FEBRUARY 12, 2019

NEWS AND VIEWS

THE KAVANAUGH EFFECT

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-blocks-louisiana-abortion-law-1st-major-ruling-abortion-n968766
Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion law as John Roberts joins liberal justices in 5-4 ruling
The ruling blocks Louisiana from enforcing a law that women's groups said would have left the state with just one doctor allowed to perform abortions.
FEB. 8, 201900:31
Feb. 7, 2019, 9:40 PM EST
By Pete Williams

NEWS VIDEO -- Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked Louisiana from enforcing a law that women's groups said would leave only a single doctor legally allowed to perform abortions in the state.

By a 5-4 vote, the court said the restrictions must remain on hold while challengers appeal a lower court decision in favor of the law. Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the court's liberal members.

It was the Supreme Court's first significant action on the hot-button issue of abortion since Donald Trump's nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, replaced Anthony Kennedy, who generally voted with the court's liberals to uphold abortion rights.

In Thursday's ruling, Kavanaugh voted with the conservatives — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.

Kavanaugh filed a dissent, writing only for himself. He said he would have allowed the law to take effect in order to see whether it would impose a burden on women's access to abortion in the state.

Abortion-rights advocates applauded the court ruling, while opponents expressed disappointment.

“The Supreme Court has stepped in under the wire to protect the rights of Louisiana women,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “The three clinics left in Louisiana can stay open while we ask the Supreme Court to hear our case. This should be an easy case — all that’s needed is a straightforward application of the court’s own precedent.”

Benjamin Clapper, executive director for Louisiana Right to Life, said he was disappointed that the law remains on hold. He said supporters of abortion rights have fought “against every common-sense health standard. This is just another example of the extreme lengths the abortion industry pursues to protect abortion-on-demand.”

The high court's decision Thursday was not a ruling on the legal merits of the Louisiana restriction. But the decision to keep the law on hold signals that a majority of the justices have doubts about its constitutionality.

Passed by the state legislature in 2014, the measure requires any doctor offering abortion services to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Two Louisiana doctors and a clinic filed a legal challenge, arguing that it was identical to a Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. In that ruling, joined by Justice Kennedy, the court said Texas imposed an obstacle on women seeking access to abortion services without providing them any medical benefits.

Image: Chief Justice John Roberts arrives prior to President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech on Capitol Hill on January 28, 2014.Larry Downing / Pool via Getty Images

The Center for Reproductive rights said Louisiana's law would leave only one doctor at a single clinic in New Orleans to perform the procedure, a drastic limitation that "cannot possibly meet the needs of approximately 10,000 women who seek abortion services in Louisiana each year."

But Louisiana officials urged the Supreme Court to let them begin enforcing the law. They said the challengers' claim of harm rested on the fear that clinics would be shut down overnight. "But that is not correct. Louisiana envisions a regulatory process that begins, logically, with collecting information from Louisiana's abortion clinics and their doctors," the state said.

Recommended

POLITICS
Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia

NEWS
Telephone scam artist picked the wrong target — former FBI and CIA director William Webster

The Supreme Court's 2016 ruling, in a case called Whole Women's Health, said requiring abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges was medically unnecessary, given that only a tiny fraction of abortions in the first trimester require hospitalization. By contrast the Texas law caused half the abortion clinics in the state to shut down, forcing women to endure longer travel and increased wait times.

It was the most important abortion ruling in 25 years and blocked similar restrictions in Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

The court’s action Thursday came in a brief unsigned order with no written opinion, so none of the five justices who voted to block enforcement of the Louisiana law explained their reasoning.

Roberts was among the dissenters when the court struck down the Texas law. But the court ruled that it was unconstitutional, and his vote Thursday was consistent with that holding.

In response to the lawsuit over Louisiana's identical law, a federal judge said it was likely unconstitutional and issued a stay, blocking its enforcement. But a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted to lift the stay. In a 2-1 ruling, the court said Louisiana's law would present far less of an obstacle than the Texas law would have. Less than one-third of Louisiana women seeking an abortion would face even the potential of longer wait times, the court said.

The appeals court concluded that the Louisiana law would not impose an "undue burden" on access to abortion, which has been the Supreme Court's key legal test for challenges to abortion restrictions for nearly three decades. The lower court's ruling was to have gone into effect February 4, but the Supreme Court put it on hold, giving itself more time to decide what to do.

Kavanaugh said that because Louisiana promised to put the law into effect gradually, he would have waited to see how many doctors were able to get hospital admitting privileges. So far, he said, the two sides in the case have offered only "competing predictions" about its effect.

The stay on enforcement of the law will remain until the challengers bring their full appeal to the Supreme Court. If the court agrees to hear the case, the stay would remain until it issues its decision, which would happen sometime late this year or early in 2020.


Pete Williams
Pete Williams is an NBC News correspondent who covers the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, based in Washington.


NEWS VIDEOS ON ABORTION CLINIC RULES

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/02/08/supreme-court-blocks-abortion-clinic-regulations-louisiana-intv-cpt-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/ VIDEO 3:03


I DO HOPE THAT THIS ISN’T ANOTHER DISEASE THAT WILL BE MADE MORE PREVALENT WITH GLOBAL WARMING. IT CAN INFECT A SURPRISING SET OF ANIMALS, BUT NOT, I NOTICE YOUR KITTY CAT. DOG, PIG, CATTLE, GOATS, AND PEOPLE. FOR TWO OTHER GOOD ARTICLES ON THE ILLNESS ITSELF IN HUMANS, GO TO: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/brucellosis/symptoms-causes/syc-20351738. IT DOESN’T USUALLY KILL, BUT CAN BECOME CHRONIC AND SETTLE IN CERTAIN ORGANS, INCLUDING THE HEART, THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, AND THE LIVER. NOT A NICE DISEASE!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/02/12/infected-raw-milk-pa-farm-reached-people-19-states-cdc-says/2849261002/
Raw milk infected with Brucella potentially exposed to people in 19 states, CDC says
Sean Rossman, USA TODAY Published 3:11 p.m. ET Feb. 12, 2019 | Updated 4:06 p.m. ET Feb. 12, 2019

PHOTOGRAPH -- jug of milk with an old country table, a white drink is poured into a glass (Photo: Chepko, Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Federal and state health officials are investigating an outbreak of raw milk tainted with Brucella, a drug-resistant bacteria which can cause serious complications such as heart problems, arthritis and miscarriage.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says people in 19 states have bought or consumed the raw milk from Miller's Biodiversity Farm, a members-only club in Quarryville, Pennsylvania, that sells dairy products to its members.

The CDC advises people to toss any raw milk or raw milk products from the farm. People who used such products from the farm since January 2016 may have been exposed and should talk to their doctor, the CDC stated. The infection can strike up to six months after exposure, meaning people who drank or ate the raw milk products within that time frame should monitor their health for symptoms, which include fever, fatigue, loss of appetite and muscle and joint pain.

Authorities connected the farm to a Brucellosis infection (also called Mediterranean fever) in New York in November. An "unknown number" of people could have been exposed.

More: Got 'Milk!'? Mark Kurlansky's latest food history goes down smoothly

Raw milk, which skips the disease-killing pasteurization process, is favored by those who want more natural and unprocessed foods. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says raw milk can expose people to food-borne illness.

The strain under investigation, RB51, is used in a vaccine in order to protect against more severe forms of Brucella. The bacteria can sometimes make its way into the milk of a vaccinated cow, which can cause those who drink it to develop brucellosis. One cow now removed from the herd tested positive for RB51.

Miller's Biodiversity Farm did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The strain is resistant to first-line drugs, the CDC states, and it's difficult to diagnose because early symptoms resemble the flu.

More: Chicken recall: 100,000 pounds recalled, due to misbranding, undeclared allergen

Two RB51 raw milk outbreaks occurred in 2017 in New Jersey and Texas.

States where people purchased the raw milk products include the following: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia.


INFECTION AND TREATMENT

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/brucellosis-symptoms-treatment#1
What Is Brucellosis?

BRUCELLOSIS is an infectious disease caused by a type of bacteria called Brucella. The bacteria can spread from animals to humans.

There are several different strains of Brucella bacteria. Some types are seen in cows. Others occur in dogs, pigs, sheep, goats, and camels. Recently, scientists have seen new strains in the red fox and certain marine animals, including seals. Brucella in animals cannot be cured.

Brucellosis is rare in the U.S. because of effective animal disease control programs. Fewer than 200 people get sick with the disease each year in the U.S. It is most often seen in the spring and summer months in:

Texas
California
Virginia
Florida

Brucellosis is considered a significant health threat in other parts of the world. The disease has been reported in more than a half-million people each year in 100 countries, according to the World Health Organization.

What Causes Brucellosis?
Brucellosis in humans occurs when a person comes into contact with an animal or animal product infected with the Brucella bacteria.

Very rarely, the bacteria may spread from person to person. Breastfeeding moms with brucellosis may pass the bacteria to their baby. Brucella may also be spread through sexual contact.

The bacteria can enter your body:

Through a cut or scratch in the skin
When you breathe in contaminated air (rare)
When you eat or drink something contaminated with the bacteria, such as unpasteurized milk or undercooked meat
Four types of Brucella bacteria cause the majority of brucellosis infections in humans:

B. melitensis . This type causes most cases of human brucellosis and is mainly found in sheep and goats. It is most often seen in:

Spain
Greece
Latin America
Middle East
India

B. suis . This infection found in wild pigs is the most common type of Brucella seen in the U.S. Brucellosis due to this strain most often occurs in the Southeast and California. It also occurs in Europe, South America, and Southeast Asia.

B. canis. The infection from this type of bacteria spreads from dogs. It is most often seen in:

North, Central, and South America
Japan
Central Europe
B. abortus . This infection comes from cattle. It occurs worldwide. It has been wiped outin several European countries, Japan, Israel, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

How Is Brucellosis Diagnosed?
Your doctor will examine you. You may have:

A swollen liver
Swollen lymph nodes
A swollen spleen
Unexplained fever
Joint swelling and pain
A rash

Blood tests will be done to diagnose the infection and determine what type of Brucella is making you sick. Proper identification of the bacteria helps pinpoint the source of the infection.

How Is Brucellosis Treated?

Brucellosis can be difficult to treat. If you have brucellosis, your doctor will prescribe antibiotics. Antibiotics commonly used to treat brucellosis include:

doxycycline (Acticlate, Monodox, Vibra-Tabs, Vibramycin)
streptomycin
ciprofloxacin (Cipro) or ofloxacin (Floxin)
rifampin (Rifadin, Rimactane)
sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (Bactrim)
tetracycline (Sumycin)

You will generally be given doxycycline and rifampin a in combination for 6-8 weeks.

You must take the antibiotics for many weeks to prevent the disease from returning. The rate of relapse following treatment is about 5-15% and usually occurs within the first six months after treatment.

Recovery can take weeks, even months. Patients who receive treatment within one month of the start of symptoms can be cured of the disease.

What Are the Complications of Brucellosis?
Severe brucellosis may cause:

Infection of the central nervous system
Endocarditis (infection of the lining of the heart or valves)
Liver abscess
Brucellosis can cause long-lasting symptoms that are similar to systemic exertion intolerance disease. SEID is formerly known as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. The symptoms can lead to disability. They may include:

Fatigue
Fevers that come and go
Joint pain
Brucellosis in a pregnant woman may lead to:

Miscarriage
Birth defects in the baby

Death from brucellosis is uncommon. Most brucellosis-related deaths are due to endocarditis.

How Can I Prevent Brucellosis?
Brucellosis may be prevented with the following steps:

Do not drink or eat unpasteurized dairy products.
Wear rubber gloves if you work in the animal processing industry.
If you have come in contact with an animal infected with Brucella, tell your health care provider -- even if you do not have symptoms. You will need to be monitored for at least six months. There is no effective human vaccine to prevent brucellosis.

WebMD Medical Reference Reviewed by Jennifer Robinson, MD on December 20, 2018
Sources © 2018 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved.


THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS FROM THE NATION, WHICH I HAVE SEARCHED FOR BIAS. IT IS ONE NOTCH TO THE LEFT OF CENTER, BUT TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE ACCORDING TO: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-nation-institute/. THIS IS THE WHOLE REPORT.

“These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: The Nation Institute is a nonprofit media organization associated with The Nation magazine. It sponsors fellows, host forums, publishes, and is involved in awards for journalism. The Nation Institute is always well sourced and factual. There is a left-center bias in story choices and occasionally with wording. (12/4/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 7/4/2017)

Source: http://www.nationinstitute.org/”


THIS EXCELLENT ARTICLE FROM THE NATION IS A WRAP-UP OF THE CENTRAL NEED IN THE USA TODAY.

https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-progressive-estate-tax-teddy-roosevelt/
Bernie Sanders Is About as Radical on Tax Policy as Teddy Roosevelt
When the senator proposes a 77 percent tax on the value of an estate above $1 billion, he’s talking about renewing American values.
By John NicholsTwitter TODAY 5:58 PM

PHOTOGRAPH -- Senator Bernie Sanders responds to a question during a town-hall meeting in Jackson, Mississippi, on April 4, 2018. (AP Photo / Rogelio V. Solis)

“The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes.”

That’s what Teddy Roosevelt proposed in his agenda-setting “New Nationalism” speech from 1910, when he prodded the United States toward a fuller embrace of progressive reform. As a former president who was preparing to again bid for the position, Roosevelt opened a conversation about tax policy in order to frame a broader debate about at least some of the values that should guide American progress.

At the heart of Roosevelt’s agenda was a specific form of taxation. While progressive taxation in a general sense was desirable and necessary, Roosevelt was particularly enthusiastic about “another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective—a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”

Teddy Roosevelt, it should be noted, was a Republican who possessed considerable wealth of his own. He was a flawed figure who let down the progressive cause at many turns and never matched the courageous domestic and foreign policy vision advanced by his rival for leadership of the progressive movement, Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette. But Roosevelt recognized that taxing inherited wealth not merely to collect revenues but to preserve and extend democracy.

“One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege.“ — Teddy Roosevelt, 1910

“The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power,” he explained. “The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise.”

Roosevelt’s critics may have characterized him as a radical, but he was never as radical (or as right) as La Follette. Roosevelt was, however, conscious of the threats posed to the American experiment by the rapid consolidation wealth and power. And he knew that progressive taxation could be used to address those threats.

Bernie Sanders knows this, as well. That’s why Sanders is proposing a progressive estate tax on the fortunes of the top 0.2 percent of Americans. The senator from Vermont’s newly introduced “For the 99.8% Act” would collect $2.2 trillion from 588 billionaires.

“At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when the three richest Americans own more wealth than 160 million Americans, it is literally beyond belief that the Republican leadership wants to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the top 0.2 percent,” argues Sanders. “Our bill does what the American people want by substantially increasing the estate tax on the wealthiest families in this country and dramatically reducing wealth inequality. From a moral, economic, and political perspective our nation will not thrive when so few have so much and so many have so little.”

Sanders is widely expected to bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. If he does so, Sanders will not be the only contender with a bold plan to tax the rich. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, for instance, has a plan to levy a 2 percent tax on the assets of wealthy Americans with more than $50 million. From those with over $1 billion, she’d demand an additional 1 percent.

The Democrats who seek to dislodge Donald Trump in 2020 will all need to make tax policy a priority. Republicans have for so long practiced reverse Robin Hood politics—take from the poor and give to the rich—that the promised Democrats make will be unobtainable without the infusion of revenues that comes from taxing the wealthy. Changing tax policy also infuses governing with democracy, as it dials down the influence of specially interested billionaires (such as the Koch brothers) and their corporations.

What is notable about the Sanders plan is that, with his proposal to establish a 77 percent tax on the value of an estate above $1 billion, the senator is merely seeking “a return to the top rate from 1941 through 1976.”

SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM
If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nation’s work.

Sanders is proposing an approach that renews American values, as notes University of California–Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez. “The estate tax was a key pillar of the progressive tax revolution that the United States ushered one century ago. It prevented self-made wealth from turning into inherited wealth and helped make America more equal,” explains Saez. “However, the estate tax is dying of neglect, as tax avoidance schemes are multiplying and left unchallenged. As wealth concentration is surging in the United States, it is high time to revive the estate tax, plug the loopholes, and make it more progressive. Senator Sanders’ bill is a bold and welcome leap forward in this direction.”

Teddy Roosevelt understood this economic calculus, and this democratic imperative.

“In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next,” the Republican president explained in 1910. “One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows. That is what you fought for in the Civil War, and that is what we strive for now.”


John NicholsTWITTERJohn Nichols is The Nation’s national-affairs correspondent. He is the author of Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America, from Nation Books, and co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy.

To submit a correction for our consideration, click here.
For Reprints and Permissions, click here.


http://www.msnbc.com/maddowblog

Senator Cory Booker talks 2020 with Rachel Tuesday, 2/11 9pm ET
Senator Cory Booker talks 2020 with Rachel Tuesday, 2/11 9pm ET
02/11/19 09:59PM
Rachel Maddow alerts viewers that she will host newly declared presidential candidate Senator Cory Booker live in the studio on Tuesday, February 11 at 9pm ET. watch

Klobuchar on staff mistreatment reports: I have high expectations
02/11/19 09:40PM
Rachel Maddow talks with Senator Amy Klobuchar about the criticism that she is too nice to run for president, too demanding of her staff, and how she has prepared herself for the inevitable harsh press coverage that inevitably comes with running for president. watch

Trump border wall hype met by significant resistance in El Paso
Trump border wall hype met by significant resistance in El Paso
02/11/19 09:03PM
Against a backdrop of breaking news in negotiations over border security funding, Rachel Maddow reports on the March For Truth rally led by Beto O'Rourke in El Paso, Texas, organized to counter Donald Trump's nearby rally for his border wall agenda. watch

Denver school teachers walk out on first day of strike
Denver school teachers walk out on first day of strike
02/11/19 09:02PM
Rachel Maddow reports on the start of a strike by Denver school teachers who have walked out asking for better, more stable pay, among other demands. watch