Shared posts

26 May 02:02

National Republicans sue California to block mail-ballot November election

by Jeremy B. White
James.galbraith

The GOP's official stance: vote participation is bad.


OAKLAND, Calif. — The Republican Party has thrown its full weight behind challenging California’s move to a mail-ballot November election during the coronavirus pandemic.

A lawsuit from the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the California Republican Party seeks to invalidate Gov. Gavin Newsom’s order that county election officials mail every registered California voter a ballot. While Newsom and California election overseers have said the switch is necessary to balance public health with civic participation, opponents argue that Newsom has overstepped his authority.

The lawsuit argues that Newsom exceeded the limits of his powers by not seeking the consent of the state Legislature, accusing him of a “brazen power grab” that “was not authorized by state law” and transgressing the Constitution.

Republicans in California and nationally have battled efforts to expand remote balloting for the November election, warning that mail ballots increase the risk of voter fraud. President Donald Trump has amplified that critique, including a string of Memorial Day weekend tweets, and additionally bemoaned mail ballots on the grounds that they disproportionately benefit Democrats.

A complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California emphasizes those arguments, alleging that Newsom has “created a recipe for disaster” with an ill-conceived voting plan.

“No State that regularly conducts statewide all-mail elections automatically mails ballots to inactive voters because it invites fraud, coercion, theft, and otherwise illegitimate voting,” it states. “Fraudulent and invalid votes dilute the votes of honest citizens and deprive them of their right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Newsom was already facing legal challenges to his all-mail election order, including one filed last week by former Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who is seeking to return to the House this year. The governor said Friday that he believed he was well within his authority.

“We’re on firm legal ground,” Newsom said, arguing that “public health is a nonpartisan issue.”

Millions of California voters already participate in mail-focused elections thanks to a state law that encourages counties to send ballots to all registered voters in an effort to lift participation.

26 May 02:00

Linus Torvalds Dumps Intel For 32-core AMD Ryzen On His Personal PC

by EditorDavid
James.galbraith

Yes indeed. And makes sense for someone doing massive compile tasks

Linus Torvalds released Linux 5.7 rc7 today, saying it "looks very normal... none of the fixes look like there's anything particularly scary going on." But then he added something else: [T]he biggest excitement this week for me was just that I upgraded my main machine, and for the first time in about 15 years, my desktop isn't Intel-based. No, I didn't switch to ARM yet, but I'm now rocking an AMD Threadripper 3970x. My 'allmodconfig' test builds are now three times faster than they used to be, which doesn't matter so much right now during the calming down period, but I will most definitely notice the upgrade during the next merge window. The Register writes: Torvalds didn't divulge any further details about his new rig, but the 3970x is quite the beast, boasting 32 cores and 64 threads at 3.7GHz with the ability to burst up to 4.5GHz, all built on TSMC's 7nm FinFET process... Torvalds has probably acquired a whole new PC, as the Threadripper range requires a sTRX4 socket and those debuted on motherboards from late 2019. Whatever he's running, it has more cores than Intel currently offers in a CPU designed for PCs. Even Chipzilla's high-end CoreX range tops out at 18 cores. AMD will be over the moon that such a high profile IT pro has adopted their kit and pointed to its performance. Or, as long-time Slashdot reader williamyf puts it, "Good endorsement for AMD, a PR blow for Intel."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

26 May 01:54

Jailbreak Tool 'unc0ver' 5.0 Released With iOS 13.5 Compatibility

by Frank McShan
James.galbraith

seems like apple has some work to do

The team behind the "unc0ver" jailbreaking tool for iOS has released version 5.0.0 of its software that claims to have the ability to jailbreak "every signed iOS version on every device" using a zero-day kernel vulnerability by Pwn20wnd, a renowned iOS hacker. The announcement comes just days after it was announced that the tool would soon launch.

The unc0ver website highlights how the tool has been tested extensively across a range of iOS devices on several different software versions. The site also mentions that the jailbreaking tool is compatible across all devices running between iOS 11.0 and iOS 13.5.

As for security, unc0ver's website says it utilizes "native system sandbox exceptions" so that "security remains intact while enabling access to jailbreak files."


Before the release of unc0ver's jailbreak tool, the only way to jailbreak devices up to the ‌iPhone‌ 8 and ‌iPhone‌ X was by using the "checkra1n" tool.

Unc0ver's latest jailbreaking tool can be downloaded now from its website.
Tag: jailbreak

This article, "Jailbreak Tool 'unc0ver' 5.0 Released With iOS 13.5 Compatibility" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

26 May 01:54

One German church service resulted in more than 100 coronavirus infections

by Zeeshan Aleem
James.galbraith

Yep, bad idea

A green building with a grey tile roof — a grey cross sits in the middle under three windows. A church in Frankfurt, Germany was forced to close after 40 cases were traced to a service there. | Boris Roessler/picture alliance/Getty Images

It highlights the risks of allowing group events that can accelerate rapid spread of the virus.

A single church service in Frankfurt, Germany, held in early May appears to have led to at least 107 reported cases of coronavirus in the area, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

The outbreak highlights the risks that accompany easing lockdowns even in countries that have managed to control the spread of the virus relatively well. And it also serves as a reminder of the acute threat posed by “superspreader” events involving crowds, a pressing concern in the US as President Donald Trump encourages churches nationwide to reopen their doors to worshippers.

“This situation shows how important it is — especially during loosening of restrictions, which is now possible again — that we remain vigilant and do not become careless,” Kai Klose, health minister for Hesse (the state Frankfurt is in) said. “The virus is still there and wants to spread.”

The striking feature of the event is how many people appear to have contracted the coronavirus at the same time — and all while the church worked to promote social distancing and hygiene.

The Baptist church had suspended services in March in accordance with government lockdown orders, but it resumed them after Germany loosened restrictions on May 1. The church reportedly followed government guidelines for services, which included reductions on the total number of people allowed in the church and a requirement of 1.5 meters (about five feet) between congregants.

But a service held on May 10 has resulted in more than 100 infections, and appears to be the source of at least 16 cases in the town of Hanau, 15 miles east of Frankfurt. The town has subsequently called off other religious gatherings in the area due to the risk of further spread.

The Frankfurt case is a reminder of the risks of crowds in enclosed spaces

The community spread in Frankfurt is notable because it shows how easily increases in Covid-19 cases can occur even in countries with relatively manageable overall case numbers. Germany flattened the curve of new infections fairly quickly and has a low fatality rate compared to its neighbors in Europe. But since relaxing its lockdown in May, the number of cases has risen, raising questions of how to strike the right balance between public safety and social and economic needs to keep the country running.

Experts have long warned that events involving crowds, like concerts, sporting events and gatherings for religious services, are high risk environments for spread of the virus. But in spite of that, in the US, President Trump has insisted churches should be reopened as quickly as possible.

At a press conference Friday, Trump said governors need to reopen churches “right now,” and that if they decline to do so, he will “override the governors.” As Vox’s Ian Millhiser has explained, he can’t really do that — but the Frankfurt case illustrates why reopening houses of worship is a matter of concern.

Worshippers in Frankfurt were maintaining social distancing, but as Vox’s Brian Resnick has explained, that may not always be enough when a lot of respiratory droplets are being expelled in a contained space:

The main way people are getting sick with SARS-CoV-2 is from respiratory droplets spreading between people in close quarters. The risk of catching the coronavirus, simply put, “is breathing in everybody’s breath,” says Charles Haas, an environmental engineer at Drexel University. Droplets fly from people’s mouths and noses when they breathe, talk, or sneeze. Other people can breathe them in. That’s the main risk, and that’s why face masks are an essential precaution (they help stop the droplets from spewing far from a person’s mouth or nose).

...

A crowded indoor place, then, with poor ventilation, filled with people talking, shouting, or singing for hours on end will be the riskiest scenario. A sparsely populated indoor space with open windows is less risky (but not completely safe). Running quickly past another jogger outside is on the other end of the spectrum; minimal risk.

Given these risks, there is concern the US could see incidences of infection similar to the Frankfurt case should churches reopen — particularly if there is poor social distancing. And given both Trump’s advocacy for the issue and that houses of worship have been allowed to open in some states, that concern is not abstract. Which means finding ways to reduce the risk of infection in places like the Frankfurt church will be important not just for Germany, but for the US and other countries as well.


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

24 May 18:19

147 People Potentially Exposed to COVID-19 After Two Hairstylists Work While Symptomatic

by Andy Towle

147 clients and staff at a Great Clips hair salon in Springfield, Missouri were potentially exposed to COVID-19 by two hairstylists who worked while symptomatic last week.

KY3 reports: “Seven co-workers and 84 clients were potentially directly exposed from the first case announced Friday, according to the Springfield-Greene County Health Department. The health department says 56 clients were potentially directly exposed by the second case. These clients will be notified by the health officials and be offered testing.”

The Guardian reports: “Because the stylist and the customers wore face coverings, health officials said on Friday, they hoped the interactions would lead to ‘no additional cases’. Those potentially exposed would be contacted and offered testing, officials said. The potential exposures started little more than a week after Missouri allowed salons to reopen.”

Said Clay Goddard, director of the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, at a presser about the first exposure incident: “I’m very frustrated to be up here. And maybe more so, I’m disappointed. I’m going to be honest with you: We can’t have many more of these. “We can’t make this a regular habit or our capabilities as a community will be strained.”

The post 147 People Potentially Exposed to COVID-19 After Two Hairstylists Work While Symptomatic appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

24 May 18:19

Brutal Biden Ad Shows Trump Golfing as COVID-19 Death Toll Nears 100,000; NYT Fills Front Page With Names of Dead

by Andy Towle
James.galbraith

Yep, line 'em up

Donald Trump spent Saturday golfing at his Virginia club as the U.S. death toll from COVID-19 climbed near 100,000 on Memorial Day Weekend. The president’s negligence was highlighted in a set of brutal clips shared by Joe Biden and supporters.

CNN reports: “The presidential motorcade arrived at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, at 10:27 a.m. ET, according to pool reports. CNN’s Khalil Abdallah reported that the Secret Service members with Trump at the golf course were wearing masks, although the President and his golfing partners were not. The President was seen riding alone in his golf cart and a caddy didn’t appear to be with him, Abdallah reported. … By CNN’s count, Saturday’s outing marked Trump’s 357th visit to one of his properties and his 265th trips to one of his golf clubs during his presidency.”

Meanwhile, the New York Times filled its front page with names of 1,000 of the dead, “an incalculable loss.” Its online edition carried an interactive look at many of the individuals who have lost their lives.

The post Brutal Biden Ad Shows Trump Golfing as COVID-19 Death Toll Nears 100,000; NYT Fills Front Page With Names of Dead appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

24 May 18:17

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Program

by tech@thehiveworks.com


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
That wasn't lazy drawings in the background - the sim just hadn't fully rendered them.


Today's News:
24 May 02:01

Trump planning to strip pandemic response from health officials, and give it to State Department

by Mark Sumner
James.galbraith

With Pompeo and one less IG? what the fuck could go wrong.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke to graduates delivered a remote address this week to graduates of Johns Hopkins University, urging them to stay strong, and telling them that "Now is the time, if ever there was one, for us to care selflessly about one another." But Fauci didn’t deliver this message as a part of Donald Trump’s coronavirus task force. That’s because since May 10, Fauci has been in self quarantine after a possible exposure to COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr Robert Redfield is also in isolation. So is Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner Stephen Hahn.

That temporary exile is set to end this weekend, but while they’ve been offstage, Dr. Deborah Birx has proven herself a loyal Trump lieutenant; ever willing to stand in the background as Trump urges Americans to take a dangerous off-label drug, attacks the CDC for trying to provide guidelines for safe conduct of business, or openly attacks the results of scientific studies. BIrx willingness to be the Kellyanne of medical advice, always up to twist the facts to fit the latest Trump statement, hasn’t gone unnoticed. Because there’s a plan on the table to hand over global pandemic response to Birx and create a whole new health organization … inside the State Department.

According to Politico this plan was put forward at a meeting of the National Security Council. It would see the international role currently held by USAID stripped away. Instead, power would be centralized in the safely inspector-general-free State Department, with Birx as the expected head of this new division. 

But the authority of the new organization would go beyond USAID’s responsibilities. With Trump threatening to pull the United States out of the World Health Organization “permanently,” this new operation would form a sort of home-grown alternative. Only this version would be completely under the thumb of Pompeo and Trump. It would be this new faux WHO that determined the distribution of vaccines, and managed the response to any outbreak. 

And they have a name for it: the President’s Response to Outbreaks. Otherwise known as PRO.

It’s painfully difficult to think about anything in Donald Trump’s pandemic response that might be considered pro. Or even amateur. In fact, Trump’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic … should start any minute now. Between failing to coordinate a national testing plan, failing to institute a system of case tracing, and failing to provide a uniform set of standards and guidelines, the real acronym for any Trump’s health organization should be ABSENT. But it figures that he would cobble together the most awkward label in history, just to make sure that he was part of it.

Of course, USAID has a staff made up of experts in epidemiology, health policy, and medical logistics. The State Department has none of those. Which doesn’t meant that PRO won’t be the best in the world at what Trump wants—explaining how people dying in mass is a big, big win.

According to Politico, Staffers at USAID have also “questioned whether now is an appropriate time to overhaul the existing response model given the ongoing coronavirus crisis.” But given that Trump has already seen fit to cut off aid to WHO, steal PPE and ventilators on their way to blue states, and promote policies that have people brewing COVID-19 medicine in their bathtubs, it seems surprising at this point that anyone would be surprised.

As of Saturday afternoon, the death count in the United States stands at 98,500. If that’s the kind of leadership PRO fill be offering, it’s not clear who will be interested.

24 May 01:47

Black activists warn Biden: Don't pick Klobuchar as VP

by Elena Schneider
James.galbraith

No shit. Do not touch.


Sen. Amy Klobuchar performed abysmally among black voters in the Democratic primary. It’s haunting her now as Joe Biden decides on a running mate.

The Minnesota Democrat has the governing experience and ideological profile to mesh well with Biden, and she’s regularly appeared as a surrogate and a fundraiser for him, raking in more than $1.5 million for a single event she headlined. The pair have a warm relationship, trading phone calls when her husband was hospitalized with Covid-19, and they didn’t tangle publicly during the primary.

But more than a dozen black and Latino strategists and activists warned in interviews that selecting Klobuchar would not help Biden excite black voters — and might have the opposite effect. Klobuchar would “risk losing the very base the Democrats need to win,” said Aimee Allison, founder of She the People, which promotes women of color in politics. They pointed to Klobuchar’s poor performance among nonwhite voters during the presidential primary, as well as her record as a prosecutor in Minnesota.

It’s not yet clear how much the opposition of activists matters to Biden. He's made clear that the electoral politics of his pick matter less than choosing someone who can be a governing partner and step into the top job without worry.

But the vocal contingent of African American and Latino detractors — many of whom said they would prefer that Biden select a black woman as a running mate — is unique to Klobuchar; Elizabeth Warren, another top contender for VP, doesn’t elicit similar antagonism from communities of color.

"It comes from her performance in the primary — her weakness in being able to motivate them," said Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of BlackPAC, who supports several potential vice presidential selections. “The engagement and the enthusiasm of black voters is going to be a difference-maker in this election, and the concerns about her in this role stem from the degree to which she resonated or not with those core constituencies.”

Earlier this week, Biden confirmed that "multiple black women [are] being considered" for vice president. Those often named include Sen. Kamala Harris, former Georgia gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams and Florida Rep. Val Demings. Besides Klobuchar, other Midwestern options, like Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, have been mentioned.


But for many of these operatives, Klobuchar symbolizes a strategic division within the Democratic Party: whether to focus on winning back white, Midwestern voters who flipped to Donald Trump in 2016, or on activating voters of color who were not excited to vote. She “represents that tension,” said the Rev. Al Sharpton, who added he’s told Biden that he would prefer a black woman on the ticket, but noted he’s “not anti-Amy.”

“It is not her fault, but she is in the middle of an ongoing battle from the last few presidential races,” Sharpton continued, adding he would be “concerned” that selecting Klobuchar would not help energize black and brown voters.

In a Washington Post op-ed this month urging Biden to select a woman of color as running mate, seven black strategists and activists called out Klobuchar, warning she would “only alienate black voters.”

"Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, does not need help winning white, working-class voters — he serves that function himself," they wrote. Referring to her record as a chief prosecutor in Minneapolis-based Hennepin County, they added, "A choice such as Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), who failed to prosecute controversial police killings and is responsible for the imprisonment of Myon Burrell, will only alienate black voters."

“If it was important enough to raise in an op-ed, it speaks to how serious we are,” LaTosha Brown, a co-founder of Black Voters Matter and the lead author of the op-ed, said in an interview. “Her campaign appeal was about bringing in working-class, white people from the Midwest, and perhaps that’s true, but that’s a particular strategy that doesn’t align with what it’s going to take to win. You need to excite the base.”

Angela Rye, a Democratic strategist and the former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus, who also signed the op-ed, called Klobuchar a “nonstarter.”

Klobuchar's boosters counter that opposition to President Donald Trump will bring out the Democratic base no matter what, and that the key Rust Belt states Democrats have to win play to Klobuchar's strengths.

"I think she could help put the upper Midwest in play, and that's an invaluable asset," said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who backed Bernie Sanders during the presidential primary. He also noted that "there are a lot of black people" in the Midwest, in cities like Detroit and Milwaukee, who will be key for Democrats’ winning back those states.

"I think the base is going to be excited enough because, before, Trump was an idea, now Trump is the reality," Ellison continued.


Klobuchar has been working to improve her relationships with minority activists and politicians since she dropped out of the presidential race. She endorsed a slate of racially and regionally diverse candidates in down-ballot races. She’s worked with Stacey Abrams, another VP contender, to promote a vote-by-mail bill that was endorsed by Voto Latino and the Rev. Jesse Jackson earlier this month. She also wrote a bill to expand broadband access to students at historically black colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions. And she participated in a virtual town hall hosted by the NAACP on how the coronavirus is disproportionately hurting black and brown people.

During the presidential primary, Leah Daughtry, CEO of the Democratic national convention committees in 2008 and 2016, hosted Klobuchar with a group of influential black female leaders, “half she knew, half she didn’t,” and “people walked away with a favorable impression.”

But, Daughtry noted, “building relationships in every area of our lives takes time, including in politics,” and “it isn’t something you can do in a matter of weeks.”

The primary results illustrate Klobuchar's failure among voters of color.

In South Carolina, she won 1 percent of black voters, even though they make up a majority of Democratic primary voters in the state. It was the lowest total for any of the presidential candidates on the ballot.

In Nevada, Klobuchar received 4 percent support of the Latino vote, the lowest share of any presidential candidate other than Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Nationally, Klobuchar regularly polled in the low single digits among voters of color.

“Could she have done more? Absolutely,” said Antjuan Seawright, a South Carolina-based Democratic consultant. “But she knew where her bread was buttered, and that started in Iowa. She was taking the race as it comes.”

Seawright noted that Biden’s own strength in the black community — as evidenced by his resounding victory in South Carolina, which revived his flailing campaign — “gives room for the potential for Amy Klobuchar” as vice president.


But Biden, too, was recently warned about not taking African American voters for granted. On Friday, he apologized on a conference call with black leaders for comments he made to "The Breakfast Club" radio host: "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."

Klobuchar’s prosecutorial record as Hennepin County attorney is another sore spot, particularly her handling of a case involving Burrell, a black teenager. An investigation by The Associated Press found numerous flaws in the case, and civil rights leaders in Minnesota called for her to suspend her presidential campaign.

Klobuchar called for an independent investigation after her campaign ended, a move applauded by the Minnesota NAACP.

If Biden picked Klobuchar as his vice president, “it would add to [his] workload” for the general election, said Daughtry, who signed onto another letter sent to Biden, urging the selection of a black woman as vice presidential nominee.

“There are enough people who either A, don’t know her, or B, have a negative view of her that it becomes another thing the campaign has to do — introduce her and convince communities of color that she’s OK,” Daughtry said. “That’s not impossible, but there’s already a lot of work to do in a presidential race.”

24 May 01:45

The Trump administration is demanding that Planned Parenthood affiliates give back their PPP loans

by Anna North
James.galbraith

No shit it's politically motivated. Ridiculous

Supporters of Planned Parenthood hold pink signs, one reading “I stand with Planned Parenthood.” Supporters of Planned Parenthood gather for a news conference and demonstration on February 25, 2019 in New York City. | Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Planned Parenthood says it’s politically motivated.

Earlier this year, 38 Planned Parenthood affiliates around the United States received over $80 million in loans from the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Now, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is pressuring those affiliates to return the loans, arguing that they were not eligible for them in the first place.

The loans, distributed as part of a program designed to help small employers keep paying their staff during the economic crisis brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, were crucial for the clinics that received them, Planned Parenthood representatives say.

In normal times, the clinics provide reproductive health services from STI testing to contraceptive counseling to abortion. But with coronavirus spreading across the country, clinics have had to space appointments out, convert some in-person visits to phone consultations, and cancel fundraisers, leaving them with a drop in revenue, Stephanie Fraim, the chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, told Vox.

Thanks to the PPP loan, she was able to keep all of her staff employed and launch a telehealth program to offer prescriptions for hormone therapy for gender-affirming care, among other services. “Not only did we not lay anyone off, that meant health care got delivered to lots of patients,” Fraim said.

The SBA wants Planned Parenthood affiliates like Fraim’s to return their PPP loans, claiming that because the clinics are overseen by the nationwide Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which has more than 500 employees, they are not eligible for a loan program meant for smaller employers. Amid this pressure from the SBA, Republicans in Congress are calling on the Department of Justice to investigate whether Planned Parenthood committed fraud by applying for the loans.

The affiliates, meanwhile, argue that their leadership and finances are separate from the nationwide group — and other local affiliates of national nonprofits, like the YMCA, have received PPP loans without issue. Planned Parenthood affiliates say they’re being singled out by the Trump administration because some of their clinics provide abortions, although the PPP money cannot be used to pay for them.

“This is clearly a targeting,” Fraim said.

Many Democrats in Congress agree, with 41 senators sending a letter to the SBA on Friday urging the agency not to target PPP recipients for political reasons.

The Trump administration has long worked to strip funding from Planned Parenthood — for example, a new rule governing Title X family planning funds forced the group to drop out of that program. And when the coronavirus pandemic hit, some feared the administration would use the crisis to continue its attacks on the group.

The SBA claims it is just enforcing eligibility requirements when it comes to the PPP funds. But according to the affected affiliates, that’s not what’s happening. “This is so obviously another attack on Planned Parenthood and our health care and the patients we serve,” Fraim said.

The Small Business Administration says Planned Parenthood’s structure makes affiliates ineligible for PPP loans

Planned Parenthood operates on an affiliate model, meaning that local groups like Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida are separate nonprofit organizations from the national Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which sets some overall standards for the Planned Parenthood brand. The national organization did not apply for a PPP loan, but many smaller, local affiliates applied, and received them.

Then, in mid-May, the SBA started sending letters to affiliates instructing them to give back the money. The letters, obtained by NPR, say that “PPFA is known to have and to exercise control over its local affiliates,” and that the affiliates’ status “in the nationwide PPFA network subject to direction from PPFA on a number of management issues” makes them ineligible for PPP loans.

The letters also say that if borrowers make knowingly false statements in a PPP application, the SBA may refer them “for appropriate civil or criminal penalties.”

Meanwhile, 26 Republican senators sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr on May 21, asking him to investigate the affiliates for fraudulently applying for the loans, as CBS News reports. The affiliates “applied for and received approximately $80 million in loans from the Paycheck Protection Program, despite actual knowledge that they were ineligible for such loans,” the letter states.

However, the affiliates argue they are eligible for the PPP loans, since they are separate from the national PPFA organization.

“I am a separate 501(c)(3),” Fraim told Vox. “I file separate taxes — the IRS certainly understands that.” She also notes that her affiliate and others have separate boards of directors from the national group, with their own power over hiring and firing.

Fraim knew Planned Parenthood would likely get a different level of scrutiny from the government when they applied, so her team was sure to read the PPP application criteria extremely carefully, she said. “It was crystal clear that we qualified.”

Planned Parenthood’s affiliate structure is similar to other nonprofits, like the United Way, she added, noting those groups have not been asked to return their PPP loans.

SBA press director Carol Wilkerson, meanwhile, said in response to an inquiry from Vox that the agency does not comment on individual borrowers.

Planned Parenthood says the SBA’s decision is politically motivated

It’s in part because other, similarly structured organizations have faced no calls to return their loans that both the local affiliates and the national Planned Parenthood organization believe the SBA letters and calls by Republican senators are motivated by politics. But it is also because the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have habitually sought to withdraw federal funding from the group because it provides abortions. Long before the new Title X rules were put in place, congressional Republicans — including now-Vice President Mike Pence — were proposing bills to cut Planned Parenthood’s funding. And President Donald Trump has told anti-abortion activists, “Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House.”

But PPP funds are limited in scope. They are meant to be used primarily to cover the costs of payroll, rent, and utilities. This, coupled with the fact the Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion, means PPP funds have not been used for abortion procedures. Still, attempts to have affiliates return their PPP funds are an attempt to weaken the group and reduce access to abortion care in the long term, Planned Parenthood and its supporters believe.

“This is a deliberate strategy by Trump and his allies in the Senate to exploit a public health crisis to gut essential reproductive health care, including abortion access and STI testing and treatment,” Jenny Lawson, executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes, said in a statement on May 22.

Democrats in Congress, meanwhile, are calling on the SBA to reconsider. “It is critical that the SBA implement the PPP as Congress directed, without ideological efforts to treat certain nonprofit organizations differently from others,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and 40 other senators wrote in a May 23 letter.

Some Republicans in Congress counter that Planned Parenthood affiliates should be compared to other large organizations that have returned PPP funds in recent weeks.

“That’s what the Los Angeles Lakers have done. That’s what Shake Shack has done,” Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told NPR. “So other organizations that it was exposed that they should not have taken the money have returned the money, so that would be the reasonable thing for them to be able to do.”

Given the Trump administration’s history with Planned Parenthood, however, many have been concerned it might discriminate against the group during the pandemic. For instance, Mary Alice Carter, a senior adviser at reproductive health watchdog group Equity Forward, wondered in a February interview with Vox whether the Trump administration would decline to ship coronavirus testing kits to Planned Parenthood facilities.

Now, Planned Parenthood affiliates believe the Trump administration has found a different way of continuing a campaign against the group, at a time when the stakes may be higher than ever.

“This is a pattern we’ve seen before,” Fraim said. “I never thought they would stoop so low as to do it during a pandemic when, frankly, what we should be doing is caring for our community.”


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

24 May 01:44

They Were Us.

by Nathan Yau
James.galbraith

Glad someone's paying attention

24 May 01:41

'Tuca & Bertie' Is Back, And That's A Win For Everybody

James.galbraith

Yes it is

By Isaac Cabe  Published: May 22nd, 2020 
24 May 01:40

New Imperial College Research Estimates Coronavirus Still Spreading Uncontrolled in 24 US States

by EditorDavid
New research from Imperial College London suggests the coronavirus "may still be spreading at epidemic rates" in 24 different states in America, reports the Washington Post: Some states have had little viral spread or "crushed the curve" to a great degree and have some wiggle room to reopen their economies without generating a new epidemic-level surge in cases. Others are nowhere near containing the virus. The model, which has not been peer reviewed, shows that in the majority of states, a second wave looms if people abandon efforts to mitigate the viral spread. "There's evidence that the U.S. is not under control, as an entire country," said Samir Bhatt, a senior lecturer in geostatistics at Imperial College.... The Imperial College researchers found in 24 states, the model shows a reproduction number over 1 [suggesting the virus is not waning]. Texas tops the list, followed by Arizona, Illinois, Colorado, Ohio, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa, Alabama, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, Virginia, New Mexico, Missouri, Delaware, South Carolina, Massachusetts, North Carolina, California, Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Maryland.... This has become a geographically complex pandemic, one that will evolve, especially as people increase their movements in coming weeks. Laws and health regulations vary from state to state, county to county and city to city. There are communities where wearing facial coverings is culturally the norm, while in other places it is rejected on grounds of personal liberty or as refutation of the consensus view of the hazards posed by the virus... Experts in Tennessee are also concerned about people from other states beginning to flock to Nashville and Memphis on summer vacations. If a surge happens, said David Aronoff, director of the Vanderbilt University infectious disease division, "the tricky part will be putting the toothpaste back in the tube" by shutting down again. In addition to "behavioural precautions," the researchers recommend rapid testing and contact tracing. But If there's no change in the relationship between mobility and transmission, their report states bluntly that "We predict that deaths over the next two-month period will exceed current cumulative deaths by greater than two-fold... "We predict that increased mobility following relaxation of social distancing will lead to resurgence of transmission, keeping all else constant."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

24 May 01:39

Results from the remdesivir COVID-19 trial are out, and it’s good news

by Jonathan M. Gitlin
James.galbraith

hallelujah

An ampule of remdesivir

Enlarge / Treatment with the antiviral drug remdesivir shortens the recovery time for patients with COVID-19. (credit: digicomphoto/Getty Images)

On Friday, some good news in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The antiviral drug remdesivir—originally developed as a potential treatment for Ebola—was shown to shorten recovery time for patients infected with the coronavirus. In late April, early results from this phase 3 clinical trial suggested that remdesivir might be of value in treating COVID-19 patients—this new paper confirms that. It's not a cure, but the drug shortened the recovery time from an average of 15 days to 11 days.

The trial involved 1,059 COVID-19 patients across 60 different sites in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Five hundred and thirty-eight patients were treated with a 10-day course of remdesivir; the other 521 patients were given a course of placebo on the same schedule. The patients were assessed daily, both to determine the severity of their symptoms as well as any side effects that could be caused by the drug, which interferes with the the virus' ability to copy its RNA.

What was this trial looking at?

The main thing being measured in this study was how long a patient took to recover, using an eight-point clinical scale that ranged from "not hospitalized," through increasing levels of care required all the way up to "death." Secondary outcomes for the trial looked at mortality at two and four weeks after treatment began, as well as any serious side effects that occurred during the trial.

Read 6 remaining paragraphs | Comments

23 May 05:11

Lindsey Graham makes a damn compelling case for defeating Lindsey Graham

by Joan McCarter
James.galbraith

love this ad

Of all the Trump toadies in the Trump toady universe, it's hard to find a wartier one that South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. In 80 seconds, the LindseyMustGoPAC Super PAC proves it with a new ad. Well, Huckleberry himself proves it. "I want to talk to the Trump supporters for a minute," the ad starts. "I think he's a kook. I think he's crazy. I think he's unfit for office." All that is Graham as of 2016.

Flip to 2020 Graham: "You've been a damn good president!" Graham tells Trump. It goes on and on and on with split personality Lindsey—trashing Trump in the most vehement language pre-November 2016 and then slavering and fawning in the most embarrassing and obsequious displays you can imagine. "Every time I turn around I'm being asked about Donald Trump saying one dumb thing or another. And I'm tired of it," says 2015 Graham. Then, in a 2018 interview, Graham intones “President Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize and then some.”

We can boot Graham, McConnell and the Republican Senate majority, with your $3.

"Lindsey Graham has done both the impossible and the unthinkable: He went from being the late John McCain’s best friend to Donald Trump’s best friend," Jimmy Williams, senior adviser to LindseyMustGoPAC told the Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart. "We're simply tired of his snarling, revengeful, dirty payback politics down here and I promise you we will do whatever we legally can to make his last nine months in the U.S. Senate a miserable hell." Now that's a life goal, or at least a 2020 one!

23 May 00:42

On Facebook and YouTube, Classical Musicians Are Getting Blocked or Muted

by BeauHD
James.galbraith

Yeah, the algorithms have to figure out classical music

Michael Andor Brodeur, writing for The Washington Post: As covid-19 forces more and more classical musicians and organizations to shift operations to the Internet, they're having to contend with an entirely different but equally faceless adversary: copyright bots. Or, more accurately, content identification algorithms dispatched across social media to scan content and detect illegal use of copyrighted recordings. You've encountered these bots in the wild if you've ever had a workout video or living room lip-sync blocked or muted for ambient inclusion or flagrant use of Britney or Bruce. But who owns Brahms? These oft-overzealous algorithms are particularly fine-tuned for the job of sniffing out the sonic idiosyncrasies of pop music, having been trained on massive troves of "reference" audio files submitted by record companies and performing rights societies. But classical musicians are discovering en masse that the perceptivity of automated copyright systems falls critically short when it comes to classical music, which presents unique challenges both in terms of content and context. After all, classical music exists as a vast, endlessly revisited and repeated repertoire of public-domain works distinguishable only through nuanced variations in performance. Put simply, bots aren't great listeners. These systems aren't just disrupting the relationships between classical organizations and their audiences; they're also impacting individual musicians trying to stay musically present -- and financially afloat -- during the crisis. Michael Sheppard, a Baltimore-based pianist, composer and teacher, was recently giving a Facebook Live performance of a Beethoven sonata (No. 3, Op. 2, in C) when Facebook blocked the stream, citing the detection of "2:28 of music owned by Naxos of America" -- specifically a passage recorded by the French pianist Jean-Efflam Bavouzet, whom Sheppard is not. [...] And this wasn't Sheppard's first run-in with Facebook, which has blocked or muted past performances of Faure, Chopin and Bach for being too digitally reminiscent of other performances of Faure, Chopin and Bach.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

22 May 23:14

Some people may be immune to COVID-19, even if they have never been exposed to the virus

by Mark Sumner
James.galbraith

Interesting. I had the worst cough of my life in November through December. It shredded my voice, but who knows. Once actual doctor's appointments are possible, it may be interesting to sort it all out.

Two new scientific preprints from the first two weeks of May look into how people who have never been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2, the scientific name for the novel coronavirus, might still have some form of immune response to it. It may seem counterintuitive that a blood sample taken before the novel coronavirus even appeared could have hints of potential immunity, but both papers point to the same suspect: other coronaviruses caught by humans. Specifically, the papers suggest that viruses behind some chest colds might leave behind at least a temporary immune response to COVID-19.

These works are far from definitive, but they are very interesting because they provide a possible answer to a number of issues, including why the response to COVID-19 varies from life-threatening to asymptomatic, why children rarely seem to get severe cases of the disease, and why some antibody tests seem to indicate that many more people have been exposed than other tests show.

Before we begin, here are two big caveats: First, both of these articles are in preprint. They may still be subject to change, or even withdrawal. Second, each of these papers contains information that is beyond my ability to properly evaluate and verify. To a large extent, I’m accepting the assertions of the authors, especially when it comes to the Cell paper, which requires a knowledge of immune system behavior that definitely does not linger from classes I last took in 1978. (Probably because it wasn’t even understood in 1978.) Okay, let’s continue:

T cells

The initial paper from Cell appeared on May 7 and comes from a team from UNC, UCSD, the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, and Mt. Sinai. They looked into an aspect of the immune system that is as important as antibodies, but gets far less coverage in the press: T cells. T cells are a type of white blood cell, or lymphocyte, that come from the thymus. Unlike some white blood cells, T cells are “adaptive.” That is, past exposures to proteins leave behind T cells that are prepped to respond if that protein is encountered a second time. 

The team behind the Cell paper looked at two different kinds of T cells: CD8 cells, which go after cells that have been infected by a virus, and CD4 “helper” cells, whose main task is kicking off other parts of the immune response including signaling for production of more CD8 cells. These cells aren’t just behind a big part of the body’s effort to suppress viral infections, they’re also at the heart of a “cytokine storm” response that can cause a lot of damage—or even death—when the immune system overreacts to an intruder.

With that in mind, the team looked first at patients who had tested positive for active cases of COVID-19. In those patients, they found CD4 T cells with markers for the protein found on the “spike” of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is a critical component of how it enters cells. They also found markers for a number of other proteins including ones labelled M and N (I’m not going to bother to try to explain what those do). All three were found in 100% of the exposed samples. When it came to the CD8 T cells, the spike and M protein were again strongly indicated in all samples. N was a little less so.

This research alone has strong implications for anyone developing a COVID-19 vaccine because it suggests that these three proteins alone are likely enough for developing a strong, distinctive immune response. To be sure of a strong response, it would be good to use all three, and possibly a few others. The universality of these T cells is another good sign that long-term immunity to COVID-19 is a likely result of infection, and that effective vaccines are possible. So all good news.

But that was only the first step. The team then looked at samples of individuals who had definitely not been exposed to COVID-19, mostly because the blood samples were taking in 2018 or sooner when there was no COVID-19 virus (at least not in the human population). And here comes the moment that will (or already has) generate a thousand confusing tweets: 40% to 60% of unexposed samples had CD4 T cells that responded to the novel coronavirus. All of these samples showed indicators for a pair of “common cold” viruses that cause upper respiratory infections: HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-NL63. (The HCoV in both of these just stands for “human coronavirus.”) Both of these viruses are globally endemic, meaning they are widespread and common. 

In particular, “non-spike specific” responses were above the limit of detection in 50% of the unexposed samples. That’s because while these other coronaviruses don’t share the same protein that SARS-CoV-2 uses to penetrate cells with its spike, they do have other proteins, like M and N, in common. Most discussion in the media—and much of the talk about vaccines—has focused on the spike protein, but the reaction to the M protein was just as strong in the samples examined by this team, with reactions to N not far behind. So it may be that these proteins are just as effective and important as the spike protein when it comes to an effective immune response.

(If you’re still with me at this point, grab a coffee or at least a deep breath, because we’re halfway. But trust me, it’s interesting.)

Antibodies

The second paper arrived on the preprint site bioRxiv on May 15. And while the Cell team might have been circumspect in discussing the possible implications of their results, the bioRxiv group goes for the jugular right in the title of this one: “Pre-existing and de novo humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in humans.” Or, in slightly more quotidian language: They looked at the antibodies found in people who had not been exposed to the novel coronavirus and compared them to antibodies from those who had been exposed.

The list of authors here includes no fewer than 32 names, and the number of institutions involved is almost as varied, with a core team from University College, London. This sprawling team examined the contention that endemic human coronaviruses, like the ones from the Cell paper, might provide “Immune cross-reactivity” for SARS-CoV-2. Instead of looking at T cells, they went directly after antibodies … and they found them.

The work of the antibody group was based around a theory that infection by a number of human coronaviruses can provide a level of ”cross-protection, albeit transient” against other human coronaviruses. That is, catching one kind of cold virus may provide temporary protection against another kind, even if they are not the same virus, because the first virus may generate some antibodies that are still reactive against the second.

On an antibody basis, the spike protein was broken down into two “subunits.” One of these involved how the virus attached to the cells, while the other was more involved with how the virus entered the cell after attachment. Those samples from patients exposed to SARS-CoV-2 had a strong reaction for both subunits. When it came to the samples from those who had not been exposed, there was no sign of antibodies to that first part—the attachment subunit. However, antibodies to the second subunit were detectable. So were antibodies to some of the other portions of SARS-CoV-2, including the antibody counterpart to the N protein in the first paper. This was particularly true when the samples came from “individuals with recent HCoV infection.”

The conclusion of the antibody team isn’t only that patients who have had other human coronaviruses possibly share some immunity in the technical sense of just having antibodies, but this could have a very real effect on the outcome of cases. For example, they take note of a 60-year-old patient who tested positive for COVID-19 but whose case remained mild and whose antibodies, even after infection, looked more like that of a patient who had never been exposed. In fact, the patient appeared to be “chronically infected”—he had sporadic positive results to COVID-19 testing for over a month while never showing more than mild symptoms. The antibody team took this as confirmation of what they had been hypothesizing: Existing antibodies to HCoVs that shared some components with SARS-CoV-2 left behind at least some level of transient immunity that protected against the development of more severe disease.

In particular, their results showed a strong response of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in people who had recently been infected by the “cold virus” HCoV-OC43—one of the two viruses that the T cell team pointed out as generating a response that overlapped with that of the novel coronavirus.

Conclusions

Both papers suggest that patients who have had other human coronaviruses—and in particular those who have recently had a chest cold caused by human coronavirus HCoV-OC43—have immune systems that are to some degree primed to fight off an infection by SARS-CoV-2. A study of that cold virus found it was generally connected to a mild upper respiratory infection … which is a lot better than having severe COVID-19.

This virus, and others that share similar proteins and structures, are endemic and common. Infection by these viruses may be a major factor in why about 85% of those infected with COVID-19 have relatively mild cases while around 50% of that 85% appear to have cases that are very mild or asymptomatic. Testing of COVID-19 patients has indicated that a percentage of them—something on the order of 15% in at least two studies—have low levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. These results have been correlated with those who have had mild cases, and may also be connected to those who have had recent infections by other human coronaviruses and acquired a higher level of transient immunity. Children may be more immune to COVID-19 at least in part because they are more likely to have a recent infection by HCoV-OC43, or a related coronavirus. The shared antibodies with other human coronaviruses may be part of the reason that antibody tests, including those conducted directly on patients and those looking at sources like antibodies found in waste, seem to so often suggest a higher level of infection than might be indicated by testing or medical outcomes. This might also explain why some group exposures form a hot spot while others don’t—in some cases, there may have been some “herd immunity” in effect, just from chance clusters of people carrying existing transient immunity.

None of this is certain—in this conclusion I’ve taken things at least half a logical leap beyond the position of either paper. But if substantiated, these results could go a long way toward explaining why the immune response to COVID-19 is so extremely varied.

These papers also strongly suggest that some people have at least a partial safety shield when it comes to developing a severe case of COVID-19. That cough you had back in December or January may not have been COVID-19, but it may save you from catching COVID-19.

But please—don’t test that.

22 May 23:12

Outlook For Windows Will Soon Sync Email Signatures Across Devices

by BeauHD
James.galbraith

ABOUT FUCKING TIME

Microsoft is finally bringing cloud support to Outlook for Windows email signatures. The Verge reports: Microsoft originally acknowledged that it was planning some type of sync support for Outlook signatures back in September, and the company says it will now roll this out in a June update. Office 365 and Microsoft 365 subscribers will get access to cloud signature support in Outlook for Windows, allowing users to have a consistent signature across devices. Many companies have had to turn to custom solutions to implement Outlook for Windows signatures that roam across devices, so official support from Microsoft will be welcome. Microsoft is also planning to roll out a new text prediction feature for Outlook that's similar to Gmail's Smart Compose soon. The text predictions will allow Outlook.com and Outlook on the web to write emails for people using predictive tech that offers up suggestions while you type.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

22 May 22:49

Pelosi has 'no red lines' over liability shields in next COVID-19 bill: She needs to draw some

by Joan McCarter
James.galbraith

Get a fucking spine Nancy. It can't just be the GOP that gets to set inviolable demands every time there's a negotiation.

Progressive groups, especially labor unions, need to hear from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that House Democrats will never negotiate away their protections from workplace exposure to coronavirus. At the moment, they don't have those assurances, with Pelosi refusing to draw a line against Mitch McConnell's attempts to hold relief hostage until he gets the liability shield for his corporate buddies and Chamber of Commerce.

"Well, we have no red lines, but the fact is the best protection for our workers and our employers is to follow very good OSHA mandatory guidelines, and we have that in our bill," Pelosi said in an interview on Sunday, referring to the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. And we know how diligent the Trump administration's Labor Department is in enforcing OSHA. This can't be negotiable. Not with what's happening in Kentucky, which enacted legislation granting a liability shield to "essential" businesses. Those include meatpacking plants, like the one in Guymon, Oklahoma, a town of about 12,000 that has seen at least 150 cases of coronavirus all from that plant. Those workers are liable for their own medical care now. If they don't survive, their families will bear the brunt of their final costs.

It's not just Oklahoma, of course, experiencing outbreaks like this stemming from meatpacking plants. There's Minnesota, and Idaho, and North Carolina, and Nebraska, and Washington and every state where there are meatpacking plants. "After experiencing eight workers die and more than 300 test positive for COVID at JBS Greeley in Colorado, it's clear companies are responsible to provide a safe, healthy work environment for its employees. If they fail to do so, laws must hold them accountable for those failures," said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, which represents 22,000 workers in an interview. "Any attempt to shield companies from liability is a potential death sentence for front-line essential workers—putting all Americans at risk in the long term," she added.

Since Trump ordered them essential businesses that have to remain open under the Defense Production Act, these companies have felt invincible. They know they can roll OSHA. In a lawsuit filed against Smithfield Foods in which workers were fighting for very basic protections, a company lawyer told the judge that Trump's Labor Department would offer "support to employers" in such cases, and "I feel pretty confident we could get a statement" from OSHA against the idea that “private litigants can go around the country and try to enforce their standards."

That's the same OSHA Pelosi feels confident in protecting workers right now. Not only should these workers have every legal protection, they should be getting hazard pay and they should be getting free health care for life. They should also know that the nation's top Democrat—the only person who can make it happen—has their back.

22 May 21:52

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

by Anna North
James.galbraith

Surprise, religious zealots have no problem buying people off to push their bullshit

Norma McCorvey, featured in the documentary AKA Jane Roe. | FX Networks

Norma McCorvey’s late-in-life “confession,” explained.

“This is my deathbed confession.”

So says Norma McCorvey at the beginning of AKA Jane Roe, a new documentary about her life as the plaintiff in the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. When McCorvey, identified in court papers as Jane Roe, became pregnant in 1969, abortion was illegal in her state. She sued for the right to end her pregnancy, and though the case took years — enough time for her to give birth and place the child for adoption — she eventually won, establishing the right to an abortion for all Americans.

After Roe v. Wade was decided, McCorvey became an abortion-rights advocate. But then, in the 1990s, she had a public change of heart, teaming up with the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and working to get Roe v. Wade overturned. McCorvey, who died in 2017, has become a crucial figure for anti-abortion advocates — a conservative film dramatizing her embrace of the anti-abortion movement is currently in the works, as Cassie da Costa notes at the Daily Beast.

But now there’s another chapter in McCorvey’s story. In AKA Jane Roe, filmed shortly before her death, she says her transformation into an anti-abortion advocate was an act, and that she was paid to serve as a “trophy” for conservative groups. “I took their money and they put me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say,” she tells director Nick Sweeney.

McCorvey’s admission in the film, which premiers on FX Friday, made headlines across the country and shocked many abortion-rights advocates — including McCorvey’s former attorney, Gloria Allred, who is featured in the documentary.

But some say it’s not surprising that McCorvey, who reversed course several times in her life, would do so again before she died. And while both sides of the abortion debate have at times claimed McCorvey as a symbol, the complexity of her life may make her more representative of most Americans’ feelings about abortion than if she’d stuck to one ideology.

“The fact that she was a complicated person who I think had complicated attitudes toward abortion throughout her life makes her a better symbol for abortion in America, because Americans’ views themselves are contradictory,” Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University and the author of Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present, told Vox.

McCorvey was an advocate for abortion rights. Then she very publicly changed her mind.

Norma McCorvey grew up poor in Louisiana and Texas, with an abusive mother and an absent father. Around the age of 10, she says in AKA Jane Roe, she and another girl ran away from home, robbed a gas station, and checked into a hotel. A hotel maid caught them kissing, and McCorvey was arrested and ultimately sent to a reform school.

Then, at 15, she was sent to live with a relative who sexually abused her. She was married at 16, to a husband who also abused her, and had a child who was ultimately adopted by her mother. She left her husband and had another child, who was also adopted. At 21, she became pregnant a third time. By then she was living on the streets, she says in AKA Jane Roe, and addicted to drugs and alcohol.

At the time, abortion was legal in some states, such as New York, but illegal in Texas, where McCorvey lived. She went to an illegal abortion doctor, but was too scared to go through with the procedure. “A lot of women didn’t make it out,” she says in the film. “They would bleed to death.”

Then McCorvey consulted an adoption attorney, who told her about Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, two attorneys who wanted to represent a woman seeking an abortion in Texas. They took her case, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Essentially overnight, Roe v. Wade changed the landscape of abortion in America. Prior to 1973, people with unwanted pregnancies in states like Texas had few options: travel somewhere where abortion was legal, or visit the kind of facility that had so frightened McCorvey. But after the decision, legal abortion clinics began to open across the country. Meanwhile, Roe became the foundation for a number of court decisions that limited how much states could restrict abortion, as it was now affirmed as a constitutional right.

But the battle was far from over, as anti-abortion groups sprang up or expanded and began supporting restrictions on abortions. On the other side, abortion providers and advocates campaigned for widespread access to the procedure.

McCorvey first joined the latter camp. She approached Charlotte Taft, then the director of a clinic in Dallas, at an event in the 1980s and introduced herself, saying, “I’m Jane Roe,” Taft told Vox. She appeared at local abortion-rights events, then at national ones, represented by Allred.

But privately, McCorvey was conflicted about her role in the abortion debate. “On occasion, Norma would call me after she’d been drinking, and she would say things like, the playground is empty because of me,” Taft, who also appears in AKA Jane Roe, told Vox. “She had a lot of ambivalence, even about being Jane Roe.”

Then, in 1995, McCorvey was baptized as a Christian and joined the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. She also disavowed the case that bore her pseudonym.

“We’ve had two generations of women — well, almost three generations now — of women who have grown up with Roe vs. Wade,” she said at the time. “They have literally been handed the right to slaughter their own children.”

At the time, McCorvey had been in a relationship with a woman, Connie Gonzales, for many years. But after her baptism, she said, “I am not a lesbian. I’m just a child in Christ now.”

Many on the anti-abortion side saw her conversion as a huge victory. “The heart of the person who most symbolized abortion in this country has been touched and captured, if you will,” Bill Price, the president of Texans United for Life, told the New York Times in 1995.

And ever since, for abortion opponents, McCorvey has been “a symbol of the idea that abortion had never helped women,” Ziegler, the law professor, said. “If it hadn’t helped McCorvey, and McCorvey hadn’t really been in favor of abortion,” opponents asked, “then, really were any women benefitting from abortion?”

But with AKA Jane Roe, the narrative of McCorvey’s life has changed yet again. In the film, McCorvey tells Sweeney that she was, essentially, playing a part when she disavowed abortion as an activist with Operation Rescue. “I’m a good actress,” she says.

Asked if she was used by the anti-abortion movement, she says, “I think it was a mutual thing,” noting that she was paid. In the film, Rev. Rob Schenck, a former leader in Operation Rescue, also says that McCorvey was “on the payroll” at various times, and Sweeney uncovers documents showing that McCorvey received more than $450,000 in gifts from anti-abortion groups. Rev. Flip Benham, who baptized McCorvey and is now the leader of the anti-abortion group Operation Save America, tells Sweeney that McCorvey was not paid.

At the time of her “deathbed confession,” McCorvey also said people should have the right to an abortion.

“If a young woman wants to have an abortion, fine,” she says. “It’s no skin off my ass. You know, that’s why they call it ‘choice.’”

Her deathbed reversal may be just one more part of a complicated life

McCorvey’s revelation, coming at the end of her life, is certainly incendiary. As Monica Hesse writes at the Washington Post, when the other participants in the documentary, including Allred, Schenck, and Taft, see the footage, “one by one, they all gasp.”

“Every part of me was surprised and shocked” to hear her words, Sweeney told Vox.

But others aren’t sure whether to take the confession at face value. Taft, for example, doesn’t believe that McCorvey simply became an anti-abortion activist for money. “I don’t think it’s at all that simple,” she said, noting McCorvey’s ambivalence about abortion. “The part of her that worried, ‘uh-oh, is this something wrong?’ needed to be cleansed,” she said.

And while McCorvey assures Sweeney in AKA Jane Roe that “I’m not acting now,” she’s always been a skilled architect of her own story, Ziegler said. “People on social media and in the media in general have been inclined to frame her as kind of a victim, someone who was manipulated by these social movements, but there are stories from very early on that she was a completely capable, independent actor who could manipulate people on her own.”

“The possibility that she could have been manipulating abortion opponents and getting paid to do it back in the day,” and even perhaps altering her story now to reach a more satisfying conclusion, “none of that would surprise me,” Ziegler said. “She was a complex woman with her own goals.”

In a way, that complexity perhaps makes her a more apt symbol for the abortion debate in America than she would be if she fit either side’s narrative more closely. As Ziegler notes, most Americans support Roe v. Wade and don’t want to see it overturned. But in some polls, majorities of Americans also favor restrictions on abortion, like banning it later in pregnancy. And in focus groups, voters’ views on abortion tend to be highly personal, and don’t necessarily line up with political party or ideology.

“Attitudes about abortion, when you get into the weeds, are so messy,” Ziegler said. “McCorvey being messy kind of captured that better than the perfect test-case plaintiff would.”

McCorvey’s story has implications for plaintiffs in future abortion cases

McCorvey has gotten so much attention in part because few women like her have been at the center of abortion cases — let alone the case that made abortion legal across America. Today, most abortion suits are brought by clinics and doctors, not by patients.

But a case before the Supreme Court now, June Medical Services v. Gee, could change that. In Gee, the state of Louisiana and abortion opponents are arguing that doctors do not have legal standing to bring suit on behalf of their patients. If the Supreme Court agrees with them, then more ordinary people like McCorvey, rather than those who have made abortion rights part of their life’s work, will find themselves at the center of incredibly controversial cases like Roe v. Wade.

In some ways, McCorvey’s story is “kind of a cautionary tale” for would-be future plaintiffs, Ziegler said. The kind of attention she received in the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s would only be magnified for people who bring suit today, in an age of social media and wall-to-wall news coverage. “People who are in that position now would see what happened to McCorvey only more so,” Ziegler said. “The stakes for a plaintiff in a case like that would be even higher.”

But the story of the former Jane Roe is also a reminder that if more patients do become plaintiffs in abortion cases, Americans shouldn’t expect them to be perfect symbols for reproductive rights or any other cause.

There’s a temptation “to reduce somebody like Norma to an emblem or a trophy,” Sweeney said, “and I think in doing that, we really dehumanize somebody, because we ignore their complexity.”

McCorvey “was at the center of this huge divisive issue,” he added, “but at the end of the day, she was just a person. She was Norma.”


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

22 May 21:42

New poll shows Fox News fans believe Bill Gates wants to microchip them with a COVID-19 vaccine

by Walter Einenkel
James.galbraith

Fucking idiots

A new poll from Yahoo News/YouGov shows that right-wing media outlets have been successful in convincing an uncomfortably large percentage of their viewership into believing some truly stupid shit. According to Yahoo, the polling shows that “44 percent of Republicans believe that Bill Gates is plotting to use a mass COVID-19 vaccination campaign as a pretext to implant microchips in billions of people and monitor their movements.”

On top of that, only 26% of Republicans were able to “correctly identify” a false and “widely debunked” conspiracy theory, while more than 80 percent of Democrats do realize that Bill Gates isn’t microchipping people. I wonder how many of these vaccine conspiracy theorists own a smartphone with GPS, or a car made in the past 10 years with GPS, or have the internet and an easily trackable home IP address? No one needs to microchip you. We are all walking microchips.

A breakdown of the poll showed that one-half of people who got most of their information from Fox News believed in the Gates microchipping-through-vaccination theory, and 44% of Republicans believed in this super-amazing theory of dumb. What’s important about these thoughts on vaccination is that they will likely adversely affect us when and if we are able to create and produce a successful COVID-19 vaccine. While 72% of Hillary Clinton voters say they will get a COVID-19 vaccination when available and safe, only 44% of Trump voters say they plan on getting vaccinated.

Most infectious disease experts believe that to establish “herd immunity,” at least 70% of the world’s population will need to have immunity from COVID-19. That includes people who have contracted the virus, survived, and produced the needed antibodies, as well as most of the rest of the planet’s occupants who have hopefully not contracted the virus by the time a vaccination is available. According to Yahoo, factoring in the right wing’s low numbers, only 50% of all Americans currently polled say they will get vaccinated. This is a 5% decline from a previous week’s polling. In all cases, about one-quarter of the people polled are unsure how they feel about a vaccination. And, to be honest, I cannot begrudge them that. When you consider what a disaster Trump and his administration are, it’s hard to have faith that any vaccine program he or Mike Pence or Jared Kushner are managing will be trustworthy, if released too early.

It is important to note that this is not a defense of Bill Gates and some of the terrible uses of his money and influence. In fact, what conspiracy theories like the impossibly idiotic ones being promoted against vaccinations and COVID-19 pandemic realities do is cloud up those very real—and very actionable—problems with billionaire leadership and influence on public policy. Instead, people create these intricate and convoluted conspiracy theories to explain away things that are happening in front of their eyes. While conspiracy theorists worry about the ‘New World Order’ and corrupt billionaires taking away our liberties, the Trump administration and his billionaire friends are literally working to undermine and dismantle the checks and balances system that actually ensures our liberties. 

22 May 21:39

Shocking new economic data confirms it: The swing states are getting hammered

by Greg Sargent
James.galbraith

Glad to see some consequences for voting for an idiot.

If these brutal job loss numbers can't puncture Trump's bubble, nothing can.
22 May 20:41

How to think about Joe Biden’s gaffes

by Paul Waldman
James.galbraith

The fact that they get 10x more coverage than "Henry Ford's bloodlines were so great" (nevermind he was an antisemite and Nazi sympathizer...)

His mouth gets him into trouble once again.
22 May 20:25

Hydroxychloroquine linked to increase in COVID-19 deaths, heart risks

by Beth Mole
James.galbraith

Fingers crossed...

A bottle and pills of Hydroxychloroquine. US President Donald Trump announced May 18 he has been taking hydroxychloroquine for almost two weeks as a preventative measure against COVID-19.

Enlarge / A bottle and pills of Hydroxychloroquine. US President Donald Trump announced May 18 he has been taking hydroxychloroquine for almost two weeks as a preventative measure against COVID-19. (credit: Getty | George Frey)

Two closely related anti-malarial drugs championed by President Donald Trump as promising treatments for COVID-19 appear to substantially increase the risks of death and heart complications in patients hospitalized from the disease.

That’s according to the largest study yet on the topic, which involved more than 96,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients on six continents. The peer-reviewed study, appearing Friday in The Lancet, was led by Mandeep Mehra, a professor of medicine at Harvard.

The drugs studied included chloroquine and its analogue hydroxychloroquine, which are used to treat autoimmune diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as malaria. Early laboratory work suggested that they also have potent anti-viral properties. But small clinical studies looking into potential benefits for COVID-19 patients have largely provided mixed and inconclusive results to this point.

Read 14 remaining paragraphs | Comments

22 May 20:19

'Trump froze like a deer in headlights': New Biden ads skewer Trump's halting pandemic response

by Kerry Eleveld
James.galbraith

Not bad. Keep 'em coming.

Donald Trump, by dint of his unflagging ineptitude and pervasive presence on the national stage, has left the Biden campaign with an embarrassment of riches for material to use in attack ads.

Two released by the campaign this week work in tandem, one reminding Americans just how devastating this pandemic has been under Trump's leadership while the other reveals a man living in his own world, convinced of his competence and incapable of comprehending the reality most Americans are living.

"When coronavirus came, Trump froze like a deer in the headlights," the first ad opens, charging that Trump was "paralyzed" by his fear of dooming the stock market and killing his trade deal with China.

"So he failed to act, and the virus got out of control, and shut down the nation, and crushed the economy," the ad continues, citing the nearly 100,000 American deaths and 38 million unemployment claims.

"Too scared to act, too panicked to tell the truth, too weak to lead," the ad concludes. "A president who can't handle the crisis is no president at all."

The next ad uses newly released research showing that if Trump had enacted social distancing measures even one week sooner, he could have saved 36,000 American lives. But Trump is shown playing up how "early" his administration acted and, given the chance to reflect on his response several months into the crisis, Trump says he would have done "nothing" differently. Because Trump isn’t living in a world where saving lives is paramount.

22 May 19:50

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Death

by tech@thehiveworks.com


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
The interesting thing about the circle of life is that if you look at a tiny piece of it, it's just a line segment.


Today's News:
22 May 19:50

Trump declares houses of worship ‘essential,’ pressuring governors to let them reopen

by Quint Forgey
James.galbraith

Not your call, asshole


President Donald Trump on Friday commanded America’s governors to immediately reopen churches and other places of worship shuttered by the coronavirus pandemic, threatening to “override” the state leaders if they refused to follow his directive.

Speaking at a previously unannounced news briefing at the White House, the president revealed that officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were “issuing guidance for communities of faith,” and declared “houses of worship, churches, synagogues and mosques” to be “essential places that provide essential services.”

“Some governors have deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics as essential, but have left out churches and other houses of worship,” Trump told reporters. “It’s not right, so I’m correcting this injustice and calling houses of worship essential.”

Trump emphasized he was instructing governors to allow places of worship to resume operations “right now,” and warned that “if there’s any question, they’re going to have to call me — but they are not going to be successful in that call.”

It is unclear whether the president is legally empowered to compel the nation’s governors to take such an action. If the White House moves to enforce his order in defiance of opposition by local officials, Trump could force a constitutional clash over one of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment.



Challenged on Trump’s authority to unilaterally reopen places of worship, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said at the briefing Friday the administration would “leave it to faith communities to reopen,” and pointed to “detailed guidance” from the federal government “about the way you can clean your facility [and] promote social distancing.”

But soon after his remarks at the White House, the president was confronted with resistance from state and local executives. Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo said she would not alter her state’s plans to reopen places of worship on May 30, and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot also announced her city would ignore Trump’s demand.

“By no means can the president order any locality, any state to do something that he doesn’t have the power to do,” Lightfoot said. “And he can’t do that here.”

The CDC’s guidelines, released after weeks of internal debate and scrutiny over leaked drafts, offered detailed measures for how places of worship can start to safely reopen, while advising them to consult with state and local authorities. In contrast with the earlier leaked guidelines, the agency didn’t recommend a phased reopening and instead laid out recommendations for how faith-based communities can promote safety, hygiene and social distancing.

For instance, the agency suggested groups consider suspending or decreasing how often choirs are used, as well as congregant singing and chanting during a service “if appropriate within the faith tradition.” It also recommended temporary limits on sharing religious objects, like books or cups, and to instead photocopy or email prayers to attendees.

Public health experts have expressed concern about the risks related to reopening places of worship. At least two churches in Georgia and Texas that had recently reopened shut down again this week after members tested positive for the virus, and a report from the CDC earlier this week documented how an early March outbreak in a rural Arkansas church spread from a pastor and his wife to about three dozen parishioners, killing three.

Still, Trump insisted Friday that Americans are nevertheless “demanding to go to church and synagogue or to their mosque,” and he predicted “the ministers, pastors, rabbis, imams and other faith leaders will make sure that their congregations are safe” when they gather.

“They don’t want anything bad to happen to them or to anybody else,” Trump said. “The governors need to do the right thing and allow these very important, essential places of faith to open right now, for this weekend. If they don’t do it, I will override the governors. In America, we need more prayer, not less.”

Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, stressed the importance of practicing mitigation measures as places of worship reopen, and said community faith leaders should be in touch with their local health departments.

“I think what we are trying to say with the CDC guidance is there is a way for us to work together to have social distancing and safety for people, so that we decrease the amount of exposure that anyone would have to asymptomatic [people],” she said. “And I see it that way because I know all of you and all of Americans, if they didn’t feel well, they wouldn’t go to church that day.”


The release of the new guidance for places of worship brings to an end a weeks-long internal drama over the CDC’s detailed plans for reopening the country. After draft recommendations were leaked to the Associated Press earlier this month, White House officials said the guidance was delayed over concerns it was “too prescriptive.”

The CDC last week released brief, one-page checklists meant to help reopen schools, restaurants and other institutions before the agency unveiled the longer guidance this week. Those documents did not include recommendations for faith communities.

In recent days, the president had previewed his announcement regarding places of worship, telling reporters Thursday outside the White House that churches “are not being treated with respect by a lot of the Democrat governors,” and that his administration was “going to take a very strong position on that very soon.”

Later Thursday, during a roundtable meeting with African American leaders in Michigan, Trump called places of worship “so important in terms of the psyche of our country,” and characterized churches as “essential” — the terminology commonly used in reference to businesses or workers whose return to routine life should be prioritized amid the pandemic.

Trump repeated that description earlier Friday at a White House ceremony honoring U.S. veterans, POWs and MIAs, saying he “just spoke to CDC” about reopening places of worship. “We’re going to make that essential. You know, they have places essential that aren’t essential, and they open, and yet the churches aren’t allowed to open,” he said.

The president made a similar, short-lived push to reopen places of worship in late March, when he revealed he would “love to have” the national economy “opened up and just raring to go” by Easter, citing the symbolic significance of the Christian holiday.

“You’ll have packed churches all over our country,” he said then. “I think it would be a beautiful time, and it’s just about the timeline that I think is right.”

Shia Kapos contributed to this report.

22 May 17:43

Sweden is a coronavirus disaster, and conservatives want more of that death

by kos
James.galbraith

Idiots. Well, that's one way to change a country: let a virus run rampant.

Sweden is the world’s control group, the one country that never bothered to shut itself down to prevent the spread of the coronavirus pandemic. What would happen, Sweden decided to tell us, if we did nothing to stem the spread of the disease and simply gunned for “herd immunity”? 

Sweden might’ve been among the best countries to try this—not only does half its population live solo, which is a crazy statistic, but it boasts one of the world’s best health care systems and a robust social net. And now? Their experiment gone awry, its fast rising death toll places it among the world’s worst hotspots. 

Among countries with more than 1,000 deaths, this is the world top-10 rankings that no one wants to be in:

Country Deaths per 1 million population Belgium Spain Italy UK France Sweden Netherlands Ireland USA Switzerland
795
598
537
536
432
389
338
321
292
220

Most countries on that list have gotten the pandemic under control, even Italy has begun to open up, except two—the United States and Sweden (and the UK isn’t great, either). Expect those three countries to keep moving up this chart. In fact, Sweden is likely to surpass France for the number five slot by the end of the next week. (The U.S. should exceed 500 deaths per million before the end of this year unless conservatives finally decide to take this pandemic seriously.)  

But Sweden really stands out, given how they stack up to their Nordic neighbors. 

Country Deaths per 1 million population Sweden Denmark Finland Norway Iceland
389
97
55
43
29

These countries all have similar cultural, geographic, climate, and governmental factors. The big and only difference? Sweden pretended nothing had to change. 

At the center of Sweden’s deadly experiment is Anders Tegnell, straight out of central casting for playing the villain in a Die Hard movie. Except less people died in Die Hard movies. He is chief epidemiologist at Sweden’s Public Health Agency, and his theory was that letting the coronavirus run unchecked in his country would quickly lead to herd immunity and minimal impact on the country’s economy. It’s a wonderful theory, except that no one took it seriously except our Swedish villain Tegnell. 

“In major parts of Sweden, around Stockholm, we have reached a plateau (in new cases) and we’re already seeing the effect of herd immunity and in a few weeks’ time we’ll see even more of the effects of that. And in the rest of the country, the situation is stable,” Tegnell told CNBC back on April 28, three weeks ago. Herd immunity is anywhere between 70-90%. 

“In a few weeks time” was the timeline, so where are we three weeks later? “Sweden has revealed that despite adopting more relaxed measures to control coronavirus, only 7.3% of people in Stockholm had developed the antibodies needed to fight the disease by late April,” reported CNN yesterday. 

That is pretty much the same level of antibodies found in other countries that had lockdowns! In the U.S., it is estimated that between 5-15% of Americans have immunity. Tegnell, who claimed Stockholm would have herd immunity by now, suddenly sang a different tune, claiming that the results were a "little lower" than expected "but not remarkably lower, maybe one or a couple of percent." 

I don’t know about you, but 7.3% seems to be more than 1-2% lower than 70-90% needed for herd immunity. Turns out, the United States doesn’t have a monopoly on deadly villainy at the highest levels of government. 

But hey, the good news is that they’re at 10% of the levels needed for herd immunity, so they only have ten times as much death to get there, right? On that chart above, that would mean close to 4,000 dead per million, which would make them the undisputed worldwide champs. Not even Trump could mismanage this crisis that bad. 

And there’s a punchline: Sweden’s economy is projected to suffer the most out of the entire European block this year. So keeping stuff open didn’t even save its economy! It made things worse.  As we’ve been arguing, there’s no economy as long as we see our fellow humans as vectors of disease. 

Now, none of this would matter directly to us here in the United States as we try to grapple with this deadly disease while hampered by rank incompetence at the federal level. But the problem is, conservatives from Tucker Carlson, to the National Review, to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul keep talking about following the “Swedish model.” They see open stores, and ignore everything else that could have plausibly made the strategy work (like universal health care). 

But figures. They have embraced death as a guiding principle, so figures they would gaze longingly at the one country that promises to deliver even more death and economic destruction than what we here at home, in the United States, are facing.

22 May 17:38

Why is it so hard to get a flight refund?

by Terry Nguyen
James.galbraith

Yeah, only book through credit cards with a history of offering quick refunds for now.

A nearly deserted airline counter at Los Angeles International Airport in April. | David McNew/Getty Images

Some customers have spent hours on hold with airlines, filed multiple complaints, and even filed class action lawsuits.

As an air desk specialist at a major Canadian travel agency, Jennifer has finished work for the past two months feeling “incredibly exhausted,” having spent hours navigating through airline policies on behalf of her clients. The rush of flight cancellations, she told me, began in January as the first travel restrictions to China were issued. By March, the pace of her daily work had ramped up, and even with more than a decade of industry experience under her belt, Jennifer found herself overwhelmed.

“In my work, I don’t deal directly with clients, but the agents who are working with them,” said Jennifer, who asked to withhold her last name for privacy reasons. “I’m working with the airlines to try and get our clients’ money back wherever we can, and even I’m being put on hold for over an hour.” Since Jennifer directly communicates with the airlines, she has access to what she describes as a “back door phone number” to reach the carriers, but even that line has been busier than usual.

The coronavirus pandemic precipitated a historic slowdown in air travel by mid-March, placing the airline industry in severe financial distress. US carriers have cut back on the number of available flight routes, and in many instances have had to cancel or push back flights to fit the changing schedules.

On April 3, the US Department of Transportation issued a mandate declaring that US carriers must give customers refunds, not vouchers, for flights that were canceled by the airline or faced “significant delays or schedule changes.” The department didn’t define what constitutes a delay, writing on its website that a refund depends on factors including length of the delay, flight, and other “particular circumstances.”

American Airlines will provide refunds for flights that have been pushed back by more than four hours or when a customer gets rebooked from a nonstop trip to one with a connection. United requires a schedule change of at least six hours, and Delta allows refunds for trips that have been delayed by over 90 minutes.

Still, despite the US government’s enforcement notice — first in April and another in May — and emphasis on how consumers should expect “prompt” refunds, many frustrated fliers say they haven’t been given their money back for canceled trips. Under the Department of Transportation’s enforcement rules, passengers should receive a refund within seven business days if they paid via credit card, and within 20 days by cash or check. (The European Union has also required passenger refunds for canceled flights.)

Some say they’ve been offered vouchers or flight credits instead; others say they were promised eventual refunds that haven’t yet appeared. Disgruntled clients have used Twitter to complain about long call wait times, glitchy airline websites, and, more generally, the bureaucratic obstacles that prevent them from getting their money back.

The Department of Transportation has received a record number of complaints regarding refunds, and a handful of passengers have filed class action lawsuits against major US airlines, including America, Delta, and United, for their failure to issue refunds. And despite the industry’s financial decline, the American public seems to have very little sympathy for airlines, which received a $25 billion bailout from the federal government in April.

“At the end of the day, people just want their money back,” Jennifer said. “But even as a travel professional who does this every day, some consumer policies are so unclear, and there was a point in March when things were so incredibly fluid that it was changing hourly.” Successfully contacting an airline by phone or online can sometimes be “the luck of the draw,” she added.

In an emailed response to Vox, a United spokesperson said the airline has implemented new policies to give customers flexibility since the start of the coronavirus crisis. “Eligible travelers have received, and continue to receive, refunds either through United.com or our contact centers if their flights have been severely adjusted or service to their destination suspended either due to government mandates or United schedule reductions related to COVID-19,” read the email. The spokesperson added that United has provided step-by-step instructions on its social media and website to assist fliers with its online cancellation tools.

An American spokesperson told Vox that the company is working “around the clock to take care of customers,” adding that the airline has a travel waiver program that allows fliers to change plans and that refunds are offered for flights American cancels for any reason. Delta has not responded to an emailed request for comment.

Some customers have reported spending upward of five hours on hold with an airline, since many weren’t able to request a refund through the website directly. As a last-ditch effort, Mo, a Los Angeles resident, tweeted at Delta after struggling to stay on hold to reach a service representative and managed to secure a refund for a Seattle-bound flight that was delayed and rerouted several times.

Mo didn’t have as much luck with American, the carrier for the returning flight. “I submitted a refund request on their online portal last month and crickets,” Mo wrote to me on Twitter. “I submitted another early last week, got a confirmation email with a promise of results within 7 days but still nothing.”

Customers have experienced incredibly varied refund processes, depending on the carriers, the destination, and how their trips were booked — whether by credit card or airline points, through a travel agency or website, or directly from the airline in question.

“The most important thing I learned from expert travelers is that it usually doesn’t pay off to jump the gun on canceling. You should wait until the situation or policy changes to your advantage,” Tracy E. Robey, a freelance journalist and founder of the blog Fanserviced, told me via Twitter. That was the case for a round trip she booked to Seoul for late April with United points she had accumulated.

“It usually doesn’t pay off to jump the gun on canceling. You should wait until the situation or policy changes to your advantage.”

Since Korea was on United’s refund list early on for its coronavirus outbreak, Robey qualified for a points refund in mid-March, but she would have to pay a roughly $125 fee to redeposit those points. United’s policy, however, changed on March 30, which eliminated the fee for point redeposits. “My points were returned to my account within 24 hours,” Robey said. “I even received a full refund of the taxes and fees within 36 hours. I was kind of blown away.”

Robey’s primary advice for fliers is to be aware of specific airline policies. For her case, she tried to make sure her cancellation was documented: “I wanted a screenshot of exactly what I was accepting when I clicked the cancel button. It’s impossible to get that kind of paper trail when talking to someone on the phone.”

Yet some customers who’ve exhausted their options feel like they have no choice but to hop on the phone. On Twitter, one Delta flier posted a screenshot of an error message that popped up as he searched for his canceled flight on the airline’s website, making it impossible to request the refund virtually.

Michael Bettendorf has spent the last few weekends trying to get refunds for trips he has booked for his daughter, a college student who was studying abroad in Spain. His experience with Expedia, he told me, was by far the most time-consuming. He had booked a one-way flight from Spain to Los Angeles through Expedia, and it was canceled by the airline Aer Lingus. Yet when he contacted the travel website and the airline, both initially denied responsibility for his refund.

“When I tried to get a refund through Expedia where the ticket was purchased, Expedia told me that I had to go to the airline instead,” Bettendorf told me. “They sent me a link to a webpage at the airline website. The page literally said that if you bought the ticket through a travel agent such as Expedia, then the airline cannot deal with your refund.”

He eventually filed a complaint to the Department of Transportation after a month of communicating on Expedia via their live chat service. “Expedia never acknowledged whether they received that complaint or not,” he said, adding that the agency said his refund would take up to eight weeks to process. (Expedia did not respond to an emailed request for comment.)

Given the wild goose chase for these government-mandated refunds, travel experts think future fliers will hesitate booking through affiliate sites like Expedia or with the airlines directly. Instead, they’ll look to agencies, their credit card companies, or other reservation options that are more consumer-friendly, according to Brian Kelly, founder of the travel website The Points Guy. Still, there might be benefits to directly booking with a carrier; airlines are more willing to please customers than a travel professional, and are sometimes willing to bend the rules.

“As much as I hate to say it, a consumer can call an airline and scream and complain and sometimes that will get the job done,” Jennifer told me. “As a travel professional, I can’t do that. I hate to advocate for that type of behavior, but if it’s a situation where you should get your money back, that unfortunately will sometimes work.”

“A consumer can call an airline and scream and complain and sometimes that will get the job done”

Kelly has consistently booked trips through American Express Travel and advises others to consider reserving with credit card companies that offer more consumer protections.

“In the case of an airline going bankrupt and stranding you, if you book with the right credit card, they’ll likely step in, pay for your hotel, and figure out another flight,” Kelly told me. “With this crisis, it’s likely we’re going to see more and more bankrupt airlines, which don’t have obligations to their customers.” He encourages fliers to figure out whether their credit card has an internal travel agency like American Express, or whether they partner with external agencies, like how Chase does with Expedia. “The bottom line is, it’s much easier to get through to a credit card company than an airline right now,” he concluded.

These measures, however, come at a cost, which ultimately benefits the customers who have the financial means to pay for them — whether that be a travel agent or a premium travel credit card to guarantee more trip protections. The air travel industry has always favored the wealthy: The rewards programs spearheaded by the carriers favor their frequent fliers and first-class travelers. Now, as customers scramble for refunds, fliers who have experience navigating the airline system, an agent, or simply have ample time on their hands are more likely to secure their refunds.

For both infrequent and seasoned travelers, the pandemic has highlighted the intricacies of consumer policies and agreements that many customers don’t entirely understand. Oftentimes, these details can hinder people from getting their money back or being aware of the rights they’re entitled to. When a person purchases a flight ticket, they’re asked to check a box agreeing to what is called the contract of carriage issued by the airline. In most cases, these agreements are “usually stacked against the customer,” Kelly added.

“The devil is really in the details,” he said. “If you’re booking a flight today, even with the flexible change policies advocated by the airlines, be prepared to part with your cash.”

While industry executives have identified emerging signs of increased travel demand, airlines are expected to see a slow financial recovery and will likely therefore be hesitant to quickly dish out refunds. Most states have taken steps toward reopening, which means more people will likely start doing all sorts of social activities, including, one can assume, travel.

Already, United is expected to add more flights in July and Southwest said its flights have been 25 to 30 percent full, compared to its initial 10 percent estimate, the Wall Street Journal reported. But so long as airlines keep altering their schedules, causing delays and cancellations, the burden is on customers — whose taxpayer dollars funded the airline bailout package — to ensure they get their money back.


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

22 May 17:25

Chechnya’s Anti-Gay Strongman Leader is Hospitalized with COVID-19: Reports

by John Wright
James.galbraith

Good riddance

Ramzan Kadyrov instagram deactivation

Ramzan Kadyrov (pictured), the rabidly anti-gay leader of Chechnya, is hospitalized with possibly severe COVID-19 symptoms in Moscow, according to reports.

Kadyrov is responsible for the systematic detention, torture, and killing of gay men in the Russian Federation republic.

The Guardian reports: The news was reported by two Russian state news agencies, RIA Novosti and Tass, both citing a “source in medical circles”. If true, it would mark the most significant illness of a Russian official so far in the Covid-19 pandemic. Kadyrov has become a singular figure in his native Chechnya, where he was installed by Vladimir Putin in 2007 in order to quell a simmering insurgency. He has since turned the region into a personal fiefdom, developing a powerful national guard and a cult of personality. He has no clear successor. … Kadyrov’s illness was first reported by the digital news outlet Baza, which had previously correctly revealed that prime minister Mikhail Mishustin had fallen ill. According to the news outlet, Kadyrov was flown to “one of [Moscow’s] best clinics” on Wednesday after his flu-like symptoms suddenly deteriorated. Baza reported there had been damage to his lungs.

Kadyrov once famously denied allegations about his anti-gay purges in Chechnya by claiming there are no LGBT people in the republic.

“This is nonsense,” Kadyrov said. “We don’t have those kinds of people here. We don’t have any gays. If there are any, take them to Canada. Praise be to god. Take them far from us so we don’t have them at home. To purify our blood, if there are any here, take them.”

In March, Kadyrov said people with COVID-19 who don’t self-quaratine “should be killed.” At the same time, he has also downplayed concerns about the virus.

“People are losing sleep because a disease appeared in China … they are afraid they’ll get it and they’ll die. Don’t be in a rush, you’ll die anyway. Don’t try to die before your time,” Kadyrov has said.

Earlier this month, HBO unveiled the trailer for Welcome to Chechnya, a David France documentary about anti-gay atrocities under Kadyrov’s regime. Watch it below.

The post Chechnya’s Anti-Gay Strongman Leader is Hospitalized with COVID-19: Reports appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.