JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Florida Gov. DeSantis Anti-Immigrant Policies
Brief #29 – Florida Gov. DeSantis Anti-Immigrant Policies
By Abran C
In recent months, the United States has seen large numbers of people attempting to cross into its borders from as far away as Afghanistan and as near as Haiti. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has taken issue with the Biden administration’s handling of the border situations and has accused it of having lax immigration policies that have allowed in too many undocumented migrants. A problem he feels puts Americans and Floridians in danger.
Theranos: A Medical Fraud Case for the Record Books
Brief #138 – Health and Gender Policy
By S Bhimji
Elizabeth Holmes, founder, and CEO of Theranos was on top of the world a decade ago. After just two semesters at Stanford, the dropout partnered with Ramesh Balwani (her BF) to develop a ground-breaking medical device that could run hundreds of medical tests on a tiny amount of blood obtained with a pinprick. She aspired to be the next Steve Jobs and emulated him in every respect.
Numbers and Power: Congress and News Media
Brief #28 – Elections and Politics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Congress, responsible for policies and legislation, and the news media, responsible for dissemination of information and opinion, are two of the most powerful institutions in the country. How do they fare in terms of parity on race, ethnicity, and gender? The 117th Congress is more diverse than previous Congresses but only slightly more than the 116th. Congress is 77% white while the general population is 60% white. Women comprise 24% of all seats though women are more than half of the American population.
The Facebook Files Follow-Up: Facebook’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week
Brief #64 – Technology
By Scout Burchill
Frances Haugen, the whistleblower behind the Wall Street Journal’s hugely-consequential Facebook Files (see Brief #64 for more details) took center stage earlier this month, revealing her identity in a primetime interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes before testifying in front of Congress in a series of high-profile hearings. Haugen’s revelations, coupled with an hours-long complete blackout of all Facebook-owned platforms, added up to one of Facebook’s worst weeks ever.
The Facebook Files: A Clarion Call for Real Accountability and Transparency
Brief #63 – Technology
By Scout Burchill
A remarkable investigative series published last month by the Wall Street Journal reveals the profound, and deeply disturbing, ways Facebook is warping our society. The Facebook Files, as they are called, expose bombshell revelations about the harms the biggest social media company in the world knowingly perpetrates. While much ink has been spilled on this topic before, the Facebook Files are already shaping up to be the most damning scandal to rock the company since Cambridge Analytica.
Judge Pitman’s Abortion Ruling Illustrates Flaws of Texas Senate Bill 8
Brief #176 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) bans abortions approximately six weeks after pregnancy. Under the new law any person may sue a Texas health care provider to prevent them from performing an abortion and gives those persons who bring a lawsuit money damages of $10,000 if they are successful in their lawsuit against the health care provider.
Bears Ears National Monument: A Proper Boundary Reestablished
Brief #132 – Environmental Policy
By Tim Loftus
In December of 2016, President Obama issued Presidential Proclamation 9558 – Establishment of the Bears Ears National Monument. This relatively new monument is unique. Situated in southeastern Utah, the monument was created largely at the behest of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition composed of five Colorado Plateau tribes who share a longstanding cultural connection to the landscape: Hopi, Navajo, Ute Mountain Ute, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, and Zuni Tribe.
Supply Chain and Customer Service Shortages: The Real Drivers of Inflation
Brief #126 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
There are some indications that the economy is strong. The US economy is expected to grow at 6% this year and fall to 3.9% for 2022, a greater rate than for most years since the turn of the century. Economists are predicting a steady expansion of the economy for the second half of 2021. The unemployment rate is under 5%, marking only 17 months to recover that rate since the pandemic started. Unemployment is currently at 4.8% which is down from 5.2% in August.
Screws Tighten on Unvaccinated Healthcare Workers
Brief #137 – Health and Gender
By S. Bhimji
By now most people in the country are fed up with unvaccinated individuals. For whatever reason, there are still a significant number of Americans who are still refusing to be vaccinated against Covid. And sadly a great many of these unvaccinated individuals are healthcare professionals that include doctors, nurses, pharmacists, EMS technicians, nursing assistants, and lab technicians.
Supreme Court Rules Against Warrantless Entry Into Home In Misdemeanor Cases
Brief # 167 – Civil Rights
Supreme Court Rules Against Warrantless Entry Into Home In Misdemeanor Cases
By Rod Maggay
June 29, 2021
Policy Summary
On June 23, 2021 the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Lange v. California. The case examined whether a warrantless entry into a home by a police officer to apprehend a fleeing misdemeanor suspect was permissible under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” What this means is that law enforcement officers generally need to obtain a warrant prior to entering a person’s home without permission. While this is the general standard the law does provide exceptions to that rule. The exigent circumstances exception permits a law enforcement officer to enter a home for emergency situations that require official action and where there is no time to secure a warrant. Some common emergency scenarios which permit a warrantless entry by police officers is if there is a need to render emergency medical assistance or if there is a danger of destruction of evidence, like drugs.
In the Lange case, Arthur Lange was observed by police officers driving down the road with his windows down and loud music playing while he was consistently honking his horn. Highway patrol officers followed Mr. Lange and subsequently turned on their overhead lights to try and get Mr. Lange to pull over. However, Mr. Lange continued to his home and entered his garage. An officer followed Mr. Lange inside of his home where he questioned him and put Mr. Lange through a field – sobriety test which he failed. Mr. Lange was subsequently charged with a misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI) and a misdemeanor noise infraction.
Mr. Lange tried to suppress all of the evidence obtained from his questioning and sobriety test but the Superior Court denied his motion which was later affirmed by the appellate division and the California Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sided with Arthur Lange and ended up vacating the California Court of Appeal decision in a unanimous judgment. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
This case helped reinforce what the Fourth Amendment stands for in terms of unreasonable searches. The Court even used the phrase “when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is the first among equals” to emphasize the right of a citizen to retreat into his own home and be free from unreasonable government intrusion.
While the case should have been an easy one to decide based on Court precedents that prohibited warrantless entry into a home except in exigent circumstances this case differed significantly because this case only involved a person fleeing into his home while committing a misdemeanor crime. The other cases previously decided by the Court all dealt with officers entering the home without a warrant while the persons were committing a felony. It may seem like a very minor difference but the difference in the two categories of crime can have significant consequences. This is important because arguments from an amicus curiae brief submitted to the court pushed to have the Court recognize a rule that any time a person is fleeing from law enforcement, officers should always be allowed warrantless entry into the person’s home based on emergency circumstances.
Justice Kagan pushed back on this and eloquently described how not every fleeing person who retreats into their home presents a threat especially when the crime being committed is a misdemeanor. Misdemeanors are crimes usually categorized as minor and sometimes non – violent. It would be improper to have an all – encompassing rule that permits law enforcement officers wider powers to enter a person’s home any time a person flees regardless of the crime.
The very nature of the crime – misdemeanor – may not have the emergency situation that felonies do. It may very well be that there may be time to secure a warrant to enter the home in misdemeanor cases. What Justice Kagan’s opinion does here is not allowing an expansion of police powers to allow an officer to enter a fleeing person’s home whenever they please. A person’s home is too sacred to allow it to be violated so easily. The Fourth Amendment still prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of a person, their homes and their papers and that command still applies even in misdemeanor cases. The Supreme Court in this case gets that right. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – infopage on search and seizure issues.
Constitution Center – infopage with background and history of the Fourth Amendment.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Federal Judge Dismisses Facebook Antitrust Cases
Brief # 52 – Technology
Federal Judge Dismisses Facebook Antitrust Cases
By Henry Lenard
July 1, 2021
Policy Summary
Two antitrust cases filed against Facebook Inc. by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of nearly all state attorneys general led New York’s Letitia James were dismissed by Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia on June 28, 2021.
Judge Boasberg said the FTC lawsuit filed in December failed to show that Facebook had monopoly power in the social media sector.
The FTC case was the government’s first attempt to reign in Facebook’s social networking dominance in the face of increased Congressional scrutiny of Facebook’s practices.
The judge said the FTC could refile an amended complaint within 30 days.
Judge Boasberg also dismissed the case brought by the states, criticizing them for waiting too many years after Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram (2012) and WhatsApp (2014) to challenge the deals.
The stock market reacted to the news by pushing Facebook’s valuation to in excess of $1 trillion.
Policy Analysis
Judge Boasberg’s Facebook ruling underscored the difficulty regulators confront in taking on Big Tech. The judge said the FTC lawsuit was “legally insufficient” by failing to provide enough evidence to prove that Facebook had a monopoly in the personal social-networking sector and that its practices harmed competition.
The ruling dismisses the complaint but not the case, meaning the FTC could refile another complaint.
The FTC claimed that Facebook has had monopoly power since at least 2011, controlling “in excess of 60 percent” of the “personal social networking” market. The judge noted that the FTC failed to offer any metrics as to how it arrived at that figure, such as revenues or users.
“The FTC’s inability to offer any indication of the metric(s) or method(s) it used to calculate Facebook’s market share renders its vague ‘60%-plus’ assertion too speculative and conclusory to go forward,” wrote Boasberg.
Boasberg said regulators have a greater challenge against companies such as Facebook than they would against a more traditional business. The judge wrote that sites like Facebook “are free to use, and the exact metes and bounds of what even constitutes a [personal social network] service — i.e., which features of a company’s mobile app or website are included in that definition and which are excluded — are hardly crystal clear.”
The regulatory agency also narrowly defined the personal social networking market, excluding professional social networks such as LinkedIn and video streaming companies like YouTube.
Judge Boasberg’s ruling shows how antitrust law standards can be difficult for federal regulators to meet.
The decision was condemned by those calling for the reigning in of Big Tech, with calls for revisiting antitrust laws, which now require a company is shown to be a monopoly before a case can be pursued.
The House Judiciary Committee recently approved six bills focusing on Big Tech that would result in the most dramatic change to antitrust law in decades.
The bills include updating merger filing fees; determining venues for antitrust suits brought by state attorneys general; preventing Big Tech companies from buying upcoming competitors in an effort to eliminate competition; prohibiting Big Tech firms from giving their products and services preference over those of competitors; making it easier to use products from different companies together; and allowing federal regulators to sue to break up large tech companies when their role as operator of a platform creates an “irreconcilable conflict of interest” in their other business lines.
The next step for these bills, which have varying degrees of bipartisan support, will be a debate and vote in the full House. Already there is intense lobbying against the bills from Big Tech and the trade organizations representing the industry.
Engagement Resources
FTC v. Facebook decision:
New York v. Facebook decision:
American Economic Liberties Project statement:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler statement on passage of bipartisan legislation to enhance antitrust enforcement:
https://judiciary.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4622
What Will Iranian Election Outcomes Mean for Relations with the US?
Brief # 118 – Foreign Policy
What Will Iranian Election Outcomes Mean for Relations with the US?
By Abran C
June 29, 2021
Policy Summary
On June 18, 2021, Iran held its thirteenth presidential elections since the establishment of the Islamic Republic. National Elections are held every four years in the Shia majority nation. In order to run for president a candidate must be pre-approved by Iran’s Guardian Council. For the recent election cycle the council only approved seven candidates out of nearly 600, and it disqualified many moderates and women from running. Of the seven, conservative hardliner and Judiciary head Ebrahim Raisi has been elected president. Raisi will be inaugurated in early August and will take control of significant domestic and foreign affairs from current President Hassan Rouhani. Rouhani is a moderate who has served two terms and was the spearhead in Iran signing the Nuclear Deal in 2015. Yet even with a new president Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei retains the majority of control in the nation.
President-elect Raisi has been favored by Khamenei and has long been groomed to one day succeed him as Iran’s Supreme Leader. Many see his ascendancy to the presidency as another step on his way to Iran’s top job. Yet Iranians and rights groups have signaled alarm and pointed to Raisi’s alleged role in mass executions of political prisoners in 1988. As well as his involvement in the regime’s brutal crackdown of Iran’s Green Movement protests in 2009, for which he was sanctioned in 2019 by the U.S. Treasury Department on the charge of human rights violations.
The Biden administration has held its breath awaiting the results of the election in order to continue negotiations to return to the JCPOA (The Iran Nuclear deal). The Trump administration had previously pulled back from the agreement and took an increasingly aggressive stance toward Iran. Iran in turn began breaching the limits of the deal and enriching uranium past the amount agreed upon in the deal. Ayatollah Khamenei supports Iran returning to the nuclear deal and Raisi has assured voters he would work to ensure Iran’s return to relieve economic hardship.
Policy Analysis
Voter turnout in the Iranian election had reached a record low with only around 48% of the public taking part, down from 70% in 2017. We can attribute the significant drop in electoral participation to the fact that many Iranians see elections in the nation as staged events. The event is more of a selection than an election considering only pre-approved candidates may run. Couple this with the fact that they clearly saw these elections as tailored for Mr. Raisi to win, a small voter turnout was to be expected.
The deep tensions Iran has faced with the west has paved the way for the election results. Four years of being hit by U.S. sanctions and the assassination of Iran’s top general, Qasem Soleimani, pushed by the former U.S. administration has led to a pivot to the hard right. Raisi’s key priority will be an economy that has been suffering from rampant inflation and high unemployment. Raisi has stated his interest in returning to the JCOPA in order to provide economic relief.
In this sense Iran’s hardline stance in wanting to return to the deal will benefit the U.S. in the short term by providing an avenue for the Biden administration to achieve its set goal in the Vienna talks. However, beyond the deal it is unlikely there will be a softening of the very tense relations. President-elect Raisi has already stated he does not want to meet with President Biden and claimed the regime would look Eastward to China to help its economy recover from its deep crisis.
Recent events such as the seizure of 33 Iranian government affiliated sites and air strikes against what the U.S. claims were Iran backed militia facilities have only increased tensions. With Raisi in office right-wing hardliners will now be on all levers of power. With this in mind Iran under Ebrahim Raisi will likely become a more closed off society, with less press freedom, more likely to respond aggressively to the U.S., and more repressive towards the Iranian population.
Engagement Resources
U.S. Department of State: The United States Department of State (DOS), is an executive department of the U.S. federal government responsible for the nation’s foreign policy and international relations.
U.S. Department of Defense: The United States Department of Defense is an executive branch department of the federal government charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the government directly related to national security and the armed forces.
Inter-Parliamentary Union: The IPU is the global organization of national parliaments. We promote democratic governance, institutions and values, working with parliaments and parliamentarians to articulate and respond to the needs and aspirations of the people. We work for peace, democracy, human rights, gender equality, youth empowerment and sustainable development through political dialogue, cooperation and parliamentary action.
Supreme Court Again Punts On Non – Discrimination v. Religious Beliefs Issue
Brief # 166 – Civil Rights
Supreme Court Again Punts On Non – Discrimination v. Religious Beliefs Issue
By Rod Maggay
June 27, 2021
Policy Summary
On June 17, 2021 the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In a unanimous judgment the Court ruled that Philadelphia’s decision to refuse to contract with Catholic Social Services of Philadelphia (CSS) unless CSS agreed to certify same – sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Catholic Social Services is one of many foster care agencies operating in the City of Philadelphia. The City of Philadelphia foster care system contracts with private foster care agencies to help them place children who may be in need of a home. Pennsylvania authorizes private foster care agencies to research families and determine if a foster family is suitable to “provide care, nurturing and supervision” to a child. If a private foster care agency approves than the agency “certifies” the family as a suitable foster family. The private agencies compile their own list of certified foster families and wait for Philadelphia’s Department of Human Services (DHS) to refer a child for foster care. Once a referral is received the private agency decides which family is suitable for the child.
In 2018 the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article after investigating reports of difficulties that same sex couples had in becoming certified foster families with a number of agencies. Subsequently and in response to the article, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia announced that Catholic Social Services of Philadelphia would no longer consider same sex families as prospective foster parents. In response, the Department of Human Services announced that they would no longer refer children to CSS. CSS filed suit. In Federal District Court, the court denied relief to CSS which the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which sided with CSS in a unanimous judgment. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
The Fulton case was closely monitored because it was seen as a potential landmark case that could have set a new rule regarding religious liberty rights and the ability to discriminate based on religious beliefs. The issue of discrimination motivated by religious beliefs has been a simmering issue in the U.S. The Court had recently decided the Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case but the Court there declined to set a new rule in that case and instead decided the case on very narrow grounds. When Fulton was appealed to the Supreme Court it was believed that the Court may have been ready to address the ability to discriminate based on religious beliefs head on due to the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Court (she is viewed as a firm supporter of religion) and the number of cases the Court decided in 2020 supporting religious rights. But this case ended up following Masterpiece Cakeshop in that the case was decided on very narrow grounds. The Court again declined to issue a sweeping rule to govern the ability to discriminate based on religious beliefs issue.
The case turned not on whether there is a constitutional right to discriminate based on religious beliefs (which is what conservatives and religious people wanted) but simply on the wording of a clause in the standard contract that Department of Human Services (DHS) puts in all of its contracts with private foster care agencies. A clause in the contract obligated a private foster care agency to not reject a child or family – to not discriminate – unless it acquired an exemption from a DHS Commissioner. The Court latched on to this wording to find that Philadelphia improperly cut ties with Catholic Social Services because of the discretion it gave to DHS Commissioners to decide if a party may discriminate against a family or not. However, subsequent announcements by the parties involved make clear that the bottom line issue was with the placement of children with LGBQT families and not with terms in the standard contract. The Supreme Court simply decided to avoid addressing the ability to discriminate based on religious beliefs issue again.
The great debate between closely held religious beliefs and whether those beliefs can serve as a basis to discriminate and prevent other citizens from enjoying the benefits of American civic life is one of great importance and one the Court needs to get right for the sake of the LGBQT and minority communities. It is one that needs to be addressed in order to clarify how citizens can conduct their personal lives. What the Supreme Court did in this case was that it left alot of questions that need to be answered. Maybe not today but in the future the Court will have to address the constitutional implications of this very complex issue. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – infopage on the Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) – infopage on the Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
The New Alzheimer Drug Controversy
Brief # 114 – Health & Gender
The New Alzheimer Drug Controversy
By S Bhimji
June 30, 2021
Policy Summary
For decades, there has been intense research to develop drugs that could either slow down or prevent Alzheimer Disease (AD). So far there is no such drug. A few older drugs are available but these agents only diminish early-stage symptoms in a few patients. In most people the drugs are not helpful and their adverse effects are more harmful than the benefits. For the majority of AD patients, the treatment so far has been supportive care.
Since 2003, no new drugs for AD have been introduced for clinical use. But just last week the FDA approved a new drug for AD made by Biogen. The drug, Aducanumab, is a monoclonal antibody directed towards a protein in the brain called amyloid. The drug prevents the buildup of amyloid aggregates which are found in the brains of people with AD. Amyloid is just one of the proteins believed to be playing a role in dementia and poor cognition.
The drug can only be given as an intravenous drip over a period of several hours. Weekly treatments are required. The early known adverse effects of the drug include headache, flu-like symptoms, pain and redness at the injection site, rash, sinusitis, and malaise- all these side effects are of short duration and generally do not require any special treatment. Since the announcement by the FDA last week, most hospitals have been eagerly waiting for the drug supplies.
Policy Analysis
The FDA approval of aducanumab has met with a great deal of controversy. In November 2020, both an outside and internal panel of medical experts concluded that during the initial study, the drug’s benefits were marginal at best. Investigators for the FDA further concluded that the data supporting aducanumab’s clinical efficacy was weak, and the experts also cited errors in methodology and interpretation of data.
Nevertheless, despite its own experts questioning the drug’s efficacy, the Head Honchos at the FDA went ahead with the approval and only asked Biogen to perform a follow-up study to see if the drug helps treat symptoms of AD and lowers the amyloid plaques in the brain.
Hospitals across the US have been following the drug’s development and have developed a huge list of patients that are eligible to receive the medication. Further caregivers for AD patients are more than eager to get the treatment started since the Biogen monograph clearly states that the drug can prevent the progression of the disease.
But specialists in AD care suggest that hospitals should exercise great caution before deciding to administer aducanumab to thousands of patients. The reason is that all AD patients must first undergo a PET Scan to determine if they have amyloid plaques and assess the risks. The drug may be best for individuals with early disease, mild cognitive impairment, and memory loss. Those with severe symptoms may not respond.
Final point
Amidst the FDA approval controversy, what is often not mentioned by most of the media is the cost of the drug. Aducanumab costs nearly $56,000 a year (or about $4200 a week), a princely sum for most Americans. For a drug that has weak supporting data, this is an enormous amount of money- but hospitals and physicians will do their best to seduce desperate patients with false hopes. Since the majority of AD patients are over the age of 65, it remains to be seen if Medicare will bear the financial burden, which will easily exceed $100 billion a year.
Even if Medicare does accept to pay for the aducanumab, remember Medicare only pays 80% of the bill, and patients will be stuck with the 20% copayment. Plus patients will have to pay for the imaging scans; PET scans are generally not covered by Medicare: the average cost of a PET scan is $5,000.
Finally, there are concerns of adverse effects of the drug that were noted during the clinical trials like brain bleeding and swelling. And these side effects need to be monitored with scans, which again costs money, and who will pay for these extra scans if needed? The bottom line is that everyone should not get too excited about this drug.
Engagement Resources
FDA approved controversial Alzheimer’s drug despite objections from staff. https://nypost.com/2021/06/22/fda-approved-controversial-alzheimers-drug-despite-objections-from-staff/
The FDA Has Approved A New Alzheimer’s Drug — Here’s Why That’s Controversial. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/07/1003964235/fda-approves-controversial-alzheimers-drug-aducanumab
Controversial Alzheimer’s drug could cost US $334B—nearly half of DoD budget
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/controversial-alzheimers-drug-could-cost-us-334b-nearly-half-of-dod-budget/
The Way Forward for Voting Rights Reform
Brief # 165 – Civil Rights
The Way Forward for Voting Rights Reform
By Rodney A. Maggay
June 25, 2021
Policy Summary
On June 22, 2021 the United States Senate held a procedural vote on the floor of the Senate to determine if the For The People Act would be brought to the floor for a debate on the merits of the bill. The For The People Act is the massive 800 page voting rights bill already passed by the House of Representatives that would bring wholesale changes and minimum standards to voting laws in federal elections. The bill introduces minimum voting standards for vote by mail and automatic registration systems (ARS), additional restrictions on congressional redistricting and a wave of new campaign finance rules, among other changes. The bill was blocked from debate in the chamber due to the use of the filibuster by Senate Republicans. The procedural vote taken would have ended the filibuster had 60 senators voted for it but the vote to end the filibuster resulted in a 50 – 50 split with all senators voting along party lines. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
With the vote in the Senate coming to a 50 – 50 tie there was a misconception that the For The People Act was voted down in the Senate. But that was not the case. The procedural vote was only to end the Republican filibuster and decide if the bill should be debated on the floor of the Senate. The Senate needed 60 votes and did not come close to reaching that threshold.
While there was disappointment that Senate Republicans did not even want to debate the merits of the bill on the chamber floor, the actions of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) gave hope that even some reforms might be agreed to in the near future in a bipartisan deal. In a draft compromise circulated by Sen. Manchin he identified voting reforms he would support and push to be added to future bills which reflect some, but not all, of the reforms included in the For The People Act as well as some new proposals. He offered making Election Day a public holiday, a mandatory two weeks of early voting, a ban on partisan gerrymandering and what alternative forms of ID a voter could use. He also requested more clarity on some of the definitions and provisions in the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (such as determining when a voting rights violation has occurred and how to exit pre-clearance). This indicates that he would be open to supporting the bill. And it also indicates that there might be some voting reforms which could be palatable to some Republicans and which would have a better chance to garner support on their own rather than as a part of a large 800 page bill.
Sen. Manchin’s work at trying to find some common ground for a bipartisanship voter reform bill though has hit a roadblock as some civil rights group have come out in opposition to his compromise proposals. Just recently, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund released a statement detailing why they were opposed to the items in the Manchin Compromise. It is another illustration at how hard it can be to craft a voting reform bill that all sides and all groups can support. But voting reform does not have to be an all or nothing proposition. Sen. Manchin’s efforts have shown that a small number of Senators are willing to support separate voting issues, such as Sen. Murkowski’s support for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King’s support for new campaign finance rules. There clearly is some support for some kind of bipartisan deal but on a smaller scale. If a breakthrough is to come it appears it may come not with a large “one – size fits every state” approach, which is the basis of Republican opposition to voting reform, but in a more measured approach that allows Senators to support voter reform proposals one or two at a time. This might be the best way forward at the moment and one to monitor as Senators continue to work out a deal this congressional session. Not all of the reforms introduced in the For The People Act may be included in a subsequent bill but finding common ground and passing even a smaller number of voting reforms now is better than passing no reforms at all. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
Fair Elections Center – statement from voting rights group on Senate vote on voting reform bill.
Voting Rights Alliance – non – profit group working to protect voting rights from attack.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Update on Prosecution of Capitol Rioters
Brief # 18 – Social Justice
Update on Prosecution of Capitol Rioters
By Erika Shannon
June 28, 2021
While it has been nearly six months since a group of right-wing extremists stormed the Capitol Building, we are still seeing late arrests being made, as well as justice finally being served as the first sentence has been given out in connection with the Capitol Riots. On January 6th, we saw several hundred people storm the Capitol Building in an effort to “Stop the Steal” of the 2020 election. Right-wing extremist groups felt that President Biden somehow stole the victory from Donald Trump, even though according to the Department of Justice, there was no interference. It is estimated that over 500 people have been charged with crimes related to the January 6th riots, with more to come.
Although the Capitol Riots happened several months ago, we are still seeing people being arrested in connection with them to this day. Just last Thursday, a central Illinois man was arrested and charged with assault on a law enforcement officer, assault in special maritime and territorial jurisdiction, and engaging in violence in a restricted building or grounds; it is alleged that he tripped an officer, subsequently pushing him to the ground, then breached a media staging area and tackled a cameraman. The reason for arrests continuing to be made to this day has to do with the fact that many inciters and participants in the Capitol Riots were not arrested on that day. In fact, most were able to get on planes and fly home, resuming life until video or photographic evidence surfaced that could identify them as attendees at the riots.
As far as the 500+ people that have been charged in connection with the events on January 6th, the Department of Justice has published a list of those charged. It also includes their charges, case status, and other relevant information. The cases are being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. Some of those charged remain in jail, such as Proud Boys leader Charles Donohoe, while many are free and awaiting pending court dates for their cases. The charges against those who have been caught range from assaulting law enforcement officers to trespassing and destroying property. There is also a conspiracy case pending against 16 people with alleged ties to the Oath Keepers; it is alleged that the defendants agreed to plan and take part in an operation to interfere with the certification of Electoral College votes. This was done by coordinating in advance with others via social media and other websites in an attempt to recruit participants to travel to Washington D.C. with weapons and other paramilitary gear. On June 23rd, Oath Keeper member Graydon Young plead guilty to conspiracy and other charges related to the January 6th riots; he has agreed to help prosecutors in bringing charges against other members. He will eventually testify before a grand jury.
A 49-year-old woman from Indiana was the first person to be officially sentenced in the Capitol breech. The woman, Anna Morgan-Lloyd, was linked to the riots due to her sharing of photos and videos on social media. In court, she expressed remorse and alleged that she did not know it was going to turn violent or else she would not have gone. Morgan-Lloyd plead guilty, and was sentenced to no prison time for her light involvement; she received three years of probation instead, which will likely set a precedent for sentences for other rioters who attended but were only charged with minor crimes. Morgan-Lloyd also must pay restitution of $500 to help offset her part in the $1.5 million worth of damage carried out at the Capitol during the January 6th riots.
While it seems that many of those involved with the Capitol Riots have already been charged, the Justice Department is still looking for more than 250 people involved in assaulting law enforcement and other acts of violence. It is estimated that someone has been arrested or charged in the connection with the attacks everyday since they occurred, and there is still more work to do. The FBI is sorting through hundreds of thousands of tips received online in regards to the investigations. It is thought that many of those involved will not face any actual jail time; however, those involved in violent crimes against law enforcement or those facing conspiracy charges are more likely to receive a significant jail sentence. There is hope that those involved will learn the lesson that violence is not always the answer, and in the future lives can be saved when protests remain peaceful.
Engagement Resources
- To view the FBI’s Most Wanted list for the Capitol Riots, or to submit a tip, visit their Capitol Violence webpage or Seeking Information webpage.
- To see who’s been charged in association with the Capitol Riots, visit this page on the Department of Justice website.
Infrastructure Plan Update: Parties Haggle Over Content and Funding
Brief # 122 – Economic Policy
Infrastructure Plan Update: Parties Haggle over Content and Funding
By Rosalind Gottfried
June 22, 2021
Policy Summary
Biden and the Democrats are currently haggling over a 1.2 trillion dollar plan to address infrastructural change. This figure is down from the original 4 trillion sought by Biden. For negotiations, the White House had trimmed the bill to 1.7 trillion and it now stands at 1.2 trillion. This measure would address basic hardcore infrastructure needs== transportation, broadband, and water issues; it would avoid climate change mandates and so called “soft infrastructure” issues such as daycare, healthcare, schools and other measures that Biden and the Democrats see as good for families and for our economic recovery. The Democrats than plan to package climate change and “soft infrastructure” as a separate bill that would move forward using a budget reconciliation process that can be passed just by the Democratic 51 vote Senate majority. President Biden says he will only sign both bills at the same time.
Ideas for funding, squarely rejected by the Democrats, would increase the gas tax, mileage taxes, and taxes on electric vehicles. Biden will not agree to these measures as he sees them as contradicting his promise not to raise taxes on household incomes of 400,000 dollars or less. He would support enhancing IRS enforcement of tax collecting in lieu of rolling back the 2017 GOP tax cuts, to address republican resistance to increased income taxes. It does not look as if there can be bi-partisan support for the plan as thus conceived.
The Democrats are considering a bill that would proceed using the utilizing the budget reconciliation procedure which would require the support of all the Democratic Senators. This plan would address climate control which they see as a mandatory element for any infrastructure bill. It would also provide for dependent family member support and funding for housing, job training and schools.
Analysis
Eleven Republican Senators have indicated that they would vote for the Bi-Partisan plan which means that only one Democrat can defect and that is not assured since several progressive members have voiced concerns over the compromise bill. Senator Joe Manchin has asserted his insistence on a Bi- Partisan bill and a refusal on his part to support a Democratic bill would kill it. Impasse seems sustained since Democratic resistance to the bi-partisan bill seems high, given the concerns with regard to climate control and the gas tax. Biden has said this week will be his last push for a bi-partisan approach; the gamble of relying on a single party bill also seems risky.
Engagement Resources
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/21/biden-to-hold-infrastructure-plan-meeting-this-week.html
A Review of Current Assistive Technology Policy in the United States
Brief # 51 – Technology
A Review of Current Assistive Technology Policy in the United States
By M.J. Conaway
June 25, 2021
Policy Summary
In the United States, there are several Federal laws that address technology accessibility for people with disabilities, including the American with Disabilities Act, the Telecommunications Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. The U.S. Access Board develops accessibility standards for the various technologies covered by the laws, which have been incorporated into the procurement regulations of the Federal government.
Assistive technology (AT) provides devices that help people with disabilities engage in activities of daily living. Examples of assistive technology include communication boards, wheelchairs, and word prediction software. AT facilitates greater independence by allowing people with disabilities to accomplish tasks in all facets of everyday life that would otherwise be difficult or impossible.
Analysis
There are myriad gaps in various areas relevant to policy development. This includes: identifying evidence useful for policy making; using existing data within policy; generating policy development in an inclusive way; evaluating existing policy according to social inclusion criteria, and; implementing policy, and its monitoring and evaluation by an appropriate range of stakeholders. Too often policymakers in the healthcare sector are totally unfamiliar with disability, impairment or assistive technology issues. Therefore, these officials are unaware of some of the policy challenges in this area [1].
Generally, the first steps in creating inclusive policy for assistive technology are to connect different communities with an interest in assistive technology; to encourage sharing experiences and best practices, and to simply become aware of the constellation of stakeholders from academia, government, self-advocacy, and various nonprofit organizations. Stakeholders who are often overlooked in these processes generally include self-advocates; Native peoples in areas where their inclusion is often marginalized; rural and/or inner-city people in poorly resourced settings, and; people with intellectual disabilities [2] for whom assistive technology may be particularly beneficial for community living [3].
In the scholarly literature, three types of policy gaps have been identified: 1) a Policy Awareness Gap, where policymakers knew little about disability-specific policy instruments (e.g., ADA), and disability representatives knew little about the policy instruments used in mainstream development; 2) a Policy Process Gap, in which there was consultation with disability advocacy organizations, but the final deliverables rarely reflects their primary concerns, and; 3) a Policy Implementation and Monitoring Gap, in which there is a lack of explicit criteria for monitoring and evaluation with respect disability specific concerns.
Engaging in policy often requires understanding the triggers for policy change. While Federal law and the U.S. Access Board can set the context for a discussion on assistive technology policy; such mechanisms by themselves are generally insufficient to propel various Federal agencies, such as the Centers for Medicare And Medicaid Services (CMS) towards policy change. The crux of the matter is to fashion an argument that hooks the attention of government and policymakers. Especially persuasive would be data indicating the socioeconomic benefits and impact of assistive technology. The widespread fragmentation of service delivery, which is often siloed and inviscid with many specialists in the supply chain, is a very expensive way to provide assistive technology. Such fragmentation sorely lacks in equity and distributive justice. Thus, arguments addressing the need for improved efficiency in the delivery system for AT would be helpful. However, policy is often most influenced by financial consequences. Hence, the socioeconomic case for assistive technology must be emphasized by different stakeholders to drive improvements in U.S. assistive technology delivery systems.
Engagement Resources
Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs
National Council on Independent Living Technology Task Force
Global Herd Immunity Remains out of Reach– 99% of People in Poor Countries are Unvaccinated
Brief #113 – Health & Gender Policy
Reposted from The Conversation, www.theconversation.com
By: Maria De Jesus, American University
Public health experts estimate that approximately 70% of the world’s 7.9 billion people must be fully vaccinated to end the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 21, 2021, 10.04% of the global population had been fully vaccinated, nearly all of them in rich countries.
Only 0.9% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose.
I am a scholar of global health who specializes in health care inequities. Using a data set on vaccine distribution compiled by the Global Health Innovation Center’s Launch and Scale Speedometer at Duke University in the United States, I analyzed what the global vaccine access gap means for the world.
Our mission is to share knowledge and inform decisions.
A Global Health Crisis:
Supply is not the main reason some countries are able to vaccinate their populations while others experience severe disease outbreaks – distribution is.
Many rich countries pursued a strategy of overbuying COVID-19 vaccine doses in advance. My analyses demonstrate that the U.S., for example, has procured 1.2 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses, or 3.7 doses per person. Canada has ordered 381 million doses; every Canadian could be vaccinated five times over with the two doses needed.
Overall, countries representing just one-seventh of the world’s population had reserved more than half of all vaccines available by June 2021. That has made it very difficult for the remaining countries to procure doses, either directly or through COVAX, the global initiative created to enable low- to middle-income countries equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines.
Benin, for example, has obtained about 203,000 doses of China’s Sinovac vaccine – enough to fully vaccinate 1% of its population. Honduras, relying mainly on AstraZeneca, has procured approximately 1.4 million doses. That will fully vaccinate 7% of its population. In these “vaccine deserts,” even front-line health workers aren’t yet inoculated.
Haiti has received about 461,500 COVID-19 vaccine doses by donations and is grappling with a serious outbreak.
Even COVAX’s goal – for lower-income countries to “receive enough doses to vaccinate up to 20% of their population” – would not get COVID-19 transmission under control in those places.
The Cost of not Cooperating:
Last year, researchers at Northeastern University modeled two vaccine rollout strategies. Their numerical simulations found that 61% of deaths worldwide would have been averted if countries cooperated to implement an equitable global vaccine distribution plan, compared with only 33% if high-income countries got the vaccines first.
Put briefly, when countries cooperate, COVID-19 deaths drop by approximately in half.
Vaccine access is inequitable within countries, too – especially in countries where severe inequality already exists.
In Latin America, for example, a disproportionate number of the tiny minority of people who’ve been vaccinated are elites: political leaders, business tycoons and those with the means to travel abroad to get vaccinated. This entrenches wider health and social inequities.
The result, for now, is two separate and unequal societies in which only the wealthy are protected from a devastating disease that continues to ravage those who are not able to access the vaccine.
A repeat of AIDS missteps?
This is a familiar story from the HIV era.
In the 1990s, the development of effective antiretroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS saved millions of lives in high-income countries. However, about 90% of the global poor who were living with HIV had no access to these lifesaving drugs.
Concerned about undercutting their markets in high-income countries, the pharmaceutical companies that produced antiretrovirals, such as Burroughs Wellcome, adopted internationally consistent prices. Azidothymidine, the first drug to fight HIV, cost about US$8,000 a year – over $19,000 in today’s dollars.
That effectively placed effective HIV/AIDS drugs out of reach for people in poor nations – including countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the epidemic’s epicenter. By the year 2000, 22 million people in sub-Saharan Africa were living with HIV, and AIDS was the region’s leading cause of death.
The crisis over inequitable access to AIDS treatment began dominating international news headlines, and the rich world’s obligation to respond became too great to ignore.
“History will surely judge us harshly if we do not respond with all the energy and resources that we can bring to bear in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” said South African President Nelson Mandela in 2004.
A 9-year-old girl in Johannesburg, South Africa, prays before taking her twice-daily HIV medications in 2002. Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty Images
Pharmaceutical companies began donating antiretrovirals to countries in need and allowing local businesses to manufacture generic versions, providing bulk, low-cost access for highly affected poor countries. New global institutions like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria were created to finance health programs in poor countries.
Pressured by grassroots activism, the United States and other high-income countries also spent billions of dollars to research, develop and distribute affordable HIV treatments worldwide.
A Dose of Global Cooperation
It took over a decade after the development of antiretrovirals, and millions of unnecessary deaths, for rich countries to make those lifesaving medicines universally available.
Fifteen months into the current pandemic, wealthy, highly vaccinated countries are starting to assume some responsibility for boosting global vaccination rates.
Leaders of the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, European Union and Japan recently pledged to donate a total of 1 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses to poorer countries.
It is not yet clear how their plan to “vaccinate the world” by the end of 2022 will be implemented and whether recipient countries will receive enough doses to fully vaccinate enough people to control viral spread. And the late 2022 goal will not save people in the developing world who are dying of COVID-19 in record numbers now, from Brazil to India.
The HIV/AIDS epidemic shows that ending the coronavirus pandemic will require, first, prioritizing access to COVID-19 vaccines on the global political agenda. Then wealthy nations will need to work with other countries to build their vaccine manufacturing infrastructure, scaling up production worldwide.
Finally, poorer countries need more money to fund their public health systems and purchase vaccines. Wealthy countries and groups like the G-7 can provide that funding.
These actions benefit rich countries, too. As long as the world has unvaccinated populations, COVID-19 will continue to spread and mutate. Additional variants will emerge.
As a May 2021 UNICEF statement put it: “In our interdependent world no one is safe until everyone is safe.”