The Hill Op-Ed Piece Calls for FDA to Lift Medication Abortion Regulations

On April 27, The Hill published an opinion piece entitled “The UK Allows Home Use of the Abortion Pill– the US Should Do the Same” by Susan F. Wood, former FDA assistant commissioner for Women’s Health and a professor of health and policy management at George Washington University, and Cynthia A. Pearson, executive director of the National Women’s Health Network. This story summarizes their piece. Read the full piece here.

  • At the end of March, the UK authorized physicians to provide medication abortion through telemedicine through the duration of the coronavirus crisis.
  • Abortion is a common, necessary, and time-sensitive health care procedure. Medication abortion is done by ingesting two pills– mifepristone and misoprostol. This method is safe and effective for early pregnancies.
  • The US Food and Drug Administration has restrictions on medication abortion that prohibit pharmacies from carrying mifepristone, requiring clinics, medical offices, or hospitals to dispense the medication.
  • In light of the pandemic, the FDA “should allow pregnant people to get the pill where they take the pill– at home, and not require them to make an unnecessary and risky visit to a clinic”. They have the legal authority to lift these restrictions. 
  • There is no time for lawsuits or campaigns. The FDA should follow the UK’s lead– by expanding abortion access, we protect public health.

Source: The Hill 4/27/20

Women in Academia Struggle in the Wake of COVID-19

Women seem to be submitting comparatively fewer papers for review to academic journals as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Elizabeth Hannon, deputy editor of the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, noted a “negligible number of submissions to the journal from women in the last month.” Anna Watts remarked upon the makeup of papers posted to a preprint science archive: “Feeling like the arXiv has skewed heavily male the last few weeks.” David Samuels, co-editor of Comparative Political Studies, said that while women’s submissions are the same in April 2020 as April 2019, men’s submissions went up 50% from year to year.

Einat Lev, an associate research professor of seismology at Columbia University, recalled hearing from a male colleague who said that the current pandemic, with resulting stay-at-home orders, “gives me time to concentrate on writing.” She said her experience couldn’t be different: she can only work 4 hours a day instead of her usual 10 with her 7-year-old daughter at home.

These anecdotes provide a look into how the novel coronavirus and existing issues with unpaid labor collide to further gender inequality. An Oxfam study released earlier this year stated that if women were paid the minimum wage for unpaid labor, such as care of family members and routine housework, the sum would total $10.9 trillion. Now, women are facing unprecedented amounts of unpaid labor due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is cutting into their professional opportunities, draining their mental health and more.

For women in academia, these effects might be proving more severe, given goals around tenure. University of California assistant professor Whitney Pirtle took a one-year extension on her tenure track clock, offered by her university, but even that comes rife with professional uncertainties. Tenure evaluators might count taking an extension as having more time at home to be productive. If there’s a recession in a year, her department might cut its budget and other universities might not be hiring. Men already benefit from such “stop the clock” policies in the case of having a baby, with studies showing that they accomplish more with a year off than women do.

A possible solution? Recognition of the difficulties that coronavirus presented academics, attached to tenure applications. Leslie Gonzales, professor of education administration at Michigan State University, said of that goal: ““We essentially want to say, ‘Hey, this was a big deal for a lot of people.’”

Sources: Elizabeth Hannon 04/18/20; Anna Watts 04/21/20; David Samuels 04/18/20; The Lily 04/24/20; Oxfam 01/19/20.

Pandemic Will Be First of Many If Climate Change is Not Addressed Immediately

Recent reports by the World Health Organization state that human activity leading to climate change greatly affects the prevalence and spread of infectious diseases like the novel coronavirus that has thrown the world into a state of crisis.

As humans continue to degrade the planet’s natural processes and systems life as we know it at risk. Deforestation, limitless growth of agriculture and farming, mining, land development, urbanization, and exploitation of wild plants and animals have allowed for disease outbreaks like COVID-19. These activities bring humans into closer contact with each other and with wild animals, from which 70% of emerging human diseases come, according to a planetary health check published by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in 2019.

Human-caused changes to the environment leading to disease outbreaks are not a new phenomenon. The Ebola outbreak corresponded with agricultural deforestation in West Africa which led to habitat loss for bats carrying the virus. SARS and COVID-19 were also carried by bats faced with habitat loss and climate change. The swine flu epidemic came about due to confined animal feeding operations. Rising global temperatures lead to more extreme weather events which are predicted to cause changes across the planet, including the intensity and frequency of infectious diseases. West Nile virus first appeared in North America after a period of heavy rainfall and high temperatures in 1999.

The health of people is irrevocably intertwined with that of wildlife, livestock, and the environment. Large areas of undisturbed natural habitats serve as natural protective buffers between humans and wildlife. Thriving ecosystems can help stop the spread of disease outbreaks, while disrupted ecosystems can make us more vulnerable to disease.

Leading experts warn that coronavirus is likely to be followed by even deadlier and more frequent pandemics if we do not immediately change the way we interact with the planet. Scientists are recommending that pandemic relief packages be used to bolster and defend environmental protection rather than be used to loosen climate regulations and support agriculture, airlines, and fossil-fuel-dependent energy sectors.

While humans are responsible for the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, there is a small window of opportunity as we address this pandemic to prevent future ones. Governments are recommended to take drastic and radical actions to put the planet over profits following this pandemic. Investment in both environmental protections and health services are crucial components of both preventing and being prepared for future pandemics. UN Secretary General António Guterres said that governments and countries must “build back better” after the pandemic using more ecological societal practices. As the UN climate chief, Inger Andersen, advised following the outbreak of COVID-19, “If we don’t take care of nature, we can’t take care of ourselves.’

Sources: The Guardian 04/27/20, 03/25/20, NPR WYFI 03/24/20, Greenpeace 04/10/20, World Health Organization 2003

Heartburn Drug Being Studied as Treatment for COVID-19

Hospitals in New York have begun testing famotidine, the active drug in the over-the-counter heartburn medication Pepcid, as a possible treatment for COVID-19 with early results anticipated in the next few weeks.

“There are many examples in the history of medicine where a drug that was designed for one purpose turns out to have an effect in another disease,” said Dr. Kevin Tracey, president of Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health, which runs 23 hospitals in New York City.

Medical experts have called attention to the drug after infectious disease doctor Michael Callahan of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston noticed low-income COVID-19 patients in China who were taking famotidine were faring better than wealthier patients who were taking a more expensive version of the drug. While the official results of the study in China have not been published, patients taking famotidine seemed to be dying at a rate of about 14% versus 27% for those not taking the drug.

To date, 187 patients have been enrolled in the study, with a goal of 1,200 total participants. Patients are taking large doses of famotidine intravenously—about 9 times the normal amount used to treat heartburn.

“You should not go to the drugstore and take a bunch of heartburn medicine,” cautions Tracey.

A computer model used by Alchem Laboratories also put famotidine at the top of a list of existing drugs that could potentially combat coronavirus. Tracey said that theoretically famotidine could potentially stop the virus from replicating in the same way that protease inhibitors are used to treat HIV.

Sources: CNN 4/27/20; Science Magazine 4/2020

Kentucky Governor Vetoes Anti-Abortion Bill

On Friday, April 24, Kentucky Governor Andrew Beshear vetoed Senate Bill 9, which aimed to grant the state’s attorney general the power to restrict abortion access during the coronavirus pandemic, and require physicians to attempt to “preserve the life of any infant born after an attempted abortion”

The governor stated in his veto message that Kentucky already has protections in place to ensure children are given life-saving medical care when they are born. He also stated that bills similar to the bill have been struck down as unconstitutional “in the majority of states in America where challenged”. 

He added that during the coronavirus emergency, it is not the time to introduce “a divisive set of lawsuits that reduce our unity and our focus on defeating the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and restarting our economy”.

Senate Bill 9 states that “a physician performing an abortion shall take all medically appropriate and reasonable steps to preserve the life and health of a born-alive infant,” and that violations could lead to suspension or revocation of the license of any health care professional who violates. 

The bill also expanded the power of the Kentucky attorney general by granting the ability to sue abortion clinics to “prevent, penalize, and remedy violations” of abortion regulations. The major purpose of the bill is to reduce abortion access.

While some Kentucky conservatives believe that abortion should fall under the Governor’s March mandate restricting elective surgeries, abortion is, in reality, an essential, time-sensitive health care procedure. 

Kentucky AG David Cameron called for the Governor to include abortion care as an elective surgery, but Beshear stated that the decision is up to “our health professionals to determine what falls in the elective or the essential”. Several states have issued similar mandates, arguing for the need to conserve hospital resources. These laws face legal challenges from abortion providers and national abortion rights groups, including the Feminist Majority Foundation.

 

Sources: The Hill 4/24/20; Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor 4/24/20; Kentucky General Assembly 4/24/20; Kentucky.gov 4/16/20; YouTube 3/26/20; CNN 4/27/20; Feminist Newswire 4/22/20

Afghanistan Remaining a Republic is “Non-Negotiable”

In a virtual event on the intra-Afghan talks at the United States Institute of Peace, Habiba Sarabi emphasized that for Afghan women, negotiating on the structure of the government is “non-negotiable.” Habiba Sarabi, the former governor of Bamiyan province in Afghanistan is one of five women on the team representing the Afghanistan government, formed to negotiate peace with the Taliban.

During her remarks at the virtual event, she repeatedly emphasized on the importance of Afghanistan remaining a republic. She said that, “I have travelled to many parts of the country and have met with many women and one issue is clear: the issue of [Afghanistan remaining a] republic is non-negotiable.”

She explained that in a republic, all citizens are “equal” and that is “very important for women.” Sarabi said Afghanistan remaining a republic is “important for our freedom and for our rights.” She continued that under the republic, “I can nominate or represent myself to become a leader.” She would not be allowed to represent or lead under an emirate. Sarabi also said that she has traveled to many parts of the country and has learned that “the people of Afghanistan recognize the difference between an emirate and a republic, especially women cannot accept an emirate and to go backwards.”

The Taliban has insisted that Afghanistan become an “Emirate,” which gives power to a limited group of individuals. The small group of ultra-conservative individuals would have the authority to issue decrees and rules which the people must obey. An emirate also does not support elections or the representation of people from all backgrounds. The small group of conservative religious leaders would decide on who should be the leader.

When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan in the late 90s, it was an emirate, which was only recognized by three states in the world – Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. Sarabi also challenged their insistence on the emirate that, “if it was a favorable form of governing, why did the rest of the world not recognize their government?”

The panelists also included the leader of the Afghan negotiating team, Masoum Stanekzai.  Stanekzai who has performed in multiple capacities in the Afghan government for the past nearly 20 years also insisted on the republic and its importance for the future of Afghanistan and the Afghan people. In his remarks he said that, “the issue of republic is the wish of the Afghan people. We cannot bring an artificial dictator to rule the country.”

 

Source: USIP, 4/22/20

Students Have Fundamental Right to Literacy, Appeals Court Says

A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that students in Detroit have a right to a “basic minimum education” ensuring literacy.

Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al. was filed by students on behalf of students in the Detroit Public Schools system. It argued that conditions in the schools had deprived them of a basic education that allows a chance at foundational literacy. The 2016 case was based on the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses, and noted factors that contributed to poor conditions in the school district, including “missing or unqualified teachers, physically dangerous facilities, and inadequate books and materials.” The defendants were Michigan state officials and argued that Michigan district leaders should have been those sued; they also claimed that there was no fundamental right to access to literacy. A federal district court found the defendants the proper targets but dismissed the students’ claims on merit in 2018.

The case then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which in this 2-1 decision effectively sent the lawsuit will now be sent back to a federal judge in Detroit for further review.

“Every meaningful interaction between a citizen and the state is predicated on a minimum level of literacy, meaning that access to literacy is necessary to access our political process,” wrote Judge Eric Clay in a majority opinion.

Judge Eric Murphy dissented, writing that, “I see nothing in the complaint that gives federal judges the power to oversee Detroit’s schools in the name of the United States Constitution.”

The case only applies to students in Detroit, but it joins a new movement for educational equity based on literacy claims. Ella T. v. State of California, decided in February, mandated that state officials must introduce legislation that will establish a $50 million block grant program to develop high-quality literacy programs for California’s 75 lowest-performing schools. Law professor Derek Black noted, “If replicated, [the Detroit] ruling could raise the level of education for disadvantaged students across the nation.”

Mark Rosenbaum, who worked with both the Detroit students and the California students to bring the lawsuits, said, “It sends a powerful statement across the country. It’s a victory for all children who deserve a basic, minimal education.”

Sources: Washington Post 04/24/20; NBC 04/23/20; Washington Post 02/23/20.

 

Anti-Vaccine Groups Join Anti-Lockdown Protesters in Government Criticism

Across the United States, anti-vaccine protesters are leveraging anti-government sentiment sparked by the COVID-19 response to advance their cause. The right wing of the anti-vaccine movement is a natural ally for anti-lockdown protesters due to their shared distrust of government authority. These anti-vaccine activists applaud President Trump’s suggestion that COVID-19 is not dangerous enough to justify staying home at the expense of the economic disruption.

The anti-vaccine movement is perhaps taking this opportunity to recover from recent setbacks. Many states have reinforced their immunization laws to combat measles outbreaks triggered by anti-vaccine individuals. In California, these measures were met with aggressive protests–at one event, anti-vaccine protesters threw blood on California state senators and assaulted a bill’s sponsor.

Still, reluctance regarding a future COVID-19 vaccine is not limited to the far right. The left wing of the anti-vaccine movement denounces vaccines’ use of chemical pollutants, support of corporations, and bolstering of “Big Pharma.” Many express hesitancy to accept a COVID-19 vaccine that may be rushed in production and testing. For example, anti-vaccine groups point to the 1976 swine flu vaccine that caused 1 in 100,000 people to develop Guillain-Barre syndrome, a paralyzing immune system disorder.

Although the vast majority of Americans support vaccination and pro-vaccine legislation, the World Health Organization (WHO) considers “vaccine hesitancy” to be a top health threat because, depending on the disease, at least 75% to 95% of the population needs to be vaccinated to guarantee the safety of an entire population.

Nevertheless, 70 candidate COVID-19 vaccines are currently in development, with three in clinical evaluation.

Kaiser Health News, 4/24/20; Reuters 4/11/20; The Guardian, 4/21/20

Health Department Official Fired For Speaking Out Against Hydroxychloroquine

Rick Bright, the official who previously led the federal agency involved in working to develop a coronavirus vaccine was removed from his position after urging caution and research before advocating for hydroxychloroquine.

As the Trump administration pushed for the anti-malaria drug to be used in treating patients with coronavirus, Dr. Bright denounced these actions as putting “politics and cronyism ahead of science.” Bright was then dismissed from his role of director of Department of Health and Human Services’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), as well as removed from his position as deputy assistant secretary for preparedness and response. He was given a “narrower job” at the National Institutes of Health.

Following his removal, Dr. Bright, who earned his Ph.D. in both immunology and molecular pathogenesis from Emory University, released a statement criticizing the leadership of the health department. In this statement, Dr. Bright explained that he had been pressured to direct money towards hydroxychloroquine, “one of several potentially dangerous drugs promoted by those political connections,” though described by the president and members of his administration as a “game changer” in the search for a cure for the virus.

“I believe this transfer was in response to my insistence that the government invest the billions of dollars allocated by Congress to address the Covid-19 pandemic into safe and scientifically vetted solutions, and not in drugs, vaccines and other technologies that lack scientific merit.” Dr Bright concluded, “I am speaking out because to combat this deadly virus, science-not politics or cronyism-has to lead the way.”

Encouragement surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine came as the death toll in the United States began to rapidly climb, but there is no hard evidence that shows the drug is effective against COVID-19.

Sources: NY Times 04/22/2020; NY Times 04/23/2020

Mass Incarceration, Mandatory Prison Labor Could Lead to Huge Coronavirus Death Toll

United States prisons and jails could become major sites of coronavirus outbreaks, warn public health experts, correctional staff, and prison reform advocates. According to a study conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), unless prison and jail populations are “dramatically and immediately reduced,” 100,000 more people than currently projected could die of COVID-19.

The ACLU’s projected coronavirus death toll is twice as high as the estimates from the federal government due to jails acting as “veritable volcanoes for the spread of the virus.”  The organization argues that the spread of COVID-19 in jails will lead to significant deaths both behind bars and in communities via jail staff and released prisoners unless counties significantly reduce their jail populations. “We are likely facing a massive loss of life, both in jails and in communities around the country, if dramatic steps aren’t taken to reduce the incarcerated population in this country,” said Udi Ofer, director of the ACLU’s Justice Division.

The ACLU’s model uses data from 1,200 midsize and large jails around the country housing 740,000 people. The study does not include state and federal prisons, which have already seen COVID-19 outbreaks. In Ohio, over 1,900 inmates at the Marion Correctional Institution have tested positive for COVID-19. So far, at least 23 inmates have died from COVID-19 in federal prisons.

To limit the spread of the coronavirus, the Bureau of Prisons has ordered all federal prisoners to be kept in their cells. However, some prison factories have remained operational despite the lockdown to produce materials for the military. “There’s no social distancing. It’s like what you see when you have a big exposé at some sweatshop in China,” said Kareen Troitino, a correctional worker in Miami. “We’re being made to keep producing these military jackets, which are not necessary at this moment. It’s just pure greed.”

States are using incarcerated people to produce supplies for their pandemic response efforts, including face shields, cotton masks, gowns, and hand sanitizer. Inmates at Albion Correctional Facility, a medium-security women’s prison in New York, work on an assembly line for $4 per day producing hand sanitizer for the state to distribute to healthcare workers and government officials. They do not have reliable access to disinfectant or soap and are not being given face masks, despite working in close quarters. “We are given no choice. If we refuse to come into the factory, we are threatened with disciplinary action,” said Sandra Brown, one of the women incarcerated at Albion. “It’s as if our lives don’t matter.”

Public health experts warn that these prison assembly lines are a perfect environment for COVID-19 to spread among incarcerated people. “That is a recipe for disaster,” said Gavin Yamey, director of Duke University’s Center for Policy Impact in Global Health. “They are already more vulnerable because of prison conditions, and now we are compelling them to put themselves at even higher risk.”

Sources: The Washington Post 4/21/20; ABC News 4/22/20; The Guardian 4/22/20

Texas Governor’s Executive Order Banning Abortion Expires

Tuesday night, Texas’ Republican Governor Greg Abbott’s March 21 executive order expired. The order had been the object of weeks of legal debate over the classification of medication and procedural abortion as a ‘non-essential’ medical procedure during the COVID-19 crisis.

On Wednesday, Gov. Abbott announced a new executive order, allowing certain medical procedures to resume, given they do not require significant hospital space and/or request excessive personal protective equipment from public sources. The new order will be in effect until May 8.

Gov. Abbott did not specify whether or not abortion was included in the group of medical procedures, suggesting that courts would be responsible for the final decision. Texas’ abortion providers unilaterally interpreted the new order as allowing at least medication abortion–which requires little medical attention and/or protective gear–to resume. State attorneys did not challenge their interpretation.

Whole Woman’s Health, an operator of independent abortion clinics in Texas, will proceed with medication and procedural abortion in its Fort Worth, Austin, and McAllen clinics this week. However, some other abortion providers are exercising more caution with their policy changes, wary of the state posing further obstacles to abortion access in the coming weeks. Many are reminding patients that their new appointments may be altered, and/or only offering medication abortions—the procedure that has remained at the center of the legal battle.

Pro-choice organizations have focused efforts on challenging similar bans in Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee. After the Texas order, pro-choice advocates and judges have successfully lifted bans—at least partially—in every state but Arkansas.

Sources: CBS News, 4/22/20; The Dallas Morning News, 4/22/20; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 4/22/20

Acute Hunger on the Rise Due to COVID-19, Reports United Nations

According to the United Nations, over a quarter of a billion people could starve due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unless providing food and humanitarian aid becomes a priority fast, these millions of people in the most at-risk regions could die.

Approximately 130 million people were estimated to have suffered from lack of food last year. This year’s numbers could double, and around 265 million people across the globe are at risk of suffering from acute food shortages. “Covid-19 is potentially catastrophic for millions who are already hanging by a thread,” said Dr. Arif Husain, chief economist at the World Food Programme. Dr. Husain also pointed to how nation-wide lockdowns and economic crises affect those who can only eat if they can work and called for collective action.

A report put out by the World Food Programme, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and 14 other organizations discussed how global hunger is shaping up to be the next big outcome of the COVID-19 crisis. The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, called for the political will to address this issue. “At this time of immense global challenges, from conflicts to climate shocks to economic instability, we must redouble our efforts to defeat hunger and malnutrition. We have the tools and the knowhow. What we need is political will and sustained commitment by leaders and nations,” he wrote at the beginning of the report.

The report investigates healthcare systems and services in developing countries that are becoming even more overwhelmed by the pandemic as well as the disruption of food supply chains. The informal economy and refugees will be among those who are the most hard hit.

Sources: NPR, 4/21/20; Global Report on Food Crises, 2020; The Guardian, 4/21/20.

 

Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms Urges People to Stay Home Despite Governor’s Mandate

Earlier this week, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp issued a statement that the state would reopen certain nonessential businesses beginning this Friday, April 24, including hair salons, gyms, bowling alleys, and tattoo parlors.

Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms has been vocal in urging those in Atlanta– and the state at large– to continue staying home despite the Governor’s decision to reopen businesses.

While Bottoms’ power does not supersede Kemp’s, she is using her voice to encourage Georgians to “Follow the data, look at the science, listen to the health care professionals and use your common sense.”

“Simply because we have hospital beds available doesn’t mean that we should work to fill them up,” the Atlanta Mayor said.

I hope he’s right and I’m wrong. Because if he’s wrong, more people will die.”

Bottoms urged residents in Atlanta to use city services, like the food program and the small business loan program, during this difficult time. She added, “there’s nothing essential about going to a bowling alley during a pandemic.”

As of today, the state has confirmed 20,740 cases of coronavirus, including 3,959 hospitalizations and 836 deaths, according to Georgia’s health department.

Sources: AJC 4/22/20; CBS News 4/22/20; Georgia Department of Public Health 4/22/20; Washington Post 4/21/20

Federal Judge Allows Abortions in Oklahoma to Resume Despite COVID-19 Ban

U.S. District Judge Charles Goodwin has just issued a preliminary injunction against Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt’s attempted abortion ban, and is allowing all abortion services to resume on Friday, April 24.

According to a release by the Associated Press, “the injunction ensures that abortions can be performed in Oklahoma while the case continues in federal court” and is able to replace the “temporary restraining order that [Judge Goodwin] issued last week that allowed most abortions to continue.” AP notes that Stitt’s attempted ban comes “as part of a prohibition on elective surgeries aimed at preserving personal protective equipment, such as surgical masks, gowns and gloves, during the public health crisis.”

Stitt’s actions are not isolated, as governors all across the country have been addressing the public health crisis by halting nonessential procedures in order to ensure that they are able to care for an influx of COVID-19 patients. Red states in particular have decided that abortions should be included under that umbrella mandate, ignoring the essential nature of abortion related care and services.

According to Brandon Hill, president and CEO of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, “Abortion is essential, time-sensitive medical care that should not be caught in the crosshairs or political agendas, especially during a public health crisis.” Reproductive health, wellness, and justice groups like Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Center for Reproductive Rights, as well as local lawyers, have been challenging these abortion bans in court in order to advocate for the essentiality of abortion services.

Sources; ABC News 4/21; Associated Press 4/21; The Oklahoman 4/22

Nurses Protest Unsafe Working Conditions and Demand More PPE

Nurses across the country are protesting dangerous working conditions, a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE), and limited access to testing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nurses have reported being sent home for refusing to treat COVID-19 patients without sufficient PPE, being denied tests despite having COVID-19 symptoms, and being fired for publicly criticizing PPE shortages.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 9,000 American healthcare workers have tested positive for COVID-19, a likely underestimate of the actual infection rate. At least 50 nurses have died from the novel coronavirus; members of National Nurses United read their names aloud in a protest in front of the White House on Tuesday. The protesters called for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to establish protective standards for healthcare workers and urged President Trump to use the Defense Production Act to provide more PPE.

In Detroit, nurses at DMC Sinai-Grace Hospital held a sit-in in protest of being assigned unsafe patient loads. In California, nurses at Providence St. John’s Health Center rallied in support of ten nurses who were put on paid leave after refusing to treat COVID-19 patients without sufficient PPE.

In New York, nurses are taking legal action to demand better working conditions. The New York State Nurses Association is suing the state health department and two hospitals for “compromising the health and safety of the nurses” treating COVID-19 patients, partly due to inadequate supplies of PPE. In the lawsuits’ affidavits, over a dozen New York nurses described working on the frontlines of the pandemic with only surgical masks to protect themselves and claimed they were denied COVID-19 tests despite presenting symptoms.

“We were instructed that we could only wear a surgical mask, which is not adequate protection against COVID-19, if the patient presented with a cough,” wrote nurse Pamella Brown-Richardson in her affidavit. “Otherwise we were prohibited from wearing a surgical mask because management believed that doing so could alarm patients.”

When nurses do have access to the more effective N95 protective masks, they are being forced to reuse them. “Right now what’s happening, in hospitals across this country, nurses are being told to reuse their N95 masks, not only their whole shift but for days or weeks on end. That is not safe,” Amirah Sequeira of National Nurses United said. “That is not protecting them, and it is not protecting their patients.”

Nurses are also organizing counter-protests against demonstrations opposing state stay-at-home orders, concerned about potential surges in COVID-19 infections that could follow a relaxation of social distancing measures. “We don’t think we have enough equipment in all the hospitals in PA to take care of all the patients that are going to be coming in based on us getting a surge,” said Katrina Rectenwald, a nurse who counter-protested in Pennsylvania.

Sources: The Washington Post 4/21/20; NBC News 4/20/20, 4/21/20; USA Today 4/21/20

Dr. Ruth B. Mandel: A Life of Extraordinary Service

Dr. Ruth B. Mandel, a tireless advocate for women’s rights, died on April 11 at the age of 81 due to ovarian cancer.

Mandel was born in Vienna, Austria, to Mechel and Lea Blumenstock. Her parents fled with her when she was nine months old from Nazi Germany, setting sail on the SS St. Louis from Hamburg to Cuba in May 1939. They and the others on the ship were forced to return to Europe. Mandel’s family was accepted into England and moved to the United States in 1947.

Mandel’s experience as a survivor of the Holocaust informed the rest of her life, as she said in an interview in 2015: “My interest in politics didn’t come out of a political party. It came much more out of a family background of escaping from the Holocaust and thinking that unless we had good government and good democracy and the world got to be a better place none of us would make it through.”

She earned a B.A. in English from Brooklyn College in 1960 and a Ph.D. in English and American Literature from the University of Connecticut in 1969. She taught at the University of Pittsburgh and Rider College before going to Rutgers University in 1971 with her then-husband, Barrett Mandel.

She joined the Eagleton Institute of Politics first as a volunteer for the Center for American Women in Politics (CAWP), then as a director of the CAWP, then as a director of Eagleton itself. At the time of her joining, the CAWP was studying the developing field of women in politics. With Mandel’s leadership, it became “the leading source of scholarly research and current data about American women’s political participation.” Mandel herself was a respected source of wisdom about the topic, authoring the first comprehensive book about the experiences of women in politics at the time, “In the Running: The New Woman Candidate.” At the time of her death, she was a professor of politics and senior scholar at the CAWP, having stepped down in August 2019 from her role as director of Eagleton.

She was active in the Rutgers community, founding the Institute for Women’s Leadership, working with faculty members to create the Women and Politics Program within the Department of Political Science and chairing or serving on numerous search committees. She also taught in both the Department of English and Department of Political Science at various times during her long tenure at the University. She was awarded honorary doctorates by Chatham College and Georgian Court University.

Her life of service extended beyond academia and Rutgers, as she was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and later reappointed and made deputy chair by President Bill Clinton. She was a member of the governing body for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. from 1991 to 2005. She was also appointed to the New Jersey Council for the Humanities.

“I do not know for sure that we learn from the past. I have my doubts that recalling evil can make people good. But at least we have to try. As an act of faith, we have to try,” she said.

Dr. Ruth B. Mandel is survived by her husband of 29 years, Jeff Lucker; her ex-husband and close friend, Barrett Mandel; her daughter, Maud Mandel; and two grandchildren.

Sources: CAWP 04/20/20; CAWP 08/12/15; Washington Post 04/17/20

COVID-19 Affecting Decisions About Having Children

The current COVID-19 pandemic has provoked a shift in the decision making processes of those considering having children. Originally when the pandemic began, many suggested that there would be a “baby boom” in nine months, especially as research suggests a spike in births after certain forms of disasters, especially in cases in which individuals are forced to remain indoors. There are many that decided to have a child; however, there are also many individuals that are delaying having children.

Clinics are reporting an increase in the requests for birth control and abortion medication. Plan C, a website that provides information on how to acquire abortion pills online saw a doubling in their online traffic in March, when the shelter in place rules were first implemented. Further, as unemployment rates are increasing during the current pandemic, as well as many losing their health insurance coverage, many are deciding to delay having children.

However, it is difficult for those living in many states to access reproductive health services, such as Texas, where courts are affirming abortion restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic. Additionally, procedures such as in vitro fertilization for those who cannot conceive or many LGBTQ+ couples, are currently suspended, delaying the ability for them to have children.

In light of the pandemic, this uncertainty of what the future holds, of who can visit a person who just gave birth in a hospital, the structure of education and childcare, amongst other factors are all stressors that can prevent a person from deciding to have children in this unprecedented moment in history.

Sources: Vox 4/21/20; Feminist Newswire 4/20/20; Feminist Newswire 4/13/20; Vox 4/14/20

Trump Says He’s Halting All Immigration to the US Amid Pandemic

As the United States continues to suffer from the ongoing pandemic of COVID-19, President Donald Trump announced yesterday that he was going to issue an executive order suspending all immigration into the United States for an indefinite amount of time. In yet another tweet sent out by the president yesterday, he said, “In light of the attack from the Invisible Enemy, as well as the need to protect the jobs of our GREAT American Citizens, I will be signing an Executive Order to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States!”

Trump’s words were defended by his press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, who said that the president’s concern was for the “well-being” of American citizens. “As President Trump has said, ‘Decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment for our citizens, especially for African-American and Latino workers,’” she said. “At a time when Americans are looking to get back to work, action is necessary.” Trump has frequently touted that Black and Hispanic unemployment rates were at record lows, but McEnany’s statement contained nothing about how ceasing immigration would stop the spread of COVID-19.

Trump said the move to cease immigration would protect American workers from foreign competition, which seems to be his primary focus. According to the New York Times, a formal order could be issued within the next few days preventing any new green cards or work visas to be distributed. Some workers in industries deemed critical could still be allowed to receive visas, but many workers who for years have received visas to work will not be allowed.

This immigration pronouncement via Twitter is the latest in a series of anti-immigration mandates, usually in order to please his base, only to be stalled or reworked by legal challenges. “He tweets out a broad tweet without details, and the administration tailors it to figure out what might pass judicial review,” Franita Tolson, University of South California constitutional and election law student, told the New York Times. She predicted the administration would yet again be faced with legal challenges. “Given our infection rate and the lack of testing, he’s taking advantage of a national crisis.”

Sources: HuffPost, 4/20/20; New York Times, 4/20/20.

COVID-19 Job Losses Wipe out Insurance Access for Millions of Americans

As millions file for unemployment, many are now dealing with a pandemic-related ripple effect: a massive loss of employment-dependent health and dental insurance across America.

It’s difficult to count just how many Americans have lost insurance. Since Mid-March, about 22 million workers have filed unemployment claims. As the pandemic continues and state workforce offices slowly work through claims, this number is likely to climb. The latest census data shows 55 percent of Americans rely on their jobs for health insurance coverage. Policy think tanks and healthcare consulting firms are now estimating that anywhere from just over 9 million to more than 35 million will lose coverage.

The Economic Policy Institute placed 9.2 million U.S. residents as “high risk” for losing their coverage. Health Management Associates, a consulting firm, estimates that over the course of the pandemic, nearly 12 million to 35 million Americans will lose their insurance. These numbers do not include the 27.5 million Americans who had no health insurance prior to COVID-19.

Under the Affordable Care Act, people experiencing sudden job loss are given a special enrollment period to buy a health plan through the federal insurance marketplace. However, the Trump administration has resisted calls to open the marketplace’s online enrollment system.

As a result, many of these workers are looking towards Medicaid, public insurance for poor Americans, as a fallback. Medicaid has a waiting period, as well as an income threshold. Thresholds and waiting periods vary state to state; in public health emergencies, states tend to expand Medicaid.

While expansion is happening under COVID-19, as the Kaiser Family Foundation reports, implementation varies. Unlike the federal government, states are also obligated to balance their budgets—expanding Medicaid, which is funded through rapidly vanishing tax revenues, can threaten state economies. While Congress has chipped in to cover more costs, experts believe Medicaid will require much more help.

Additionally, some states did not expand Medicaid under the ACA, leaving their residents at a disadvantage. In 13 of those 14 states, people who have no dependent children can’t qualify for Medicaid regardless of how much income they’ve lost due to COVID-19.

For now, workers rely on COBRA, a transitional coverage provider. But premiums on COBRA can be extremely unaffordable. As the Washington Post and health care bloggers report, COBRA’s medical and dental premiums can range from $570 to over $1,500 per month, depending on household size, previous premium, and other factors.

Because of the long wait for Medicaid and the high costs of provisional insurance, many are turning to emergency and low-income clinics. As a result, these clinics are overwhelmed and overworked.

As Washington Post reporting shows, even during absolute lockdowns, clinics are still providing new patients with care. “Even with what Settle calls ‘an absolute lockdown’ on visits that are not emergencies, the clinic has accepted 113 new patients over the past 30 days, compared with 72 during the same period a year ago,” writes The Post. “They are not infected with the coronavirus, though the clinic is doing testing in a tent out back and at a nearby soup kitchen. They just need urgent help.”

Sources: [Axios, 4/1/2020] [Kaiser Family Foundation, 3/2020; 3/13/2020; 4/17/2020]  [The Washington Post, 4/16/2020, 4/18/2020] [Health Management Associates, 4/3/2020] [Economic Policy Institute, 4/16/2020]

Women Are The Majority of America’s Essential Workforce

Nearly one in three jobs held by women are officially considered essential work, meaning women are the majority of those on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to a new report by The New York Times, nearly 52 percent of all essential workers are women. This includes 77 percent of the health care worker, 78 percent of social workers, and more than 66 percent of grocery and fast-food employees. In contrast, just 28% of all male workers have been deemed essential.

A majority of these jobs are underpaid and undervalued. As The Times notes, the U.S. healthcare industry “spreads far beyond hospitals” and encompasses at-home and on-demand workers who tend to the sick, old, and disabled.

“While women have steadily increased their share of high-end health care jobs like surgeons and other physicians, they have also been filling the unseen jobs proliferating on the lowest end of the wage scale, the workers who spend long and little-rewarded days bathing, feeding and medicating some of the most vulnerable people in the country,” wrote reporters Campbell Robertson and Robert Gebeloff. “Of the 5.8 million people working health care jobs that pay less than $30,000 a year, half are nonwhite and 83 percent are women.”

“Care work,” as University of Massachusettes sociologist Dr. Mignon Duffy characterizes it, “is part of the infrastructure of our whole society. It holds everything together… But now we’re being forced to identify who the essential workers are,” Dr. Duffy said. “And guess who they are?”

Yet, increased visibility does not necessarily translate into wage increases or basic protections. New CDC data shows nearly 75 percent of health care workers infected with coronavirus are women. While nurses and hospital workers have access to basic protective equipment, home healthcare workers and personal aides are struggling to receive basic workplace protections, let alone N95 masks.

Pam Ramsey, a home health aide who spoke with The Times, has gone years without health insurance. She goes to work with no protective gear, beyond what is available at the local dollar store. Despite providing necessary care, she does not have a formal letter identifying her as an essential worker.

“We’re still a part of health care and we’re not recognized at all,” she said. “People don’t look at us because we have no license, no certificate, no proof that we’re as good as they are.”

 

[The New York Times, 4/18/2020][SHRM, 7/5/2016] [Rutgers University Press, 2011]

>