shapearl, that tells the story of that investigation.
At about 1:15 a.m. on March 4, 2016, Courtney Copeland was shot in his maroon BMW convertible. He drove around the corner to the 25th District police station where he flagged down an officer for help. An ambulance was summoned, but Courtney’s heart stopped en route to the hospital. He was pronounced dead about 45 minutes after being shot.
Despite reports of two shots fired, police never found a bullet, other than the one lodged in Courtney’s neck. There was also no blood in the BMW, which seemed to contradict the notion that Courtney was shot inside his car. And then there was an alarming account from the emergency room nurse who received Courtney, along with a paramedics’ record, indicating that he had arrived in police handcuffs. This only deepened Shapearl’s suspicions about her son’s interactions with officers that night.
Perhaps these discrepancies could be explained, we thought.
But the behavior of the police was highly suspect. The city refused to release video footage from neighborhood surveillance cameras that showed Courtney pulling up to the station for help. And when Shapearl pleaded with detectives to do more to investigate her son’s murder, including interviewing the on-scene officers that night, they responded by berating her.
Together, we challenged official secrecy and eventually obtained the videos. What they revealed opened up new lines of inquiry.
We won’t divulge more about our investigation here, other than to say that Shapearl did what the police didn’t do, what they won’t do, particularly for black victims. While detectives only documented interviews with a handful of people, we interviewed dozens. We consulted medical and forensics experts. We tracked down new evidence. And we surfaced a compelling list of suspects in Courtney’s murder.
In the end (though in stories like this one there never truly is an end), we are left with what we know happened to Courtney, what we know we’ll never know, and what we know can’t possibly be true.
Somebody is Shapearl’s story. She is the narrator of the series, its protagonist and central voice. This is a departure for the genre of investigative journalism podcasts, which are typically hosted by reporters rather than by those who have directly suffered the injustices that journalists like us build careers on by exposing. We only appear from time to time, as the investigation unfolds, to perform narrative housekeeping functions.
It has been our privilege to accompany Shapearl on her quest for justice. We invite you to join us on the journey by subscribing to Somebody.


theintercept--2020-03-31--Zoom Meetings Aren’t End-to-End Encrypted, Despite Misleading Marketing

video conferencing service whose use has spiked amid the Covid-19 pandemic , claims to implement end-to-end encryption , widely understood as the most private form of internet communication , protecting conversations from all outside parties .
In fact , Zoom is using its own definition of the term , one that lets Zoom itself access unencrypted video and audio from meetings .
With millions of people around the world working from home in order to slow the spread of the coronavirus , business is booming for Zoom , bringing more attention on the company and its privacy practices , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed to give the company permission to mine messages and files shared during meetings for the purpose of ad targeting .
Still , Zoom offers reliability , ease of use , and at least one very important security assurance : As long as you make sure everyone in a Zoom meeting connects using “ computer audio ” instead of calling in on a phone , the meeting is secured with end-to-end encryption , at least according to Zoom ’ s website , its security white paper , and the user interface within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the service actually does not support end-to-end encryption for video and audio content , at least as the term is commonly understood .
Instead it offers what is usually called transport encryption , explained further below .
In Zoom ’ s white paper , there is a list of “ pre-meeting security capabilities ” that are available to the meeting host that starts with “ Enable an end-to-end ( E2E ) encrypted meeting.
” Later in the white paper , it lists “ Secure a meeting with E2E encryption ” as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s available to meeting hosts .
When a host starts a meeting with the “ Require Encryption for 3rd Party Endpoints ” setting enabled , participants see a green padlock that says , “ Zoom is using an end to end encrypted connection ” when they mouse over it .
But when reached for comment about whether video meetings are actually end-to-end encrypted , a Zoom spokesperson wrote , “ Currently , it is not possible to enable E2E encryption for Zoom video meetings .
Zoom video meetings use a combination of TCP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using TLS and UDP connections are encrypted with AES using a key negotiated over a TLS connection.
” The encryption that Zoom uses to protect meetings is TLS , the same technology that web servers use to secure HTTPS websites .
This means that the connection between the Zoom app running on a user ’ s computer or phone and Zoom ’ s server is encrypted in the same way the connection between your web browser and this article ( on https : //theintercept.com ) is encrypted .
This is known as transport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encryption because the Zoom service itself can access the unencrypted video and audio content of Zoom meetings .
So when you have a Zoom meeting , the video and audio content will stay private from anyone spying on your Wi-Fi , but it won ’ t stay private from the company .
( In a statement , Zoom said it does not directly access , mine , or sell user data ; more below . )
For a Zoom meeting to be end-to-end encrypted , the video and audio content would need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only the participants in the meeting have the ability to decrypt it .
The Zoom service itself might have access to encrypted meeting content , but wouldn ’ t have the encryption keys required to decrypt it ( only meeting participants would have these keys ) and therefore , would not have the technical ability to listen in on your private meetings .
This is how end-to-end encryption in messaging apps like Signal work : The Signal service facilitates sending encrypted messages between users , but doesn ’ t have the encryption keys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , can ’ t access their unencrypted content .
“ When we use the phrase ‘ End to End ’ in our other literature , it is in reference to the connection being encrypted from Zoom end point to Zoom end point , ” the Zoom spokesperson wrote , apparently referring to Zoom servers as “ end points ” even though they sit between Zoom clients .
“ The content is not decrypted as it transfers across the Zoom cloud ” through the networking between these machines .
Matthew Green , a cryptographer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University , points out that group video conferencing is difficult to encrypt end to end .
That ’ s because the service provider needs to detect who is talking to act like a switchboard , which allows it to only send a high-resolution videostream from the person who is talking at the moment , or who a user selects to the rest of the group , and to send low-resolution videostreams of other participants .
This type of optimization is much easier if the service provider can see everything because it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all end-to-end encrypted , you need to add some extra mechanisms to make sure you can do that kind of ‘ who ’ s talking ’ switch , and you can do it in a way that doesn ’ t leak a lot of information .
You have to push that logic out to the endpoints , ” he told The Intercept .
This isn ’ t impossible , though , Green said , as demonstrated by Apple ’ s FaceTime , which allows group video conferencing that ’ s end-to-end encrypted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just not easy.
” “ They ’ re a little bit fuzzy about what ’ s end-to-end encrypted , ” Green said of Zoom .
“ I think they ’ re doing this in a slightly dishonest way .
It would be nice if they just came clean.
” The only feature of Zoom that does appear to be end-to-end encrypted is in-meeting text chat .
“ Zoom E2E chat encryption allows for a secured communication where only the intended recipient can read the secured message , ” the white paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private key to encrypt the chat session with Advanced Encryption Standard ( AES-256 ) .
Session keys are generated with a device-unique hardware ID to avoid data being read from other devices.
” A Zoom spokesperson wrote , “ When end-to-end encryption for chat is enabled , the keys are stored on the local devices and Zoom does not have access to the keys to decrypt the data.
” Without end-to-end encryption , Zoom has the technical ability to spy on private video meetings and could be compelled to hand over recordings of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to legal requests .
While other companies like Google , Facebook , and Microsoft publish transparency reports that describe exactly how many government requests for user data they receive from which countries and how many of those they comply with , Zoom does not publish a transparency report .
On March 18 , human rights group Access Now published an open letter calling on Zoom to release a transparency report to help users understand what the company is doing to protect their data .
“ Transparency reports are one of the strongest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ user privacy and free expression .
They help us understand surveillance laws in different jurisdictions , provide useful information on network shutdowns and disruptions , and they show us which companies are pushing back against improper requests for user information , ” said Isedua Oribhabor , U.S. policy analyst at Access Now .
Access Now ’ s Transparency Reporting Index shows a downward trend in consistent transparency reporting , which Oribhabor said removes an essential tool for users and civil society to hold governments and companies accountable .
Oribhabor pointed out that Zoom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to governments that want to monitor online assembly or control the spread of information as activists move protests online .
The lack of a transparency report makes it difficult to determine whether there ’ s been an increase in requests and unclear how Zoom would respond .
“ Companies have a responsibility to be transparent about these kinds of requests , to help users and civil society see where government abuse is occurring and how the company is pushing back , ” Oribhabor said .
“ Zoom complies with our legal obligations or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This includes responding to valid legal process , or as reasonably necessary to preserve Zoom ’ s legal rights .
Zoom is legally required to work with law enforcement when there is a violation of Zoom ’ s Online Terms of Service , ” a Zoom spokesperson said in an email .
It ’ s possible that Zoom ’ s marketing could be considered an unfair or deceptive trade practice that would run afoul of the Federal Trade Commission .
In 2014 , both Fandango and Credit Karma settled charges with the FTC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for processing credit card information , despite their security promises .
This left customer ’ s personal data vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks .
Independent technologist Ashkan Soltani , who formerly served as the FTC ’ s chief technologist , said it ’ s unclear to him whether Zoom is actually implementing end-to-end encryption ; he was unaware that it claimed to do so prior to speaking with The Intercept .
But he said that if a reasonable consumer makes a decision to use Zoom with the understanding that it has end-to-end encryption for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it did not , and if Zoom ’ s representation is deceptive , it could be a deceptive trade practice .
This kind of marketing could impact not just consumers , but also other businesses .
“ If Zoom claimed they have end-to-end encryption , but didn ’ t actually invest the resources to implement it , and Google Hangouts didn ’ t make that claim and you chose Zoom , not only are you being harmed as consumer , but in fact , Hangouts is being harmed because Zoom is making claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
“ So it ’ s actually benefiting from false claims , and people are essentially receiving more market share because of those false claims.
” Zoom business customers with a minimum of 10 hosts have the option of using an on-premises Meeting Connector , which allows companies to essentially host a Zoom server on their internal corporate network .
With this setup , meeting metadata , like the names and times of meetings and which participants join them , goes through Zoom ’ s servers , but “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s internal network , ” according to the white paper .
“ All real-time meeting traffic including audio , video , and data sharing go through the company ’ s internal network .
This leverages your existing network security setup to protect your meeting traffic.
” Even though Zoom meetings are not end-to-end encrypted , the company should not have access to the video and audio of meetings that go through a customer ’ s Meeting Connector server ; only the customer should have access to that .
Zoom provided the following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes its users ’ privacy extremely seriously .
Zoom only collects data from individuals using the Zoom platform as needed to provide the service and ensure it is delivered as effectively as possible .
Zoom must collect basic technical information like users ’ IP address , OS details and device details in order for the service to function properly .
Zoom has layered safeguards in place to protect our users ’ privacy , which includes preventing anyone , including Zoom employees , from directly accessing any data that users share during meetings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the video , audio and chat content of those meetings .
Importantly , Zoom does not mine user data or sell user data of any kind to anyone .
”

Zoom, the videoconferencing service whose use has spiked amid the Covid-19 pandemic, claims to implement end-to-end encryption, widely understood as the most private form of internet communication, protecting conversations from all outside parties. In fact, Zoom is using its own definition of the term, one that lets Zoom itself access unencrypted video and audio from meetings.
With millions of people around the world working from home in order to slow the spread of the coronavirus, business is booming for Zoom, bringing more attention on the company and its privacy practices, including a policy, later updated, that seemed to give the company permission to mine messages and files shared during meetings for the purpose of ad targeting.
Still, Zoom offers reliability, ease of use, and at least one very important security assurance: As long as you make sure everyone in a Zoom meeting connects using “computer audio” instead of calling in on a phone, the meeting is secured with end-to-end encryption, at least according to Zoom’s website, its security white paper, and the user interface within the app. But despite this misleading marketing, the service actually does not support end-to-end encryption for video and audio content, at least as the term is commonly understood. Instead it offers what is usually called transport encryption, explained further below.
When mousing over the green lock in the top left of the Zoom desktop app, it says, “Zoom is using an end to end encrypted connection” Screenshot: The Intercept
In Zoom’s white paper, there is a list of “pre-meeting security capabilities” that are available to the meeting host that starts with “Enable an end-to-end (E2E) encrypted meeting.” Later in the white paper, it lists “Secure a meeting with E2E encryption” as an “in-meeting security capability” that’s available to meeting hosts. When a host starts a meeting with the “Require Encryption for 3rd Party Endpoints” setting enabled, participants see a green padlock that says, “Zoom is using an end to end encrypted connection” when they mouse over it.
But when reached for comment about whether video meetings are actually end-to-end encrypted, a Zoom spokesperson wrote, “Currently, it is not possible to enable E2E encryption for Zoom video meetings. Zoom video meetings use a combination of TCP and UDP. TCP connections are made using TLS and UDP connections are encrypted with AES using a key negotiated over a TLS connection.”
The encryption that Zoom uses to protect meetings is TLS, the same technology that web servers use to secure HTTPS websites. This means that the connection between the Zoom app running on a user’s computer or phone and Zoom’s server is encrypted in the same way the connection between your web browser and this article (on https://theintercept.com) is encrypted. This is known as transport encryption, which is different from end-to-end encryption because the Zoom service itself can access the unencrypted video and audio content of Zoom meetings. So when you have a Zoom meeting, the video and audio content will stay private from anyone spying on your Wi-Fi, but it won’t stay private from the company. (In a statement, Zoom said it does not directly access, mine, or sell user data; more below.)
For a Zoom meeting to be end-to-end encrypted, the video and audio content would need to be encrypted in such a way that only the participants in the meeting have the ability to decrypt it. The Zoom service itself might have access to encrypted meeting content, but wouldn’t have the encryption keys required to decrypt it (only meeting participants would have these keys) and therefore, would not have the technical ability to listen in on your private meetings. This is how end-to-end encryption in messaging apps like Signal work: The Signal service facilitates sending encrypted messages between users, but doesn’t have the encryption keys required to decrypt those messages and therefore, can’t access their unencrypted content.
“When we use the phrase ‘End to End’ in our other literature, it is in reference to the connection being encrypted from Zoom end point to Zoom end point,” the Zoom spokesperson wrote, apparently referring to Zoom servers as “end points” even though they sit between Zoom clients. “The content is not decrypted as it transfers across the Zoom cloud” through the networking between these machines.
Matthew Green, a cryptographer and computer science professor at Johns Hopkins University, points out that group videoconferencing is difficult to encrypt end to end. That’s because the service provider needs to detect who is talking to act like a switchboard, which allows it to only send a high-resolution videostream from the person who is talking at the moment, or who a user selects to the rest of the group, and to send low-resolution videostreams of other participants. This type of optimization is much easier if the service provider can see everything because it’s unencrypted.
Screenshot: The Intercept
“If it’s all end-to-end encrypted, you need to add some extra mechanisms to make sure you can do that kind of ‘who’s talking’ switch, and you can do it in a way that doesn’t leak a lot of information. You have to push that logic out to the endpoints,” he told The Intercept. This isn’t impossible, though, Green said, as demonstrated by Apple’s FaceTime, which allows group videoconferencing that’s end-to-end encrypted. “It’s doable. It’s just not easy.”
“They’re a little bit fuzzy about what’s end-to-end encrypted,” Green said of Zoom. “I think they’re doing this in a slightly dishonest way. It would be nice if they just came clean.”
The only feature of Zoom that does appear to be end-to-end encrypted is in-meeting text chat. “Zoom E2E chat encryption allows for a secured communication where only the intended recipient can read the secured message,” the white paper states. “Zoom uses public and private key to encrypt the chat session with Advanced Encryption Standard (AES-256). Session keys are generated with a device-unique hardware ID to avoid data being read from other devices.” A Zoom spokesperson wrote, “When end-to-end encryption for chat is enabled, the keys are stored on the local devices and Zoom does not have access to the keys to decrypt the data.”
“I think they’re doing this in a slightly dishonest way.”
Without end-to-end encryption, Zoom has the technical ability to spy on private video meetings and could be compelled to hand over recordings of meetings to governments or law enforcement in response to legal requests. While other companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft publish transparency reports that describe exactly how many government requests for user data they receive from which countries and how many of those they comply with, Zoom does not publish a transparency report. On March 18, human rights group Access Now published an open letter calling on Zoom to release a transparency report to help users understand what the company is doing to protect their data.
“Transparency reports are one of the strongest ways for companies to disclose threats to user privacy and free expression. They help us understand surveillance laws in different jurisdictions, provide useful information on network shutdowns and disruptions, and they show us which companies are pushing back against improper requests for user information,” said Isedua Oribhabor, U.S. policy analyst at Access Now. Access Now’s Transparency Reporting Index shows a downward trend in consistent transparency reporting, which Oribhabor said removes an essential tool for users and civil society to hold governments and companies accountable.
Oribhabor pointed out that Zoom could be compelled to hand over data to governments that want to monitor online assembly or control the spread of information as activists move protests online. The lack of a transparency report makes it difficult to determine whether there’s been an increase in requests and unclear how Zoom would respond.
“Companies have a responsibility to be transparent about these kinds of requests, to help users and civil society see where government abuse is occurring and how the company is pushing back,” Oribhabor said.
“Zoom complies with our legal obligations or the legal obligations of our customers. This includes responding to valid legal process, or as reasonably necessary to preserve Zoom’s legal rights. Zoom is legally required to work with law enforcement when there is a violation of Zoom’s Online Terms of Service,” a Zoom spokesperson said in an email.
Zoom has the technical ability to spy on private video meetings.
It’s possible that Zoom’s marketing could be considered an unfair or deceptive trade practice that would run afoul of the Federal Trade Commission. In 2014, both Fandango and Credit Karma settled charges with the FTC after failing to properly implement SSL encryption for processing credit card information, despite their security promises. This left customer’s personal data vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks.
Independent technologist Ashkan Soltani, who formerly served as the FTC’s chief technologist, said it’s unclear to him whether Zoom is actually implementing end-to-end encryption; he was unaware that it claimed to do so prior to speaking with The Intercept. But he said that if a reasonable consumer makes a decision to use Zoom with the understanding that it has end-to-end encryption for video chat when, in fact, it did not, and if Zoom’s representation is deceptive, it could be a deceptive trade practice.
This kind of marketing could impact not just consumers, but also other businesses.
“If Zoom claimed they have end-to-end encryption, but didn’t actually invest the resources to implement it, and Google Hangouts didn’t make that claim and you chose Zoom, not only are you being harmed as consumer, but in fact, Hangouts is being harmed because Zoom is making claims about its product that are not true,” he said. “So it’s actually benefiting from false claims, and people are essentially receiving more market share because of those false claims.”
Zoom business customers with a minimum of 10 hosts have the option of using an on-premises Meeting Connector, which allows companies to essentially host a Zoom server on their internal corporate network. With this setup, meeting metadata, like the names and times of meetings and which participants join them, goes through Zoom’s servers, but “the meeting itself is hosted in customer’s internal network,” according to the white paper. “All real-time meeting traffic including audio, video, and data sharing go through the company’s internal network. This leverages your existing network security setup to protect your meeting traffic.” Even though Zoom meetings are not end-to-end encrypted, the company should not have access to the video and audio of meetings that go through a customer’s Meeting Connector server; only the customer should have access to that.
Zoom provided the following statement to The Intercept: “Zoom takes its users’ privacy extremely seriously. Zoom only collects data from individuals using the Zoom platform as needed to provide the service and ensure it is delivered as effectively as possible. Zoom must collect basic technical information like users’ IP address, OS details and device details in order for the service to function properly. Zoom has layered safeguards in place to protect our users’ privacy, which includes preventing anyone, including Zoom employees, from directly accessing any data that users share during meetings, including — but not limited to — the video, audio and chat content of those meetings. Importantly, Zoom does not mine user data or sell user data of any kind to anyone.”


theintercept--2020-03-31--Drone Whistleblower Charged With Making Online Threats to City Council — But Some of Its Members Wan

Drone Whistleblower Charged With Making Online Threats to City Council — But Some of Its Members Want The Case Dropped

One way that he has tried to pick up the pieces of his life is by getting involved in local politics in his hometown of Missoula , Montana .
It hasn ’ t been easy .
Bryant has periodically clashed with members of the city council over issues like housing cost increases and contracts issued to land developers .
Recently , he lashed out online , and is now facing up to ten years in prison for allegedly threatening elected officials .
Like other veterans of the program , the daily work of tracking and killing people as an operator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with consequences for his mental health that he has discussed publicly in the past .
Since he left , he ’ s also been struggling with the pressures of going public as a whistleblower and a head injury he suffered during a military training exercise .
Brandon Bryant made international headlines when he came forward with information from inside the U.S. military ’ s drone program .
Over the past several years , the former drone operator has become known for his outspoken activism on the issues of civilian deaths and the struggles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-traumatic stress disorder .
Bryant was charged and taken into custody in February after a video of him allegedly making threats against the city council surfaced online .
The video was posted by an online detractor ( who Bryant has accused of cyberstalking ) and was edited down from a longer version Bryant himself had posted .
In the rambling video shot in a darkened room , Bryant says that members of the council deserve to be “ eliminated , ” though he never threatens any specific action .
Bryant is presently out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Three members of the city council have come forward to ask for the charges to be dropped , writing in an open letter that the video appeared to be edited to seem more threatening than it was .
“ In no way do we perceive him to be a threat to our safety or that of the community , ” the council members wrote .
The council members also cited his public role as a drone whistleblower .
“ We are firm believers in the first amendment and we deeply feel the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over a non-violent offense will have devastating consequences.
” A core question in the case is whether Bryant ’ s words in the YouTube video constitute what ’ s known as a “ true threat ” under the First Amendment .
“ ’ True threats ’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals , ” said Anthony Johnstone , professor at Montana ’ s Blewett School of Law .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Mr. Bryant ’ s case : Did he mean to communicate a threat to the city council ?
His words may be susceptible of more than one interpretation depending on the relevant context .
The court will need to decide what that context is.
” Through his lawyers , Bryant declined to comment for this story .
There is no obvious sign that the charges against Bryant are related to his high-profile work as a whistleblower on the drone program — although other whistleblowers have been charged with leaking classified information , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming after those who speak out in other ways .
Bryant ’ s current situation does point to the lasting effects of the pressure of coming forward .
Cian Westmoreland , who is among the small number of drone operators who have gone public about their experiences in the program , is close to Bryant and describes him as one of many veterans experiencing post-traumatic stress and moral injury .
“ Brandon and I have spoken extensively about what we carry with us .
Brandon has a brain injury that interferes with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Westmoreland told The Intercept , referring to the training incident .
“ It isn ’ t obvious to someone who doesn ’ t know him .
He says what he feels , and there is no filter .
He says a lot of contradictory things , but he can ’ t help it ; he is working out a lot from the wars and even our current political situation here .
”

Brandon Bryant made international headlines when he came forward with information from inside the U.S. military’s drone program. Over the past several years, the former drone operator has become known for his outspoken activism on the issues of civilian deaths and the struggles of drone pilots with substance abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Like other veterans of the program, the daily work of tracking and killing people as an operator took a psychological toll on Bryant, with consequences for his mental health that he has discussed publicly in the past. Since he left, he’s also been struggling with the pressures of going public as a whistleblower and a head injury he suffered during a military training exercise.
One way that he has tried to pick up the pieces of his life is by getting involved in local politics in his hometown of Missoula, Montana. It hasn’t been easy. Bryant has periodically clashed with members of the city council over issues like housing cost increases and contracts issued to land developers. Recently, he lashed out online, and is now facing up to ten years in prison for allegedly threatening elected officials.
Bryant was charged and taken into custody in February after a video of him allegedly making threats against the city council surfaced online. The video was posted by an online detractor (who Bryant has accused of cyberstalking) and was edited down from a longer version Bryant himself had posted. In the rambling video shot in a darkened room, Bryant says that members of the council deserve to be “eliminated,” though he never threatens any specific action.
Bryant is presently out on bail awaiting a hearing on Thursday. Three members of the city council have come forward to ask for the charges to be dropped, writing in an open letter that the video appeared to be edited to seem more threatening than it was. “In no way do we perceive him to be a threat to our safety or that of the community,” the council members wrote. The council members also cited his public role as a drone whistleblower. “We are firm believers in the first amendment and we deeply feel the future consequences of jailing an active citizen over a non-violent offense will have devastating consequences.”
A core question in the case is whether Bryant’s words in the YouTube video constitute what’s known as a “true threat” under the First Amendment.
“’True threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals,” said Anthony Johnstone, professor at Montana’s Blewett School of Law. “This is precisely the question at issue in Mr. Bryant’s case: Did he mean to communicate a threat to the city council? His words may be susceptible of more than one interpretation depending on the relevant context. The court will need to decide what that context is.”
Through his lawyers, Bryant declined to comment for this story.
There is no obvious sign that the charges against Bryant are related to his high-profile work as a whistleblower on the drone program — although other whistleblowers have been charged with leaking classified information, and advocates have long feared the government coming after those who speak out in other ways.
Bryant’s current situation does point to the lasting effects of the pressure of coming forward.
Cian Westmoreland, who is among the small number of drone operators who have gone public about their experiences in the program, is close to Bryant and describes him as one of many veterans experiencing post-traumatic stress and moral injury.
“Brandon and I have spoken extensively about what we carry with us. Brandon has a brain injury that interferes with the way he talks about things,” Westmoreland told The Intercept, referring to the training incident. “It isn’t obvious to someone who doesn’t know him. He says what he feels, and there is no filter. He says a lot of contradictory things, but he can’t help it; he is working out a lot from the wars and even our current political situation here.”
When Bryant first came forward in 2012, his account was explosive. Among other things, he said that drone operators routinely killed civilians and took drugs and alcohol while on the job. His story echoed that of other drone veterans, who spoke out about substance addiction and post-traumatic stress, in part due to feelings of torment over their involvement in the targeted killing program.
The drone program remains highly opaque, even as the military continues to carry out targeted killing campaigns around the world. Begun during the George W. Bush administration but massively expanded and normalized under Barack Obama, air wars waged by drone and conventional aircraft now continue in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Yemen.
In past conflicts, unaddressed PTSD and other psychological ailments suffered by veterans have sometimes resulted in alterations in their behavior. In the case of Bryant and others, Westmoreland said the trauma many veterans carry is compounded by the fact that the conflicts in which they took part have not ended; the painful consequences are still playing out in front of them every day.
“Brandon is as sickened by his service as am. I don’t like acknowledging that I participated in effectively destroying a nation and have done irreparable harm to anyone. The more you reflect, the worse it gets,” Westmoreland said. “He joined to serve his country, and the politicians elected to serve this country took his youthful good nature and turned us into invaders and we became their servants. He is as American as apple pie. He’s just considered the humanity in the people he’s harmed. That alone is devastating almost 20 years into this with no real end in sight. Of course we’re angry about that.”


theintercept--2020-03-31--Courts Put the Brakes on Politicians’ Efforts to Ban Abortion Amid Covid-19 Outbreak

Update : March 31 , 2020 , 3:55 p.m .
ET In near record time , the 5th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted a lower court order that would have protected access to abortion in Texas amid the Covid-19 crisis .
The 2-1 majority opinion in the 5th Circuit lifted the lower court ’ s ban in order to give the appellate court time to further consider Texas ’ s appeal .
Texas has said it has the right to ban all abortions in the state in order to halt the spread of the coronavirus and preserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an argument that did not sway district court Judge Lee Yeakel , who issued the temporary restraining order against the state less than 24 hours ago .
The speed with which the appellate court took action is startling though not entirely surprising .
The court , which has long been among the most outwardly hostile toward reproductive rights , has grown even more ideological since Trump took office vowing to pack the court with anti-abortion jurists .
Notable was the lone dissent , by Justice James L. Dennis , who wrote that Yeakel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would flow ” to patients by allowing the state “ to prohibit abortions during this critical time.
” He also noted that the executive order at issue in Texas includes an exemption for medical procedures that will not deplete hospital capacity or PPE needed to fight Covid-19 .
“ The 5th Circuit is escalating the fear and confusion women seeking abortion in Texas are already experiencing , ” said Nancy Northup , president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights .
“ We will continue fighting this legal battle against Texas ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court has given the state ’ s abortion providers until 8 a.m. on April 1 to respond .
federal judges in three states granted temporary restraining orders protecting access to abortion amid the coronavirus outbreak .
The court orders — in Texas , Alabama , and Ohio — came after state officials used executive actions to limit nonessential medical procedures and impose restraints on social gatherings .
In each , state attorneys exploited the ongoing Covid-19 crisis to interpret the orders to ban all access to abortion except in life-threatening situations .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message to politicians and anti-abortion activists in other states , ” Alexis McGill Johnson , acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America , said in a press statement Monday night .
“ Exploiting a global pandemic to ban abortions is illegal.
” The three states are among five that have been sued by a group of reproductive and civil rights organizations — including Planned Parenthood , the Center for Reproductive Rights , the American Civil Liberties Union , and the Lawyering Project — on behalf of abortion providers and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two states , Oklahoma and Iowa , are pending .
An amicus brief filed with the Texas court , in which 15 state attorneys general amplified Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ’ s argument that the state has the power to deprive individuals of certain rights in times of trouble , suggests that additional legal challenges are to come .
Lawyers for Texas , Ohio , and Alabama have variously argued that banning the procedure will help slow the spread of the virus and increase access to personal protective equipment for use by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 outbreak .
But Monday ’ s rulings call that rationale into question .
Judges in each of the three states noted that the executive orders at issue don ’ t actually ban any particular procedures .
Instead , state lawyers have opined that the orders include a blanket prohibition against abortion , which they suggest is almost never an essential health service — contrary to the opinion of medical experts .
In his order , Texas federal Judge Lee Yeakel notes that the state ’ s lawyers “ well describe the emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
Greg Abbott ’ s order halting nonessential medical procedures “ does not exceed the governor ’ s power to deal with the emergency.
” But , he wrote , “ the attorney general ’ s interpretation of the order constitutes the threat of criminal penalties against those whose interpretation differs.
” In both Ohio and in Texas , it appears the decisions to interpret the orders as banning all abortion were driven strictly by anti-abortion politics .
Ohio Attorney General Greg Yost ’ s office wrote threatening letters to three of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receiving “ complaints ” that they were still providing services .
Though Ohio has declined to say exactly where the complaints came from , last week , Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati boasted that it had video from outside one clinic that was still providing care despite the official “ mandate ” that all essential procedures be halted .
The group called on supporters to contact Gov .
Mike DeWine and the Ohio Department of Health to complain .
The first letters to providers from Yost ’ s office went out that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Texas , at least one anti-abortion group took to Twitter to solicit complaints from the public .
Paxton ’ s legal interpretation of the order quickly followed .
A second group , Texas Right to Life , falsely claimed that abortion providers in the state were “ hoarding ” personal protective equipment like N95 respirators , which have been in short supply for front-line providers .
Lawyers for Paxton ’ s office repeated the false claim during a case conference with Judge Yeakel , accusing providers of seeking to keep “ thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
N95 respirators are rarely used in abortion procedures and few providers even have them .
Still , each of the executive orders at issue has some caveat to the ban on medical procedures — in Texas and Ohio , for example , they refer to the judgment of medical professionals in determining what ’ s necessary .
In his opinion , Ohio federal Judge Michael Barrett made it plain : “ If a health care provider determines , on a case-by-case basis , that the surgical procedure is medically indicated and can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timing of pre-viability or other medical conditions , said procedure is deemed legally essential to preserve a woman ’ s right to constitutionally protected access to abortion.
” In Alabama , federal Judge Myron Thompson also noted that the state ’ s executive order was vague and that the state had “ declined ” to clarify its meaning for providers .
Officials in each of the states now subject to restraining orders have also essentially argued that state executive powers in times of emergency trump reproductive rights .
But each of the three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways , that usurping a constitutional right to any pre-viability abortion was not something a state could do .
“ The Supreme Court has spoken clearly .
There can be no outright ban on such a procedure , ” Yeakel wrote .
“ This court will not speculate on whether the Supreme Court included a silent , ‘ except-in-a-national-emergency clause ’ in its previous writings on the issue.
” In all , the judges concluded that banning abortion even for the theoretically short-term period covered by the state orders undermines constitutional rights and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ For some patients , such a delay will deprive them of any access to abortion , ” Yeakel wrote .
The temporary restraining orders will remain in effect until the judges can consider whether they should be further enjoined .
Paxton , the Texas attorney general , vowed an immediate appeal to the 5th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals .
“ I am deeply disappointed that the court ruled against the health and safety of Texans , ” he said in a statement .
“ We will fight tirelessly against @ @ @ @ @ @

Update: March 31, 2020, 3:55 p.m. ET
In near record time, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted a lower court order that would have protected access to abortion in Texas amid the Covid-19 crisis.
The 2-1 majority opinion in the 5th Circuit lifted the lower court’s ban in order to give the appellate court time to further consider Texas’s appeal. Texas has said it has the right to ban all abortions in the state in order to halt the spread of the coronavirus and preserve personal protective equipment for front-line providers — an argument that did not sway district court Judge Lee Yeakel, who issued the temporary restraining order against the state less than 24 hours ago.
The speed with which the appellate court took action is startling though not entirely surprising. The court, which has long been among the most outwardly hostile toward reproductive rights, has grown even more ideological since Trump took office vowing to pack the court with anti-abortion jurists.
Notable was the lone dissent, by Justice James L. Dennis, who wrote that Yeakel had “already concluded that irreparable harm would flow” to patients by allowing the state “to prohibit abortions during this critical time.” He also noted that the executive order at issue in Texas includes an exemption for medical procedures that will not deplete hospital capacity or PPE needed to fight Covid-19.
“The 5th Circuit is escalating the fear and confusion women seeking abortion in Texas are already experiencing,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We will continue fighting this legal battle against Texas’s abuse of emergency powers.” The court has given the state’s abortion providers until 8 a.m. on April 1 to respond.
On March 30, federal judges in three states granted temporary restraining orders protecting access to abortion amid the coronavirus outbreak.
The court orders — in Texas, Alabama, and Ohio — came after state officials used executive actions to limit nonessential medical procedures and impose restraints on social gatherings. In each, state attorneys exploited the ongoing Covid-19 crisis to interpret the orders to ban all access to abortion except in life-threatening situations.
“Let this swift ruling send a clear message to politicians and anti-abortion activists in other states,” Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a press statement Monday night. “Exploiting a global pandemic to ban abortions is illegal.”
The three states are among five that have been sued by a group of reproductive and civil rights organizations — including Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Lawyering Project — on behalf of abortion providers and their patients. Temporary restraining order requests in two states, Oklahoma and Iowa, are pending. An amicus brief filed with the Texas court, in which 15 state attorneys general amplified Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s argument that the state has the power to deprive individuals of certain rights in times of trouble, suggests that additional legal challenges are to come.
Lawyers for Texas, Ohio, and Alabama have variously argued that banning the procedure will help slow the spread of the virus and increase access to personal protective equipment for use by providers on the front lines of the Covid-19 outbreak.
But Monday’s rulings call that rationale into question. Judges in each of the three states noted that the executive orders at issue don’t actually ban any particular procedures. Instead, state lawyers have opined that the orders include a blanket prohibition against abortion, which they suggest is almost never an essential health service — contrary to the opinion of medical experts.
In his order, Texas federal Judge Lee Yeakel notes that the state’s lawyers “well describe the emergency facing the country” and concludes that Gov. Greg Abbott’s order halting nonessential medical procedures “does not exceed the governor’s power to deal with the emergency.” But, he wrote, “the attorney general’s interpretation of the order constitutes the threat of criminal penalties against those whose interpretation differs.”
In both Ohio and in Texas, it appears the decisions to interpret the orders as banning all abortion were driven strictly by anti-abortion politics. Ohio Attorney General Greg Yost’s office wrote threatening letters to three of the state’s abortion providers after receiving “complaints” that they were still providing services. Though Ohio has declined to say exactly where the complaints came from, last week, Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati boasted that it had video from outside one clinic that was still providing care despite the official “mandate” that all essential procedures be halted. The group called on supporters to contact Gov. Mike DeWine and the Ohio Department of Health to complain. The first letters to providers from Yost’s office went out that day.
Following Abbott’s order in Texas, at least one anti-abortion group took to Twitter to solicit complaints from the public. Paxton’s legal interpretation of the order quickly followed. A second group, Texas Right to Life, falsely claimed that abortion providers in the state were “hoarding” personal protective equipment like N95 respirators, which have been in short supply for front-line providers. Lawyers for Paxton’s office repeated the false claim during a case conference with Judge Yeakel, accusing providers of seeking to keep “thousands” of masks for their own use. N95 respirators are rarely used in abortion procedures and few providers even have them.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
Still, each of the executive orders at issue has some caveat to the ban on medical procedures — in Texas and Ohio, for example, they refer to the judgment of medical professionals in determining what’s necessary. In his opinion, Ohio federal Judge Michael Barrett made it plain: “If a health care provider determines, on a case-by-case basis, that the surgical procedure is medically indicated and cannot be delayed, based on the timing of pre-viability or other medical conditions, said procedure is deemed legally essential to preserve a woman’s right to constitutionally protected access to abortion.” In Alabama, federal Judge Myron Thompson also noted that the state’s executive order was vague and that the state had “declined” to clarify its meaning for providers.
Officials in each of the states now subject to restraining orders have also essentially argued that state executive powers in times of emergency trump reproductive rights. But each of the three judges disagreed, writing, in various ways, that usurping a constitutional right to any pre-viability abortion was not something a state could do. “The Supreme Court has spoken clearly. There can be no outright ban on such a procedure,” Yeakel wrote. “This court will not speculate on whether the Supreme Court included a silent, ‘except-in-a-national-emergency clause’ in its previous writings on the issue.”
In all, the judges concluded that banning abortion even for the theoretically short-term period covered by the state orders undermines constitutional rights and would ultimately conscript some women into motherhood. “For some patients, such a delay will deprive them of any access to abortion,” Yeakel wrote.
The temporary restraining orders will remain in effect until the judges can consider whether they should be further enjoined.
Paxton, the Texas attorney general, vowed an immediate appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “I am deeply disappointed that the court ruled against the health and safety of Texans,” he said in a statement. “We will fight tirelessly against this politically driven lawsuit.”


theintercept--2020-03-31--Live: Mehdi Hasan, Alice Speri, and Alleen Brown on Coronavirus, Italy, and the Amazon-Whole Foods S

Live: Mehdi Hasan, Alice Speri, and Alleen Brown on Coronavirus, Italy, and the Amazon-Whole Foods Strike

Wait !
Before you go on about your day , ask yourself : How likely is it that the story @ @ @ @ @ been produced by a different news outlet if The Intercept hadn ’ t done it @ @ @ @ @ of media would look like without The Intercept .
Who would hold party elites accountable @ @ @ @ @ to have ?
How many covert wars , miscarriages of justice , and dystopian technologies @ @ @ @ @ reporters weren ’ t on the beat ?
The kind of reporting we do is @ @ @ @ @ it is not easy , cheap , or profitable .
The Intercept is an independent @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have ads , so we depend on our members — 35,000 and @ @ @ @ @ hold the powerful to account .
Joining is simple and doesn ’ t need to @ @ @ @ @ can become a sustaining member for as little as $ 3 or $ 5 a @ @ @ @ @ all it takes to support the journalism you rely on .

The Intercept’s Mehdi Hasan speaks with reporter Alice Speri about the coronavirus and the social safety net in Italy versus in the United States. He also talks with reporter Alleen Brown about the conditions for Amazon and Whole Foods delivery workers.


theintercept--2020-03-31--EPA Is Jamming Through Rollbacks That Could Increase Coronavirus Deaths

around the country are focused on containing the spread of the coronavirus , the Environmental Protection Agency is making changes that could both worsen the impact of the current crisis and hamstring responses to future pandemics .
In addition to moving full speed ahead with a plan to limit the use of research based on private health data , the EPA is temporarily lifting requirements on enforcement of pollution laws .
The change in enforcement is particularly scary for people like Pat Gonzales .
Gonzales , who is 53 , has had asthma since she moved near several oil refineries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago .
Her three children , who were raised in the town southeast of Houston , have also developed breathing problems while living in Pasadena .
Because of the sustained effects of air pollution , which appear to make people particularly vulnerable to the effects of the virus , Gonzales has been staying inside , washing her hands , and worrying about the health of her family and everyone else with compromised lungs in Pasadena .
“ If we get this , it won ’ t be easy to take care of , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up Gonzales ’ s sense that her family ’ s breathing problems are “ all because of the refineries , ” as she told me .
In October , the EPA measured benzene levels at the fence line of Pasadena Refining Systems , which is about a mile from Gonzales ’ s home , at almost twice an exposure limit set by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health .
Pasadena Refining Systems , which is owned by Chevron , is one of at least 10 refineries in Illinois , Louisiana , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Texas whose emissions of the deadly pollutant benzene exceeded safety levels in the last quarter of 2019 .
The environmental agency , citing the coronavirus pandemic , announced that it was giving polluters a free pass on the enforcement of pollution rules last week .
The policy waives many of the usual requirements for monitoring , testing , sampling , and lab analysis of emissions of chemicals .
And that could make it much harder to know if the Pasadena refinery — or any industrial facility — is pumping out dangerous amounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an EPA spokesperson confirmed in an email that the “ EPA will not seek penalties for noncompliance with routine monitoring and reporting requirements ” but noted that the agency would do this only “ if , on a case-by-case basis , EPA agrees that such noncompliance was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
” The email also said , “ This action was necessary to avoid tying up EPA staff time with questions about routine monitoring and reporting requirements and instead allow EPA to focus on continued protection of human health and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of environmental laws is only one of the steps the agency is quietly taking during the coronavirus outbreak that could worsen both the impact of the current crisis and future pandemics .
These critical protections are being weakened while the public health experts who have typically fought against them have been instead focused on the urgent threat of the virus .
“ They ’ re taking political advantage of a crisis when they know it ’ s more difficult to respond , ” said Andrew Rosenberg , director of the Center for Science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scientists .
Because a lack of enforcement can lead to increased releases of pollution , the decision to suspend many of the normal requirements for pollution control may put polluted communities at particular risk from Covid-19 even as the virus spread around the country .
“ If limits are exceeded , then companies have to fix it , ” said Eric Schaeffer , executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project .
“ If it ’ s not documented , they don ’ t have to .
It ’ s a see-no-evil situation.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administrator for the EPA ’ s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance , released last week , the suspension of usual enforcement requirements is a response to widespread staffing shortages .
“ The consequences of the pandemic may affect facility operations and the availability of key staff and contractors and the ability of laboratories to timely analyze samples and provide results , ” it said .
The American Chemistry Council , a trade group representing the chemical industry , came out in support of the enforcement suspension , which it said “ is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be devoted to maintaining production and meeting increased demand for vital chemical products such as sanitizers , disinfectants , and plastics for consumers , governments and the health care community.
” But environmental groups are pushing back against the idea that the fast-spreading virus justifies increased emissions of pollution .
“ To treat monitoring like a paperwork exercise is really misleading , ” said Schaeffer .
His organization , along with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade , Public Citizen , Environment Texas , and other groups , wrote to Bodine last week to ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with regulated companies to delay or reduce environmental requirements , including “ a clear explanation of how the coronavirus pandemic made such decisions necessary and what steps facilities will take to reduce their health impacts.
” While Schaeffer acknowledged the possibility that the spiraling health crisis could leave some companies short-staffed , he worried that the blanket exemption would allow other companies to ignore environmental rules without consequence .
“ If everyone ’ s at work refining oil and making chemicals , and it ’ s just your compliance staff that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to explain that , ” he said .
The environmental groups ’ letter also pointed out the riskiness of moves that could increase dangerous pollution during a global pandemic .
“ Actions that obscure the release [ of ] toxins or other air pollutants that exacerbate asthma , breathing difficulty , and cardiovascular problems in the midst of a pandemic that can cause respiratory failure is irresponsible from a public health perspective.
” Indeed , the decision to scale back enforcement , including the reporting of air pollution emissions , may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond Pasadena .
“ Fence-line communities are already at an increased risk for developing devastating health outcomes like cancer , ” said Elena Craft , senior director for climate and health at the Environmental Defense Fund .
Craft said she was also particularly concerned about communities that are heavily exposed to the air pollutant ethylene oxide , a gas that is released as the result of industrial processing and the sterilization of medical equipment that can decrease immunity and increase rates of cancer .
Underlying conditions increase the likelihood of serious consequences and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the census tract in St. John , Louisiana , that has by far the highest cancer risk from air pollution of any in the country , the virus is already spreading , according to resident Robert Taylor .
“ We have families who have both heads of the households dying , father and daughter dying within hours of each other .
It ’ s devastating , ” said Taylor , who is 79 .
Residents of St. John have been chronically exposed to dozens of air pollutants , including the carcinogen chloroprene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know we ’ re so compromised as a result of the pollution that we have .
I have friends and relatives who have been infected with the virus , ” said Taylor .
“ People don ’ t know what to do.
” Meanwhile , even as the nation is hanging on the words of epidemiologists to steer us through the current crisis , the EPA has been proceeding with a rule that would severely limit the use of epidemiology , or the study of how disease is distributed throughout populations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is calling the “ Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science Rule ” limited the use of epidemiological research based on private individual health data , the latest version — released on March 18 , as the virus was already spreading through the U.S. — goes much further .
The new , broadened rule would limit the use of research based on confidential health information not just in regulatory decisions about such things as air quality standards , car exhaust , and water protections , but also in what it calls “ influential scientific information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from reports to risk assessments , toxicological profiles of substances , and health and safety assessments .
Although the proposed rule can clearly be traced back to a tobacco industry strategy to evade regulation , the EPA has defended it as an innocent effort to make data available so it can be validated .
But science and public health advocates , who have repeatedly pointed out that the rule would make it difficult to use most health research , are now pointing to the bitter irony of the EPA ’ s effort to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the worst health crisis in our nation ’ s history .
“ Here we are relying on epidemiology to figure out what ’ s going on , and in the midst of all this , they ’ re trying to jam through this proposal that would say that this kind of information couldn ’ t be used to craft regulations , ” said Rosenberg of the Union for Concerned Scientists .
Rosenberg added that there were many possible uses of epidemiology that would help not only during the current crisis , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you wanted to look at hotspots where you have very high numbers of Covid-19 cases so you could take steps to address that specific problem , ” said Rosenberg .
“ The only way you ’ d know that is epidemiology.
” But under the proposed rule , he said , “ you wouldn ’ t be able to give that information full weight because the data has to be public .
But that data can never be public .
No one is going to want their test results publicly available.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wheeler last week , Sen. Thomas Carper , D-Del.
, cited other examples of “ studies that could be usefully relied upon during a pandemic or other crisis ” that would be systematically excluded by the EPA ’ s new rule .
Carper highlighted research on the persistence of coronaviruses and the fatality of other viruses , as well as studies that show that air pollution exposure increases the risk of developing lower respiratory infection while urging Wheeler to withdraw the rule .
Asked about Carper ’ s request , the EPA provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator , whether it be by letter or press statement continues to make patently false and misleading claims about the proposed Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule .
Transparency in science that enables independent validation of scientific conclusions is important to advancing the Agency ’ s mission .
In no way does the proposed rule or the supplemental notice suppress research or censor scientists.
” The EPA response also noted that “ our most important environmental statutes provide EPA with authority to issue emergency orders or respond to address emergencies to protect human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed rule would not limit or impede EPA ’ s authority to undertake such responses.
” In any case , the EPA has declined Carper ’ s request to withdraw the rule .
The environmental agency has also refused to extend the 30-day comment period for the rule , which is set to end on April 17 , or to hold virtual hearings .
In their absence , the Union of Concerned Scientists is planning to host its own .

While health experts around the country are focused on containing the spread of the coronavirus, the Environmental Protection Agency is making changes that could both worsen the impact of the current crisis and hamstring responses to future pandemics. In addition to moving full speed ahead with a plan to limit the use of research based on private health data, the EPA is temporarily lifting requirements on enforcement of pollution laws.
The change in enforcement is particularly scary for people like Pat Gonzales. Gonzales, who is 53, has had asthma since she moved near several oil refineries in Pasadena, Texas, 20 years ago. Her three children, who were raised in the town southeast of Houston, have also developed breathing problems while living in Pasadena. Because of the sustained effects of air pollution, which appear to make people particularly vulnerable to the effects of the virus, Gonzales has been staying inside, washing her hands, and worrying about the health of her family and everyone else with compromised lungs in Pasadena. “If we get this, it won’t be easy to take care of,” she said.
EPA data backs up Gonzales’s sense that her family’s breathing problems are “all because of the refineries,” as she told me. In October, the EPA measured benzene levels at the fence line of Pasadena Refining Systems, which is about a mile from Gonzales’s home, at almost twice an exposure limit set by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Pasadena Refining Systems, which is owned by Chevron, is one of at least 10 refineries in Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Texas whose emissions of the deadly pollutant benzene exceeded safety levels in the last quarter of 2019.
The environmental agency, citing the coronavirus pandemic, announced that it was giving polluters a free pass on the enforcement of pollution rules last week. The policy waives many of the usual requirements for monitoring, testing, sampling, and lab analysis of emissions of chemicals. And that could make it much harder to know if the Pasadena refinery — or any industrial facility — is pumping out dangerous amounts of pollution.
Asked about the change, an EPA spokesperson confirmed in an email that the “EPA will not seek penalties for noncompliance with routine monitoring and reporting requirements” but noted that the agency would do this only “if, on a case-by-case basis, EPA agrees that such noncompliance was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.” The email also said, “This action was necessary to avoid tying up EPA staff time with questions about routine monitoring and reporting requirements and instead allow EPA to focus on continued protection of human health and the environment.”
But rolling back the enforcement of environmental laws is only one of the steps the agency is quietly taking during the coronavirus outbreak that could worsen both the impact of the current crisis and future pandemics. These critical protections are being weakened while the public health experts who have typically fought against them have been instead focused on the urgent threat of the virus.
“They’re taking political advantage of a crisis when they know it’s more difficult to respond,” said Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Because a lack of enforcement can lead to increased releases of pollution, the decision to suspend many of the normal requirements for pollution control may put polluted communities at particular risk from Covid-19 even as the virus spread around the country. “If limits are exceeded, then companies have to fix it,” said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project. “If it’s not documented, they don’t have to. It’s a see-no-evil situation.”
According a memo Susan Bodine, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, released last week, the suspension of usual enforcement requirements is a response to widespread staffing shortages. “The consequences of the pandemic may affect facility operations and the availability of key staff and contractors and the ability of laboratories to timely analyze samples and provide results,” it said.
The American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing the chemical industry, came out in support of the enforcement suspension, which it said “is needed because essential personnel and resources must be devoted to maintaining production and meeting increased demand for vital chemical products such as sanitizers, disinfectants, and plastics for consumers, governments and the health care community.”
But environmental groups are pushing back against the idea that the fast-spreading virus justifies increased emissions of pollution. “To treat monitoring like a paperwork exercise is really misleading,” said Schaeffer. His organization, along with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Public Citizen, Environment Texas, and other groups, wrote to Bodine last week to ask the EPA to post online any agreements with regulated companies to delay or reduce environmental requirements, including “a clear explanation of how the coronavirus pandemic made such decisions necessary and what steps facilities will take to reduce their health impacts.”
While Schaeffer acknowledged the possibility that the spiraling health crisis could leave some companies short-staffed, he worried that the blanket exemption would allow other companies to ignore environmental rules without consequence. “If everyone’s at work refining oil and making chemicals, and it’s just your compliance staff that’s been coronavirused-out, then they’ll need to explain that,” he said.
The environmental groups’ letter also pointed out the riskiness of moves that could increase dangerous pollution during a global pandemic. “Actions that obscure the release [of] toxins or other air pollutants that exacerbate asthma, breathing difficulty, and cardiovascular problems in the midst of a pandemic that can cause respiratory failure is irresponsible from a public health perspective.”
Indeed, the decision to scale back enforcement, including the reporting of air pollution emissions, may be deadly for people living near polluting facilities beyond Pasadena. “Fence-line communities are already at an increased risk for developing devastating health outcomes like cancer,” said Elena Craft, senior director for climate and health at the Environmental Defense Fund. Craft said she was also particularly concerned about communities that are heavily exposed to the air pollutant ethylene oxide, a gas that is released as the result of industrial processing and the sterilization of medical equipment that can decrease immunity and increase rates of cancer. Underlying conditions increase the likelihood of serious consequences and death from infection with the coronavirus.
In the census tract in St. John, Louisiana, that has by far the highest cancer risk from air pollution of any in the country, the virus is already spreading, according to resident Robert Taylor. “We have families who have both heads of the households dying, father and daughter dying within hours of each other. It’s devastating,” said Taylor, who is 79. Residents of St. John have been chronically exposed to dozens of air pollutants, including the carcinogen chloroprene. “It’s frightening because we know we’re so compromised as a result of the pollution that we have. I have friends and relatives who have been infected with the virus,” said Taylor. “People don’t know what to do.”
Meanwhile, even as the nation is hanging on the words of epidemiologists to steer us through the current crisis, the EPA has been proceeding with a rule that would severely limit the use of epidemiology, or the study of how disease is distributed throughout populations. While previous versions of what the agency is calling the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science Rule” limited the use of epidemiological research based on private individual health data, the latest version — released on March 18, as the virus was already spreading through the U.S. — goes much further.
“It’s frightening because we know we’re so compromised as a result of the pollution that we have.”
The new, broadened rule would limit the use of research based on confidential health information not just in regulatory decisions about such things as air quality standards, car exhaust, and water protections, but also in what it calls “influential scientific information,” a category that includes everything from reports to risk assessments, toxicological profiles of substances, and health and safety assessments.
Although the proposed rule can clearly be traced back to a tobacco industry strategy to evade regulation, the EPA has defended it as an innocent effort to make data available so it can be validated. But science and public health advocates, who have repeatedly pointed out that the rule would make it difficult to use most health research, are now pointing to the bitter irony of the EPA’s effort to push it through during what may be the worst health crisis in our nation’s history.
“Here we are relying on epidemiology to figure out what’s going on, and in the midst of all this, they’re trying to jam through this proposal that would say that this kind of information couldn’t be used to craft regulations,” said Rosenberg of the Union for Concerned Scientists. Rosenberg added that there were many possible uses of epidemiology that would help not only during the current crisis, but also during future disease outbreaks.
“Suppose you wanted to look at hot spots where you have very high numbers of Covid-19 cases so you could take steps to address that specific problem,” said Rosenberg. “The only way you’d know that is epidemiology.” But under the proposed rule, he said, “you wouldn’t be able to give that information full weight because the data has to be public. But that data can never be public. No one is going to want their test results publicly available.”
In a letter sent to EPA Administer Andrew Wheeler last week, Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., cited other examples of “studies that could be usefully relied upon during a pandemic or other crisis” that would be systematically excluded by the EPA’s new rule. Carper highlighted research on the persistence of coronaviruses and the fatality of other viruses, as well as studies that show that air pollution exposure increases the risk of developing lower respiratory infection while urging Wheeler to withdraw the rule.
Asked about Carper’s request, the EPA provided the following emailed response: “The Senator, whether it be by letter or press statement continues to make patently false and misleading claims about the proposed Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule. Transparency in science that enables independent validation of scientific conclusions is important to advancing the Agency’s mission. In no way does the proposed rule or the supplemental notice suppress research or censor scientists.”
The EPA response also noted that “our most important environmental statutes provide EPA with authority to issue emergency orders or respond to address emergencies to protect human health and the environment, and this proposed rule would not limit or impede EPA’s authority to undertake such responses.”
In any case, the EPA has declined Carper’s request to withdraw the rule. The environmental agency has also refused to extend the 30-day comment period for the rule, which is set to end on April 17, or to hold virtual hearings. In their absence, the Union of Concerned Scientists is planning to host its own.