Tag Archives: rationale

New evidence disputes Trump’s citizenship question rationale for census

Comment

Previously unreleased internal communications indicate the Trump administration tried to add a citizenship question to the census with the goal of affecting congressional apportionment, according to a report issued Wednesday by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

The documents appear to contradict statements made under oath by then-Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, who told the committee that the push for a citizenship question was unrelated to apportionment and the reason for adding it was to help enforce the Voting Rights Act.

The nearly 500 documents include several drafts of an August 2017 memorandum prepared by a Commerce Department lawyer and political appointee, James Uthmeier, in which he initially warned that using a citizenship question for apportionment would probably be illegal and violate the constitution, the report said.

In later drafts, Uthmeier and another political appointee, Earl Comstock, revised the draft to say there was “nothing illegal or unconstitutional about adding a citizenship question” and claiming the Founding Fathers “intended the apportionment count to be based on legal inhabitants,” the report said. In December 2017, the Justice Department sent a formal request to the Commerce Department, which oversees the Census Bureau, asking it to add the question; in March 2018, Ross announced it would be added to the 2020 Census.

“Today’s Committee memo pulls back the curtain on this shameful conduct and shows clearly how the Trump Administration secretly tried to manipulate the census for political gain while lying to the public and Congress about their goals,” Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said in a statement.

The administration’s effort to add the question lasted two years. It was challenged by civil rights groups who blasted it as an effort to undercount Latinos and scare immigrant communities from participating in a survey that determines congressional apportionment and redistricting, as well as the disbursement of $1.5 trillion in federal funds annually.

The new evidence echoes documents that surfaced during litigation over the question, including a study by a Republican operative that found adding a citizenship question would benefit Republicans in redistricting.

“It was obvious it was just a farce,” said former Census Bureau director John Thompson, who testified at the time, saying the bureau under Ross had not done proper testing of the citizenship question before adding it. “I’m glad the committee got the materials to reinforce that, but it was not surprising.”

Thomas Wolf, deputy director of the Democracy Program at NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice, said, “Lest anyone doubted that what the Trump administration was up to was wrong, these documents show that even the Trump administration itself knew that what it was doing was illegal.”

The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the administration’s stated rationale for adding the question was “contrived,” and the administration dropped the effort. It then said it would instead block undocumented immigrants from being counted for apportionment, setting off another volley of court battles that lasted until the waning days of Donald Trump’s presidency.

That attempt ultimately failed when, because of pandemic-related delays, the Census Bureau was unable to deliver state population totals to the president before he left office. The administration was also unable to explain how it planned to identify and count undocumented immigrants, for whom there is no official tally.

Census data show widening diversity; number of White people falls for first time

The documents obtained by the committee had been withheld by the Trump administration despite subpoenas, the report said, adding that the committee had faced “unprecedented obstruction” from administration officials. Ross and then-Attorney General William P. Barr were held in contempt of Congress after refusing to produce them, the report noted, adding that the previously withheld or redacted documents were finally released “after more than two years of litigation, and the arrival of a new administration.”

Maloney introduced a bill last week that she said is designed to protect the Census Bureau against future attempts to politicize it. H.R. 8326, the Ensuring a Fair and Accurate Census Act, would prevent the removal of a Census Bureau director without just cause, limit the number of political appointees at the bureau and prohibit the secretary of commerce from adding topics or questions to the survey “unless he or she followed the existing statutory requirements to notify Congress in advance.” It would also bar new questions from appearing on the decennial census form unless they have been “researched, tested, certified by the Secretary, and evaluated by the Government Accountability Office.”

Thompson praised the bill. “I think it would protect the independence of the Census Bureau,” he said. “I’m very enthusiastic about the bill. … I hope it gets enacted.”

But even if it is, it might not fully insulate the bureau from partisan interference, he said. Under a Republican House and Senate, “the Congress could direct the Census Bureau to collect citizenship [information] on the census, and then there could be a fight to get the citizenship question on the 2030 Census,” he said, adding, “Congress could try to pass a law saying you need to do apportionment by citizenship.”

The bar for passing a constitutional amendment would be high, Wolf said. However, the Trump administration’s effort to add the citizenship question and exclude undocumented people from apportionment “indicates that the 2020 Census was in grave peril and we escaped only through a combination of significant legal victories and a certain amount of luck,” he said. “The census is clearly too fragile to continue in its imperiled state.”

Along with limiting political appointees and giving additional powers to the Census Bureau director, as Maloney’s bill proposes, Wolf suggested curtailing the president’s ability to influence apportionment, as Trump proposed to do. By law, reapportionment of the 435 House seats is supposed to happen automatically based on state population totals.

“The president’s role in the apportionment process was supposed to be administerial,” Wolf said. “That’s why it’s called automatic apportionment.”

Read original article here

Walgreens cited shoplifting as rationale for closing 5 stores in San Francisco, but local officials, data, and experts cast doubt on that explanation

Customers walk by products locked in security cabinets at a Walgreens store that is set to be closed in the coming weeks on October 13, 2021 in San Francisco, California. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

  • Walgreens said it’s closing some San Francisco stores because of an increase in retail theft.

  • Police data obtained by the Chronicle did not show high rates of shoplifting reports at the closing stores.

  • One expert said people moving out of the city during the pandemic could’ve hurt Walgreens’ business.

Walgreens announced Tuesday it would be closing five of its San Francisco locations due to “organized retail crime,” but police department data, local officials, and policy experts are casting doubt on that reasoning, according to a report published by the San Francisco Chronicle on Saturday.

While the report said the chain has experienced retail theft, other factors like the COVID-19 pandemic and oversaturation of stores were cited as potential factors behind the decision to close the stores.

Walgreens spokesperson Phil Caruso said retail theft across its San Francisco locations has increased in the past few months to five times the chain’s average, SFGate reported.

However, San Francisco Police Department data obtained by the Chronicle contradicts Walgreens’ claims, with one of the stores slated to close reporting only 23 shoplifting incidents since 2018. Some incidents of shoplifting likely go unreported, but the closing stores had on average less than two shoplifting reports per month since 2018.

“Organized retail crime continues to be a challenge facing retailers across San Francisco, and we are not immune to that,” Caruso told SFGate. “During this time to help combat this issue, we increased our investments in security measures in stores across the city to 46 times our chain average in an effort to provide a safe environment.”

San Francisco Mayor London Breed pushed back against Walgreens’ stated reasoning for closing the stores.

“They are saying (shoplifting is) the primary reason, but I also think when a place is not generating revenue, and when they’re saturated – SF has a lot of Walgreens locations all over the city – so I do think that there are other factors that come into play,” she told reporters last week.

Dean Preston, supervisor of San Francisco’s 5th district, which will be impacted by a store closure, said the pharmacy chain is “abandoning the community” and has “long planned to close stores,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“Odd that some are so offended that I would suggest that a massive corporate chain might be closing retail locations for the exact reason they told investors they would close locations, rather than the reasons stated in their external PR,” Preston said in a tweet on Friday.

In a 2019 Security and Exchange Commission filing, Walgreens announced it would launch a “Transformational Cost Management Program” that would shutter 200 stores in the US in order to save $1.5 billion in annual expenses by 2022.

A May study published by Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom found 15% of residents left San Francisco during the pandemic and have not returned, which he told the Chronicle could explain Walgreens’ waning customer base in the city.

San Francisco does have relatively high rates of property crime, which criminal justice researcher Magnus Lofstrom told the Chronicle could be due in part to the Bay Area’s vast income equality.

Walgreens did not immediately respond to Insider’s request for comment.

Read the original article on Business Insider



Read original article here

Nurses fired for not getting COVID-19 vaccine explain their rationale

More than 100 staff members at Houston Methodist Hospital who were fired for refusing to get vaccinated for COVID-19 appealed a judge’s ruling that sided with the hospital’s right to terminate their employment.

“We are going to most likely go all the way up to the Supreme Court,” Jennifer Bridges, a registered nurse and the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit filed by 117 former employees of the hospital, told Yahoo News.

Health care facilities across the country routinely require their employees to be vaccinated for a host of viruses, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes on its website, including the coronavirus.

“It is our responsibility to prevent ourselves from getting ill and from spreading the disease to others,” Dr. Leana Wen, a public health professor at George Washington University, told Yahoo News. “This should not be a choice that individual providers are able to make when this is actually about our job, our oath, the responsibility that we signed up for to care for our most vulnerable patients.”

Jennifer Bridges speaks at an anti-vaccine rally outside Houston Methodist Hospital in June. (Mark Felix/AFP via Getty Images)

Bridges is one of 153 workers who were fired or resigned from Houston Methodist last Monday after refusing to comply with the hospital’s vaccine mandate, the Texas Tribune reported. The hospital system — comprising nearly 25,000 employees — was one of the first employers in the country to require COVID-19 vaccinations for its workers, announcing its policy on April 1.

Yet despite rigorous trials involving tens of thousands of people and overwhelming research that proves the three FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in preventing the spread of the disease as well as death from it, some medical workers remain skeptical.

“I’m not anti-vax. I’ve had all my other vaccines, but this one was rushed and it didn’t have the proper research,” Bridges said, adding, “I would rather take my chances rather than get the shot.”

Since instituting its policy requiring workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19, Houston Methodist has been unwavering in its stance.

“Our decision to mandate the COVID vaccine for all of our employees was not made lightly and is based on the proven science that the vaccines are not only safe, but extremely effective,” Amy Rose, a spokesperson for Houston Methodist, told Becker’s Healthcare in May. “As healthcare workers, we’ve taken a sacred oath to do everything possible to keep our patients safe and healthy.”

Houston Methodist Baytown Hospital in Baytown, Texas. (Francois Picard/AFP via Getty Images)

Last month, a federal judge dismissed Bridges’s initial lawsuit against the hospital, in which she claimed the hospital had forced staffers to be “guinea pigs” for vaccines.

“This is not coercion,” U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes wrote in his dissent on June 12. “Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

Houston Methodist CEO Marc Boom applauded the ruling in a statement. “We can now put this behind us and continue our focus on unparalleled safety, quality, service and innovation,” the statement read.

In an internal memo sent to employees on June 8 that was shared with Yahoo News, Boom thanked employees for helping the hospital get through a difficult time.

“Since I announced this mandate in April, Houston Methodist has been challenged by the media, some outspoken employees and even sued,” he wrote in the memo. “As the first hospital system to mandate COVID-19 vaccines, we were prepared for this. The criticism is sometimes the price we pay for leading medicine.”

A COVID-19 vaccination. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

More than 156 million Americans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of July 2, according to the CDC data tracker. Only a tiny fraction of people who have been vaccinated experience “breakthrough cases.”

“There will be a small percentage of fully vaccinated people who still get sick, are hospitalized, or die from COVID-19,” the CDC site reads. “Like with other vaccines, vaccine breakthrough cases will occur, even though the vaccines are working as expected.”

As of Friday afternoon, more than 33 million Americans have tested positive for COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic and more than 602,000 have died from the disease. In Texas, more than 2.9 million people have tested positive for the virus and 52,000 have died from it.

Those statistics have not motivated some medical professionals to get vaccinated for COVID-19. Freenea Stewart is another former employee at Houston Methodist who was fired for defying the hospital’s vaccine policy.

An anti-vaccine rally at Houston Methodist Hospital. (Mark Felix/AFP via Getty Images)

“This isn’t about my job,” Stewart, a former charge nurse, told Yahoo News. “This is about you saying we have to get this vaccine. [In the hospital] you could cut the tension with a knife, between those who were vaccinated and those who weren’t.”

Stewart was terminated on June 21 even though she contracted COVID-19 earlier this year. She believes the antibodies she gained from the illness should have been enough to exempt her from vaccination, and she questions why the hospital didn’t allow her to keep her job.

“I want my body to use its immune system to work. That’s the best antibody to give,” she said, before echoing a frequent refrain from those skeptical of vaccines. “There is not enough information about the vaccine yet. … My body has no idea what is in that shot.”

Like many Republican lawmakers, Stewart believes that an individual’s right to decide whether to get vaccinated outweighs considerations of public health.

“Everyone needs to do what they think is best for them and their right to choose,” she said. “In the United States we have freedom of choice. That is what makes the United States so amazing.”

A young anti-vaxxer participates in a rally at Houston Methodist. (Mark Felix/AFP via Getty Images)

But for other medical professionals, freedom of choice has its limits, especially during a pandemic.

Yahoo News Medical Contributor Dr. Kavita Patel, a primary care physician in Washington, D.C., who also serves as a health policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, says she is not surprised by the reluctance of some health care workers to get vaccinated.

“Health professionals are humans too. This is a reflection of what people in America think — that the trials were not enough and they don’t want to be experiments,” Patel said. “Having said that, I think health professionals have an incredible responsibility to their patients, and ignoring the large body of clinical trial data, as well as real-world evidence, is the height of selfish irresponsibility.”

Cover thumbnail photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: Mark Felix/AFP via Getty Images, Francois Picard/AFP via Getty Images

_____

Read more from Yahoo News:

Read original article here

Ilhan Omar, other progressives question Biden’s ‘legal rationale’ for Syria airstrikes

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., said Friday she was concerned about the White House’s “legal rationale” for launching airstrikes in Syria a day earlier without congressional approval.

“We in Congress have congressional oversight in engaging in war and we haven’t been briefed yet and we have not authorized war in Syria,” Omar told CNN.

Omar had retweeted a resurfaced 2017 post from now-White House press secretary Jen Psaki that had questioned the Trump administration’s “legal authority” for conducting airstrikes against the “sovereign” country at the time.

US AIRSTRIKE IN SYRIA UNDER BIDEN AND 2017 TOMAHAWK STRIKES ORDERED BY TRUMP: THE DIFFERENCE

“Great question,” Omar responded to the four-year-old tweet in light of the Biden administration’s military action announced Thursday.

“Her question was important when it was a different administration and that question still remains with this administration,” Omar told CNN’s John King. “Our ability to engage in constitutional actions does not diminish when the party in power is ours.”

BIDEN’S SYRIA AIRSTRIKE EARNS APPLAUSE FROM PROMINENT REPUBLICANS 

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle criticized the strike, including Republican Reps. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.; Jim Banks, R-Ind.; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; and Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.; and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.; and Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.; and Tim  Kaine, D-Va.

“While the President has a responsibility to defend the people of the United States, our Constitution is clear that it is the Congress, not the President, who has the authority to declare war,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in a statement Friday, adding in a tweet he was “very concerned by last night’s strike by U.S. forces in Syria.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The first known military action of the Biden administration was meant as a defensive “shot across the bow” against an Iranian-backed militia stronghold in Syria, a senior official said, intended to deter Iran and its militia from launching rockets at U.S. forces in the region.

Read original article here

The Ultimate News Site