BLACK LIVES BUILT AMERIKA

Black families in the U.S. have 90% less wealth than white families—the gap has worsened over time

SLAVERY NEVER LEFT THE USA IT JUST CHANGED FORM

Jun 17 2020 Kiersten Schmidt@SCHMIDTKIERSTEN

Kiersten Schmidt / Grow

Amid protests throughout the country against the treatment of black Americans, several black corporate and nonprofit leaders shared their views on the demonstrations with CNBC. They emphasized that the unrest in America is not just a result of racial injustice, but also the disparity in wealth between black and white Americans.

"This crisis has been brewing for hundreds of years, and we're going to have to really step up to it," Merck chairman and CEO Ken Frazier said on CNBC's "Squawk Box." Frazier is one of only four black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.

While many Americans believe the wealth gap between blacks and whites is about 20 cents on the dollar, in reality the median black family has only 10% of the wealth of the median white family. Black Americans are more than twice as likely as white Americans to be poor, and the black unemployment rate is almost double the rate for whites.

"Joblessness leads to hopelessness. Hopelessness leads to what we see in the streets," Frazier said.

More from Grow:
Millennials, people of color hit hardest by the Covid-19 recession

Overall, incomes in black households are about 40% smaller than those in white households, and black men earn up to $1 million less than white men over their lifetimes.
Click here to view interactive content

The racial wealth gap has gotten worse with time
In 2016, white families reported having $171,000 in wealth, or about 10 times the wealth black families reported having ($17,400), according to the most recent Federal Reserve 

Survey of Consumer Finances.

The disparity has worsened over time: In 1983, the first year the Fed conducted the survey, white families in the U.S. had about eight times as much wealth as black families.
Click here to view interactive content

While families in each category lost about 25% of their wealth between 2007 and 2010, white and Hispanic families have largely recovered from their Great Recession losses. For these groups, in 2016, wealth was down about 14% from 2007. Meanwhile, black families lost 28% of their wealth in that time.

We don't yet know how much black families benefited from the economic growth of the late 2010s compared to other groups. More recent data will be available when the Fed releases the results of its 2019 survey later this year.
Lower income and more debt over years leads to less wealth

Black American families have earned significantly less money than white families for decades. The median household income for a black family was $41,500 in 2018, 40% less than the $68,000 for a white family. This gap has remained relatively unchanged since 1967.

Click here to view interactive content

Because black families have less wealth and are less likely to receive inheritances that can be used to pay for college, they may be more likely to have to take out loans to finance their education. In 2016, 42% of families headed by a black adult aged 25-55 carried student loan debt, while only 34% of similar white families, and 22% of similar Hispanic families, did.

Since the mid-2000s, black families have carried more student loan debt than white and Hispanic families. The average student loan debt for a black family in 2016 was $14,000, compared to $11,000 and $7,500 for white and Hispanic families, respectively.

Click here to view interactive content

Adding to that burden is the fact that this debt doesn't always turn into a degree that can help black families achieve greater wealth. Black students have significantly lower graduation rates than their white counterparts.
Black Americans are less likely to own homes


Having lower incomes and less wealth makes it more difficult for black families to purchase homes, which then contributes to their lower overall net worth. For decades in the 20th century, they were also subject to segregation and prejudicial practices like redlining that have made it much more challenging, if not impossible, for them to take out loans to buy homes.

In 2016, 68% of white families owned their homes while only 42% of black families did.

Click here to view interactive content

The housing crisis that triggered the Great Recession had a bigger impact on black families than other demographics. The share of black home ownership decreased from 49% to 42% between 2005 and 2016, while home ownership decreased from 73% to 68% for white families.

Lower wealth levels and homeownership rates mean that black Americans are significantly more likely to live in high-poverty neighborhoods, where they have less access to jobs, high-quality education, and other services that are the foundation of strong economies. In 2018, 23% of black people lived in high-poverty neighborhoods compared to just 4% of white people.

Click here to view interactive content

"We need to acknowledge that there are huge opportunity gaps that are still existing in this country," Frazier said on "Squawk Box." To close those gaps, "financial literacy is critical. Education is critical. That is the great equalizer."

The article "Black Families in the U.S. Have 90% Less Wealth Than White Families" originally appeared on Grow + Acorns.

The Study That Debunks Most Anti-Abortion Arguments

MARGARET TALBOT JULY 07, 2020 

 

The Turnaway Study, about the fallout of receiving or being denied an abortion, will be understood, criticized, and used politically, however carefully conceived and painstakingly executed the research was.Photograph by Ievgeniia Pidgorna / Alamy
There is a kind of social experiment you might think of as a What if? study. It would start with people who are similar in certain basic demographic ways and who are standing at the same significant fork in the road. Researchers could not assign participants to take one path or another—that would be wildly unethical. But let’s say that some more or less arbitrary rule in the world did the assigning for them. In such circumstances, researchers could follow the resulting two groups of people over time, sliding-doors style, to see how their lives panned out differently. It would be like speculative fiction, only true, and with statistical significance.

A remarkable piece of research called the Turnaway Study, which began in 2007, is essentially that sort of experiment. Over three years, a team of researchers, led by a demographer named Diana Greene Foster, at the University of California, San Francisco, recruited 1,132 women from the waiting rooms of thirty abortion clinics in twenty-one states. Some of the women would go on to have abortions, but others would be turned away, because they had missed the fetal gestational limit set by the clinic. Foster and her colleagues decided to compare the women in the two groups—those who received the abortion they sought and those who were compelled to carry their unwanted pregnancy to term—on a variety of measures over time, interviewing them twice a year for up to five years.

The study is important, in part, because of its ingenious design. It included only women whose pregnancies were unwanted enough that they were actively seeking an abortion, which meant the researchers were not making the mistake that some previous studies of unplanned conceptions had—“lumping the happy surprises in with the total disasters,” as Foster puts it. In terms of age, race, income level, and health status, the two groups of women closely resembled each other, as well as abortion patients nationwide. (Foster refers to the study’s participants as women because, to her knowledge, there were no trans men or non-binary people among them.) Seventy per cent of the women who were denied abortions at the first clinic where they sought them carried the unwanted pregnancies to term. Others miscarried or were able to obtain late abortions elsewhere, and Foster and her colleagues followed the trajectories of those in the latter group as well.

While you might guess that those who were turned away had messier lives—after all, they were getting to the clinic later than the seemingly more proactive women who made the deadline—that did not turn out to be the case. Some of the women who got their abortions (half of the total participants) did so just under the wire; among the women in the study who were denied abortions (a quarter of the total), some had missed the limit by a matter of only a few days. (The remaining quarter terminated their pregnancies in the first trimester, which is when ninety per cent of abortions in the United States occur.) The women who were denied abortions were on average more likely to live below the poverty line than the women who managed to get them. (One of the main reasons that people seek abortions later in pregnancy is the need to raise money to pay for the procedure and for travel expenses.) But, in general, Foster writes, the two groups “were remarkably similar at the first interview. Their lives diverged thereafter in ways that were directly attributable to whether they received an abortion.”


Over the past several years, findings from the Turnaway Study have come out in scholarly journals and, on a few occasions, gotten splashy media coverage. Now Foster has published a patiently expository precis of all the findings in a new book, “The Turnaway Study: Ten Years, a Thousand Women, and the Consequences of Having—or Being Denied—an Abortion.” The over-all impression it leaves is that abortion, far from harming most women, helps them in measurable ways. Moreover, when people assess what will happen in their lives if they have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, they are quite often proven right. That might seem like an obvious point, but much of contemporary anti-abortion legislation is predicated on the idea that competent adults can’t really know what’s at stake in deciding whether to bear a child or not. Instead, they must be subjected to waiting periods to think it over (as though they can’t be trusted to have done so already), presented with (often misleading) information about the supposed medical risks and emotional fallout of the procedure, and obliged to look at ultrasounds of the embryo or fetus. And such scans are often framed, with breathtaking disingenuousness, as a right extended to people—what the legal scholar Carol Sanger calls “the right to be persuaded against exercising the right you came in with.”

Maybe the first and most fundamental question for a study like this to consider is how women feel afterward about their decisions to have an abortion. In the Turnaway Study, over ninety-five per cent of the women who received an abortion and did an interview five years out said that it had been the right choice for them. It’s possible that the women who remained in the study that long were disproportionately inclined to see things that way—maybe if you were feeling shame or remorse about an abortion you’d be less up for talking about it every six months in a phone interview with a researcher. (Foster suggests that people experiencing regrets might actually be more inclined to participate, but, to me, the first scenario makes more psychological sense.) Still, ninety-five per cent is a striking figure. And it’s especially salient, again, in light of anti-choice arguments, which often stress the notion that many of the quarter to third of all American women who have an abortion will be wracked with guilt about their decision. (That’s an awful lot of abject contrition.) You can pick at the study for its retention rate—and some critics, particularly on the anti-abortion side, have. Nine hundred and fifty-six of the original thousand-plus women who were recruited did the first interview. Fifty-eight per cent of them did the final interview. But, as Foster pointed out in an e-mail to me, on average, the women in the study completed an impressive 8.4 of the eleven interviews, and some of the data in the study—death records and credit reports—cover all 1,132 women who were originally enrolled.

To the former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, among others, it seemed “unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.” In a 2007 abortion-case ruling, he wrote that “severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.” It can, but the epidemiologists, psychologists, statisticians, and other researchers who evaluated the Turnaway Study found it was not likely. “Some events do cause lifetime damage”—childhood abuse is one of them—“but abortion is not common among these,” Foster writes. In the short term, the women who were denied abortions had worse mental health—higher anxiety and lower self-esteem. In the longer run, the researchers found “no long-term differences between women who receive and women who are denied an abortion in depression, anxiety, PTSD, self-esteem, life satisfaction, drug abuse, or alcohol abuse.” Abortion didn’t weigh heavily in determining mental health one way or the other. Foster and her co-authors note, in an earlier article, that “relief remained the most commonly felt emotion” among women who got the abortions they sought. That relief persisted, but its intensity dissipated over time.

Other positive impacts were more lasting. Women in the study who received the abortion they sought were more likely to be in a relationship they described as “very good.” (After two years, the figure was forty-seven per cent, vs. twenty-eight per cent for the women turned away.) If they had been involved with a physically abusive man at the time of the unwanted pregnancy, they were less likely to still be experiencing violence, for the simple reason that they were less likely to be in contact with him. (Several of the participants interviewed for the book talk about not wanting to be tethered to a terrible partner by having a child together.) Women who got the abortion were more likely to become pregnant intentionally in the next five years than women who did not. They were less likely to be on public assistance and to report that they did not have enough money to pay for food, housing, and transportation. When they had children at home already, those children were less likely to be living in poverty. Based on self-reports, their physical health was somewhat better. Two of the women in the study who were denied abortions died from childbirth-related complications; none of the women who received abortions died as a result. That is in keeping with other data attesting to the general safety of abortion. One of Foster’s colleagues, Ushma Upadhyay, analyzed complications after abortions in California’s state Medicaid program, for example, and found that they occurred in two per cent of the cases—a lower percentage than for wisdom-tooth extraction (seven per cent) and certainly for childbirth (twenty-nine per cent). Indeed, maternal mortality has been rising in the U.S.—it’s now more than twice as high as it was in 1987, and has risen even more steeply for Black women, due, in part, to racial disparities in prenatal care and the quality of hospitals where women deliver.

Yet, as Foster points out, many of the new state laws restricting abortion suggest that it is a uniquely dangerous procedure, one for which layers of regulation must be concocted, allegedly to protect women. The Louisiana law that the Supreme Court struck down last Monday imposed just such a rule—namely, a requirement that doctors performing abortions hold admitting privileges at a hospital no more than thirty miles away. As Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion noted, “The evidence shows, among other things, that the fact that hospital admissions for abortion are vanishingly rare means that, unless they also maintain active OB/GYN practices, abortion providers in Louisiana are unlikely to have any recent in-hospital experience.” Since hospitals often require such experience in order to issue admitting privileges, abortion providers would be caught in a Catch-22, unable to obtain the privileges because, on actual medical grounds, they didn’t need them. The result of such a law, had it gone into effect, would have been exactly what was intended: a drastic reduction in the number of doctors legally offering abortions in the state.

The Turnaway Study’s findings are welcome ones for anyone who supports reproductive justice. But they shouldn’t be necessary for it. The overwhelming majority of women who received abortions and stayed in the study for the full five years did not regret their decision. But the vast majority of women who’d been denied abortions reported that they no longer wished that they’d been able to end the pregnancy, after an actual child of four or five was in the world. And that’s good, too—you’d hope they would love that child wholeheartedly, and you’d root for their resilience and happiness.

None of that changes the fundamental principle of human autonomy: people have to be able to make their own decisions in matters that profoundly and intimately affect their own bodies and the course of their lives. Regret and ambivalence, the ways that one decision necessarily precludes others, are inextricable facts of life, and they are also fluid and personal. Guessing the extent to which individuals may feel such emotions, hypothetically, in the future, is not a basis for legislative bans and restrictions.

The Turnaway Study will be understood, criticized, and used politically, however carefully conceived and painstakingly executed the research was. Given that inevitability, it’s worth underlining the most helpful political work that the study does. In light of its findings, the rationale for so many recent abortion restrictions—namely, that abortion is uniquely harmful to the people who choose it—simply topples.

The WNBA has come too far to be silenced by Kelly Loeffler

Opinion by Roxanne Jones Thu July 9, 2020

I'm calling 'BS': WNBA player on Loeffler's objection to honoring BLM 02:08

Roxanne Jones, a founding editor of ESPN Magazine and former vice president at ESPN, has been a producer, reporter and editor at the New York Daily News and The Philadelphia Inquirer. Jones is co-author of "Say it Loud: An Illustrated History of the Black Athlete." She talks politics, sports and culture weekly on Philadelphia's 900AM WURD. 

The views expressed here are solely hers. Read more opinion on CNN.


(CNN)The women of the WNBA are not to be taken lightly, ever.


Roxanne Jones

Back in 1997, the sports world was put on notice when squads of trailblazing women stepped on to the court, including Sheryl Swoopes, Lisa Leslie, Rebecca Lobo, Tina Thompson, Cynthia Cooper and one of my favorites, Teresa (T-Spoon) Weatherspoon. Their fearless leader? No-holds-barred sports executive Valerie Ackerman, the league's first president, and current NCAA Commissioner of the Big East basketball conference.

Their message was clear: women were done sitting on the sidelines. It was their game, too. And they were taking their shot.

They were then -- and are now -- determined to command respect and forge a future for young girls and women that confirms: when we play the game, we win -- on and off the court.

So today, when I watch amazingly talented players like Renee Montgomery (Atlanta Dream) and Breanna Stewart (Seattle Storm) not only pushing the game forward but leading conversations around social justice and equality, I know they are a testimony to the strong legacy left behind by those original WNBA icons. Those of us who follow women's basketball closely, know that often it's been the WNBA, not the NBA, that has initiated conversations about justice and equality, prompting their male counterparts to speak out, though the women received much less fanfare.

That's why the players' recent resounding rebuke of Sen. Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, co-owner of the WNBA's Atlanta Dream was such a proud moment for me -- and I'm sure, many other WNBA fans.

These women have come too far to be silenced by the likes of Kelly Loeffler.

An avid supporter of President Donald Trump, Loeffler, on Tuesday, strongly urged the league to cancel plans to allow players to wear jerseys with the words "Black Lives Matter" and "Say Her Name," a reference to Breonna Taylor and untold numbers of other women who have been killed by police or died in custody. Instead, Loeffler wrote in a letter to league Commissioner Cathy Engelbert, she wants to see the American flag on all WNBA apparel.

In the letter, obtained by the Atlanta Journal Constitution and ESPN Loeffler argued Black Lives Matter was a "political movement, which has advocated for the defunding of police" and "promoted violence and destruction across the country. I believe it is totally misaligned with the values and goals of the WNBA."

But the women of the WNBA, which is more than 80% Black, are not buying Loeffler's brand of politics and now some are calling for her to relinquish her co-ownership of her team.

The outrage was immediate.

Breanna Stewart, who is White, is just one of a growing number of WNBA players of all races who are challenging Loeffler's fitness be a part of the league, tweeting:

"How is she still a owner? Bye Kelly. Keep that negative energy out of our league."

Renee Montgomery, who plays for Loeffler's team but had already decided to forego the 2020 season weeks ago to focus on social justice issues, said she was saddened by her team owner's stance, tweeting:

"I'm pretty sad to see that my team ownership is not supportive of the movement & all that it stands for. I was already sitting out this season & this is an example of why, I would love to have a conversation with you about the matter if you're down?"

Even the players' union wants Loeffler out of the league.

Despite the criticism, it looks like Loeffler isn't shying away from the attention.
She's playing to her crowd. And likely hopes her race-baiting message will resonate in November, when she faces a tough special election among a field of 20 other candidates for her US Senate seat. The Republican senator was appointed back in 2019 by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

And ironically, or perhaps intentionally, the senator appears guilty of the very thing she's accusing the WNBA of doing -- injecting politics into sports.

A day after she penned her letter, Loeffler ripped a page out of Trump's campaign playbook and paused to disparage athletes who take part in protests against police brutality and murders of unarmed citizens. On Twitter, Loeffler said, "We should keep politics out of sports. We shouldn't promote movements that encourage violence. And I will not be silent about it." Several politicians, especially Democrats, have already called this move a desperate ploy to score political points.

Loeffler is not backing down. And though the league is clearly trying to distance itself from their Atlanta team owner, it remains to be seen what, if any, repercussions she will face from the league.

For now it looks like the WNBA will continue with plans to honor the BLM movement taking place all around the globe. In a statement, Commissioner Engelbert asserted that the league "will continue to use our platforms to vigorously advocate for social justice."

Fighting for social justice is nothing new to the women of the WNBA.

I should know, I was there in the beginning.

In 1996, I was assistant sports editor at the New York Daily News and in charge of coverage around the launch of the league. Like the women on the court, the WNBA gave many women in sports a chance to finally prove themselves at work. In media, it was by default -- the mostly white-male sports writers mocked the game, balked at covering women's basketball.

Today's league is steeped in a culture that has long been vocal about matters of social justice and women's equality, from equal pay for all women and mental health awareness to racial justice and LGBTQ equality.

Back in 2009, when I was board co-chair of GLAAD (formerly the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) we were invited to work with the WNBA to develop and host team and fan events for the LGBTQ fans. Our goal was to help eradicate the toxic, homophobic attitudes that too often follow women in sports. The WNBA, guided by former NBA Commissioner and civil rights champion David Stern and then-WNBA president Donna Orender, fearlessly led these initiatives, long before gay marriage and other LGBTQ rights had been won on a federal level.

This time around, I'm betting Loeffler's attempt to silence the players backfires. Players are right to want her out of the league. And there is precedent: Donald Sterling, former owner of the NBA's Los Angeles Clippers. Sterling was banned for life from the league and fined $2.4 million after his racist tape recordings went public.

Today, watching the woman of the WNBA -- indeed all the young voices -- demanding justice in the face of such horrifying racial hate keeps me hopeful for the future.

It feels like they are playing for all of us to win.


Sen. Loeffler: Black Lives Matter ‘A Very Divisive Organization Based on Marxist Principles’

“This isn’t about me" OK IT'S ABOUT ME 

RIGHT WING REWRITE OF STORY FROM NTD NETWORK ARM OF EPOCH TIMES
VOICE OF THE 4TRUMPERS OF THE FALUN GONG GANG 

POSTED FOR VIEW OF STANDARD RIGHT WING SPIN 

POLITICS Zachary Stieber Jul 10, 2020

Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ill.) walks through Statuary Hall with other senators to the House Chamber for President Donald Trump's State of the Union address in the Capitol in Washington on Feb. 4, 2020. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)

Black Lives Matter is a divisive organization that doesn’t belong in sports, Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) said late Thursday.

Loeffler, who co-owns the Women’s National Basketball Association’s (WNBA) Atlanta Dream, urged the league’s commissioner earlier this week to reverse its planned Black Lives Matter (BLM) initiative.

Facing attacks for her stance, the senator said her efforts stem from the BLM’s goals, which include disrupting the nuclear family, defunding the police, and threats to burn down the American system.

“Sports have tremendous power to unite us. But the WNBA has embraced the Black Lives Matter political organization,” Loeffler said during an appearance on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle.”

“This is a very divisive organization based on Marxist principles,” the senator added.Two of the three BLM co-founders are self-described Marxists, followers of theories that stem from Karl Marx’s teachings. Marx is known as the founder of communism.

Black Lives Matter Global Network didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn also took aim at the group this week, writing on social media: “The founders of the political arm of the Black Lives Matter organization are self-proclaimed ‘trained Marxists.’ We are witnessing a movement to wipe out our history, destroy our families and burn our country to the ground.”

Patrisse Cullors, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, speaks in Los Angeles, Calif., in a file photograph. (Rich Fury/Getty Images for Teen Vogue)
WNBA

The WNBA is planning to start its season late this month with a weekend of games centered around the Black Lives Matter movement.

Teams will wear special uniforms featuring the names of people killed in instances of confirmed or alleged police brutality, including Sandra Bland and Breonna Taylor, and players will warm-up shirts that say “Black Lives Matter.” The phrase will also be displayed on courts.

“We are incredibly proud of WNBA players who continue to lead with their inspiring voices and effective actions in the league’s dedicated fight against systemic racism and violence,” Cathy Engelbert, commissioner of the league, said in a statement.

Loeffler in her letter to the commissioner urged league officials to roll back the plan and instead place the American flag on every jersey.

“Our flag has weathered countless storms, wars, and civil unrest. It symbolizes the strengths unique to our country and the American people. It stands for freedom, equality, and hope. This important symbol will unite us as we work toward a better, brighter, and more equitable tomorrow,” she wrote.

A number of players around the league spoke out after Loeffler’s letter was made public. Many of them were critical of the senator. Some called for Loeffler to be removed as co-owner of the Dream.

“Our league is made up of 80 percent of black females,” WNBA player Natasha Cloud said during an appearance on “CNN Tonight” this week.

“To be a partial owner … but you don’t support them when they take their uniforms off—it’s a problem.” 

Natasha Cloud marches to the MLK Memorial to support Black Lives Matter and to mark the liberation of slavery, in Washington on June 19, 2020. (Michael A. McCoy/Getty Images)
Not Stepping Down

On Thursday night, Loeffler said she would not step down from her position.

Loeffler said she’s against racism but charged that BLM isn’t about combating racism.

“They want to abolish the police completely within five years. and we can see what’s happening across the country with this threat of defunding the police,” she said. “You’ve seen anarchy and riots, you’ve seen murders in Atlanta. This organization didn’t come out and protest the murder of an 8-year-old girl in our streets as a result of this mob rule that was happening in this autonomous zone.” 

TWO SEPARATE SITUATIONS ON TWO DIFFERENT COASTS,
 BUT FACTS DON'T MATTER 

Secoriea Turner, 8, was killed by a bullet near the Wendy’s where Rayshard Brooks was shot by police after resisting arrest. The car the girl was riding in was surrounded by an armed group who has been stopping locals and manning checkpoints, according to police and elected officials. That’s when someone opened fire.

Secoriea’s father said at a press conference: “They say black lives matter. You killed your own. You killed an 8-year-old child.”

Loeffler said she’s taking attacks over her anti-BLM push. She hopes that her speaking out will inspire others to do the same.

“This isn’t about me, this is about every American’s right to speak out, to enjoy free speech, to support whatever cause, and not be canceled,” she said. “We have this cancel culture that is threatening America, and the foundation of it is that Americans are afraid to speak out.”

From The Epoch Times

ANOTHER OUTRAGED RIGHT WINGER SLAGGING BLM AS MARXIST RIOTERS.
WHICH IS THEN REPEATED IN THE RIGHT WING PRESS, SANS EVIDENCE, BY QUOTING EACH OTHER. 

AS A LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST I FIND THESE CLAIMS AND ATTEMPTS AT GOOD OLD COLD WAR 
RED BAITING EXCEPT IT'S NOT BLM CUDDLING 
UP TO PUTIN

Companies Must Answer For Their Support Of The Radical Black Lives Matter Org

I & I Editorial Board

July 9, 2020

11,559 views

13 comments

I&I Editorial

Several companies have been bragging recently that they’re providing financial support to the official Black Lives Matter organization to burnish their PR image. No doubt they’re getting Woke points for doing so. But do the executives at those companies have any idea how radical this group is and what it’s trying to achieve?

The Daily Signal reported earlier this week that at least 18 corporations have pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation.

The list includes: DoorDash, Deckers, Amazon, Gatorade, Microsoft, Glossier, 23andMe, AirBnB, Unilever, Bungie, Nabisco, Dropbox, Fitbit, Developer Digital, Skillshare, Square Enix, The Game Co., and Tinder.

The Daily Signal notes that other companies said they were giving to Black Lives Matter, but didn’t specifically say it was to the foundation.

Private companies are free to give their money to whomever they want. But you’d think that the executives at these corporations would have done the least bit of due diligence before forking over the funds.

So, here are some questions for these companies, and any others that are giving money or encouraging donations to the BLM foundation.

Do your shareholders and employees know that their company is supporting a group run by “trained Marxists”?

In 2015, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors gave an interview in which she said: “We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular, we’re trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories.” The Alicia she’s referring to is BLM co-founder Alicia Garza.

That same year, another BLM co-founder, Opal Tometi, praised Venezuela’s Marxist dictator Nicholas Maduro, saying that “in these last 17 years, we have witnessed the Bolivarian Revolution champion participatory democracy and construct a fair, transparent election system recognized as among the best in the world.”

Does your company support BLM’s call to defund the police?

In a recent BLM video, the group says that “We call for a national defunding of police. We’ve tried police reform over many, many years and still it stays the same. Defunding the police is the only way to stop pouring resources into a system that does not make us safe.”

The money, BLM says, should instead be spent on “education, health care, housing and opportunity.”

If the companies donating to BLM don’t support defunding the police, and believe that doing so would put innocent Americans, particularly black Americans, in greater danger, why are they supporting BLM?

Do you approve of the BLM’s overtly socialist goal of “collective ownership”?

That is the official position of this organization, after all. In 2016, the group issued “A Vision for Black Lives: Policy Demands for Black Power, Freedom and Justice.” It calls for “a reconstruction of the economy to ensure our communities have collective ownership, not merely access.”

What does “collective ownership” have to do with improving race relations? Nothing. The BLM leaders are using race as a cover to push policies right out of the “Communist Manifesto.”

Do you believe that the nuclear family should be abolished in favor of some sort of collectivist child-rearing scheme?

Like good Marxists and socialists, the BLM also wants to destroy the family. It says on its website it intends to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear-family-structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another.”

This, too, has nothing to do with improving black lives. In fact, the disintegration of the “nuclear family structure” has already taken place in the black community, where 69% of children were born out of wedlock in 2016. The outcome of this disruption is clear. While only 5.4% of married-couple families are in poverty, more than 28% of single moms are, and 15% of single dads.

Do you believe in “retroactive decriminalization, (and) immediate release … of all drug-related offenses and prostitution,” and “reparations for the devastating impact of the ‘war on drugs’ and criminalization of prostitution”?

That’s another one of BLM’s top goals.  

Brad Polumbo, writing for the Foundation for Economic Education, had it right when he said that the BLM foundation “is Marxist, is anti-American in its values, and its views are rightfully alarming to anyone who believes in the Constitution, capitalism, and civil society as we know it.”

None of this is hard to find, by the way. It’s all right there on BlackLivesMatter.com, or easily turned up with a little online searching.

There are plenty of organizations working to help blacks and other minorities succeed in this country but aren’t bent on turning the U.S. into a socialist hellhole. Corporate executives should take the time to learn about them.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board

United Airlines Sinks After Warning 36,000 Jobs At Risk



by Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/08/2020 - ZEROHEDGE

It's commonly known the travel and tourism industry has been devastated by the virus-induced recession, but recent headlines from the Trump administration, touting a V-shaped recovery, mask the true nature of the downturn.

As we find out on Wednesday morning (as per a new Yahoo Finance report) - United Airlines Holdings has indicated it might be forced to layoff 36,000 workers, or 45% of its workforce, as passenger demand is expected to remain weak in the back half of the year.


"According to United, 36,000 workers — or 45% of U.S. positions — may be impacted or laid off by October 1. Although 3700 have already taken an early-out option, the potential losses affect 15,000 flight attendants, 11,000 airport staffers, 5500 maintenance positions and 2250 pilots, the company told reporters on a conference call," reported Yahoo Finance

The pandemic has crushed airline stocks, even though Robinhood daytraders, using their Trump stimulus checks, panic bought airline shares, outpaced hedge funds in returns in the first half - are now finding out these stocks are slumping once more.




S&P500 Airlines index down 30% in the last 22 trading sessions.



The Trump administration set aside $25 billion in coronavirus stimulus for airlines via the CARES Act (United Airlines received about a fifth of that) - yet it's proving that it's not enough as the downturn in travel and tourism could last several years.

A United Airlines executive said on Wednesday the virus pandemic is "the worst crisis to hit the airline industry and United Airlines," adding that, "We can't count on additional government support to survive."

United is burning upwards of $40 million per day despite a schedule that has been cut to 20% of its normal capacity.

"The United Airlines projected furlough numbers are a gut punch, but they are also the most honest assessment we've seen on the state of the industry," said Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants union, which represents 50,000 workers at 19 airlines, including United.

Maybe this slide of airlines suggests what's next for overall markets...

UK Commits "Highway Robbery" Of Venezuelan Gold, Says Academic

Authored by Johanna Ross via InfoBrics.org,


by Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/10/2020 - ZEROHEDGE

When it comes to Venezuela, Britain is suffering from split personality disorder. While the UK Foreign Office reportedly maintains ‘full, normal and reciprocal diplomatic relations’ with legitimately elected President Maduro’s government, and with Maduro’s UK ambassador, the British government has been actively supporting the self-appointed US-backed ‘leader’ Juan Guaido, who led the coup against Maduro in 2019.

Last week the High Court in London ruled that Juan Guaido was ‘unequivocally’ recognised as the President of Venezuela.




There’s just one problem with the ruling however: Juan Guaido isn’t the President.

He may have tried hard; he talked the talk, and walked the walk (clearly modelling himself on a cross between Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron, with sleeves rolled up like Barack Obama). He had just the right youthful, liberal image to front the US led regime change campaign in the South American nation. But last year’s coup, supported by the US and Colombia, dramatically backfired after the Venezuelan military refused to back him.

Nevertheless, it has been in the British government’s interest to prop up the would-be Venezuelan leader. The High Court’s verdict was in a case brought to the court by Maduro’s government, which is trying to access $1bn of its gold currently held by the Bank of England. It’s pretty straightforward - the bank doesn’t want to pay out, and is using Maduro’s ‘contested’ leadership as a reason not to do so. Suddenly it matters that Maduro’s presidency is questionable, never mind the fact that he was democratically re-elected in 2018.

Juan Guaido claims that the funds from the Bank of England gold would be used to ‘prop up the regime’, while the Venezuelan government has insisted that the money would go towards managing the coronavirus pandemic. Maduro has even said that once the gold is sold the money will be transferred to the UN Development Programme. In any case, the reason seems irrelevant; when was the last time you or I had to justify a withdrawal from our own bank accounts?

I spoke recently to the National Secretary of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign and senior lecturer at the University of Middlesex, Dr Francisco Dominguez, who said to me that the move by the High Court to block the transfer of Venezuelan gold constituted nothing more than ‘highway robbery’ and he condemned the UK’s use of Guaido in this case as a ‘legal device to steal Venezuela’s assets’. He stated:

"It is abundantly clear the UK’s recognition of Guaido’s farcical 'interim presidency' has nothing to do with 'democracy' or 'human rights' but with 'colonial pillage'.

After all, there is nothing democratic or decent about Guaido: he colludes with Colombian narco-traffickers; he attempted a violent coup d’etat’; contracted US mercenaries to assassinate President Maduro and several Venezulean government high officials, vigorously promotes sanctions and aggression against his own nation, and he reeks of corruption."

Dr Dominguez also pointed to direct collusion of the UK government with Guaido, as was recently uncovered by a British journalist. Newly obtained documents, exposed by John McEvoy, have recently shed light on the murky connection between the British government and the aspiring Venezuelan president. It was uncovered that a Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) Unit named the Venezuela Reconstruction Unit has been created which has not been officially acknowledged by either country. In the documents it was revealed that Juan Guaidó's representative in the UK, Vanessa Neumann, had spoken with FCO officials about the sustenance of British business interests in Venezuela's 'reconstruction'. A conversation of this nature obviously stinks of regime change, given the fact Venezuela sits on the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and that Neumann has previously links to oil companies. Britain is placing its stake in Venezuela’s demise.

Formally the UK government has a different position. In relation to Venezuela’s gold, former Treasury Minister Robert Jenrick said back in 2019 in response to the parliamentary question ‘what the legal basis was for the Bank of England’s decision to freeze approximately 1125 gold bars stored by the Venezuelan central bank in November 2018.’, that it was a ‘matter for the Bank of England’. Jenrick maintained that HM Treasury only has direct control over the UK government’s own holdings of gold within its official reserves, which are held at the Bank of England.’

However the facts paint a different picture.

John Bolton’s White House memoir The Room Where It Happened’ reveals that UK Foreign Secretary at the time, Jeremy Hunt ‘was delighted to freeze Venezuelan gold deposits in the Bank of England so the regime could not sell the gold to keep itself going.’

As Bolton unashamedly admitted:
These were the sort of steps we were already applying to pressure Maduro financially."

The former National Security Advisor relates in his book how proud he was to have been the driving force behind the 2019 power grab:

 "I was heartened that Maduro’s government promptly accused me of leading a coup."

Bolton openly describes how they discussed ways of delegitimizing the Venezuelan government as Trump reportedly said "Maybe it’s time to put Maduro out of business."
The evidence suggests that the UK complied fully in Bolton’s masterplan to unseat Maduro, and is continuing to work with the US to undermine the Venezuelan leadership; only in truly subtle British fashion, surreptitiously, hoping no-one would notice. Who knows, when, if ever, the Venezuelans will see their gold. But you can be sure they won’t be investing with the Bank of England any time soon.

Malawi Has The Most Expensive Mobile Internet In The World (India's Cheapest)


by Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/10/2020 - 04:15


What Does 1GB of Mobile Data Cost in Every Country?

Billions of people around the world rely on their mobile phones every day.

Even in a saturated market, mobile networks have continued to expand their reach. In the last five years alone, almost one billion additional people have gained access to mobile data services.

However, despite the growing prevalence of these networks worldwide, Visual Capitalist's Carmen Ang notes that the cost of gaining access can vary greatly from country to country—particularly when it comes to the price of mobile data.


Today’s chart uses figures from Cable.co.uk to showcase the average cost of one gigabyte (GB) of mobile data in 155 different countries and jurisdictions. Despite the vast global reach of the mobile economy, it’s clear it still has a long way to go to reach true accessibility.


Discrepancies in Mobile Data Costs

Researchers have identified several key elements that help explain the cost variation for mobile data between countries:


Existing infrastructure (or lack thereof): This might seem counterintuitive, but most mobile networks rely on a fixed-line connection. As a result, countries with existing infrastructure are able to offer mobile plans with more data, at a cheaper price. This is the case for India and Italy. Countries with minimal or no infrastructure rely on more costly connection alternatives like satellites, and the cost typically gets passed down to the consumer.


Reliance on mobile data: When mobile data is the primary source of internet in a particular region, adoption can become nearly universal. This high demand typically leads to an increase in competing providers, which in turn lowers the cost. Kyrgyzstan is a good example of this.


Low data consumption: Countries with poor infrastructure tend to use less data. With mobile plans that offer smaller data limits, the overall average cost per GB tends to skew higher. Countries like Malawi and Benin are examples of this phenomenon.


Average income of consumer: Relatively wealthy nations tend to charge more for mobile services since the population can generally afford to pay more, and the cost of operating a network is higher. This is apparent in countries like Canada or Germany.
The Cheapest Countries for 1 GB of Data


Even among the cheapest countries for mobile data, the cost variation is significant. Here’s a look at the top five cheapest countries for 1 GB of data:



India ranks the cheapest at $0.09 per GB, a 65% decrease in price compared to the country’s average cost in 2019.
Why is data so cheap in India? A significant factor is the country’s intense market competition, driven by Reliance Jio—a telecom company owned by Reliance Industries, one of the largest conglomerates in India. Reliance Jio launched in 2016, offering customers free trial periods and plans for less than a $1 a month. This forced other providers to drop their pricing, driving down the overall cost of data in the region.

Because these prices are likely unsustainable for the long term, India’s cheaper-than-usual prices may soon come to an end.

Another country worth highlighting is Kyrgyzstan, which ranks as the third cheapest at $0.21 per GB, ahead of Italy and Ukraine. This ranking is surprising, given the country’s minimal fixed-line infrastructure and large rural population. Researchers suspect the low cost is a result of Kyrgyzstan’s heavy reliance on mobile data as the population’s primary source of internet.
The Most Expensive Countries for 1 GB of Data

On the other end of the spectrum, here are the top five most expensive countries for one gigabyte of mobile data:



A striking trend worth noting is that four out of five of the most expensive countries for mobile data are in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

A significant factor behind the high cost of data in SSA is its lack of infrastructure. With overburdened networks, the data bundles offered in the region are generally smaller. This drives up the average cost per GB when compared to countries with unlimited packages.

Another element that contributes to SSA’s high costs is its lack of market competition. In countries with multiple competing networks, such as Nigeria, the cost of data skews lower.

The Full Breakdown

The below table has a full list of all 155 countries and jurisdictions included in the data set. It helps demonstrate the stark contrast in the cost of mobile data between the most expensive and cheapest countries globally.



Interestingly, the highest average cost is 30,000% more than the cheapest average price.
The Technology Gap

Will we reach a point of equal accessibility across the globe, or will the technology gap between countries continue to widen?

With 5G networks on the rise, just seven countries are expected to make up the majority of 5G related investments. Time will tell what this means for adoption worldwide.

Double take: New study analyzes global, multiple-tailed lizards

Research into abnormal regeneration events in lizards has led to the first published scientific review on the prevalence of lizards that have re-generated not just one, but two, or even up to six, tails.

Date:July 7, 2020      Source:Curtin University

Curtin research into abnormal regeneration events in lizards has led to the first published scientific review on the prevalence of lizards that have re-generated not just one, but two, or even up to six, tails.

PhD Candidate Mr James Barr, from Curtin University's School of Molecular and Life Sciences, said while the phenomena of multiple-tailed lizards are widely known to occur, documented events were generally limited to opportunistic, single observations of one in its natural environment.

"This limited available research about multiple-tailed lizards has made it difficult for biologists to fully understand their ecological importance, and our study helps to highlight this knowledge gap," Mr Barr said.

Many species of lizards have the ability to self-amputate a portion of their tail, an event known as caudal autotomy, as a defence mechanism when they are being attacked by a predator.

Most commonly the tail grows back as a single rod of cartilage, but Mr Barr explained that sometimes an anomaly occurs, resulting in the regeneration of more than just one tail.

"Sometimes following an incomplete autotomy event, when the lizard's original tail does not fully separate from its body, a secondary tail regenerates, resulting in the lizard having two separate tails," Mr Barr said.

"There have even been records of lizards re-generating up to six tails.

"Our study indicates that this phenomenon may actually be occurring more frequently in lizards than previously thought.

"We analysed the available two-tailed lizard data from more than 175 species across 22 families, from 63 different countries. Contrasting this data with all comparable lizard population numbers, our findings suggest an average of 2.75 per cent of all lizards within populations could have two tails or more at any one time.

"This is quite a surprisingly high number, and it really begins to make us wonder what ecological impacts this could have, especially noting that to the lizard, an extra tail represents a considerable increase in body mass to drag around."

Co-researcher Curtin University Associate Professor Bill Bateman explained that while there is a significant lack of studies to understand these potential ecological impacts, his team believes that having two tails might affect the overall fitness and life history for individual lizards, and their overall populations.

"Shedding a tail to escape a predator and then regenerating it seems like a good tactic; however, when this regeneration goes awry and results in multiple abnormal tails, this is likely to have an effect on the lizard.

"It could affect a range of things, such as their kinetic movements, restrictions they might have when trying to escape a predator, their anti-predation tactics, and socially speaking, how other lizards might react to them," Professor Bateman said.

"For example, could having two tails potentially affect their ability to find a mate, and therefore reduce opportunities for reproduction? Or on the contrary, could it potentially be of benefit?

"Behaviourally testing out these hypotheses would be an interesting and important future research direction, so biologists can learn more about the lifestyles of these multiple-tailed lizards."

Journal Reference:
James I. Barr, Ruchira Somaweera, Stephanie S. Godfrey, Michael G. Gardner, Philip W. Bateman. When one tail isn't enough: abnormal caudal regeneration in lepidosaurs and its potential ecological impacts. Biological Reviews, 2020; DOI: 10.1111/brv.12625

Curtin University. "Double take: New study analyzes global, multiple-tailed lizards." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 7 July 2020. .

Researchers foresee linguistic issues during space travel

Without care, Lost in Space could mean Lost in Translation

Interstellar space travelers arriving on another planet could face problems communicating with previous and subsequent arrivals, their spoken language having changed in isolation along the way.

Date:July 6, 2020  Source:University of Kansas

It lacks the drama of a shape-shifting alien creature, but another threat looms over the prospect of generations-long, interstellar space travel: Explorers arriving on Xanadu could face problems communicating with previous and subsequent arrivals, their spoken language having changed in isolation along the way.

Therefore, a new paper co-authored by a University of Kansas professor of linguistics and published in a journal affiliated with the European Space Agency recommends that such crews include, if not a linguist, members with knowledge of what is likely to occur and how to adapt.

Associate Professor Andrew McKenzie of KU and Jeffrey Punske, assistant professor of linguistics at Southern Illinois University, co-authored the article "Language Development During Interstellar Travel" in the April edition of Acta Futura, the journal of the European Space Agency's Advanced Concepts Team.

In it, they discuss the concept of language change over time, citing such earthbound examples of long-distance voyages as the Polynesian island explorers and extrapolating from there.

It might seem far-fetched, but the authors cite language change even during their own lifetimes with the rise -- no pun intended -- of uptalk.

They write that "it is increasingly common for speakers to end statements with a rising intonation. This phenomenon, called uptalk (or sometimes High Rising Terminal), is often mistaken for a question tone by those without it in their grammars, but it actually sounds quite distinct and indicates politeness or inclusion. Uptalk has only been observed occurring within the last 40 years, but has spread from small groups of young Americans and Australians to most of the English-speaking world, even to many Baby Boomers who had not used it themselves as youth."

"Given more time, new grammatical forms can completely replace current ones."

Imagine trying to chat with Chaucer today. Even improvements in translation technology might not be enough.

In a recent interview, McKenzie gamed it out.

"If you're on this vessel for 10 generations, new concepts will emerge, new social issues will come up, and people will create ways of talking about them," McKenzie said, "and these will become the vocabulary particular to the ship. People on Earth might never know about these words, unless there's a reason to tell them. And the further away you get, the less you're going to talk to people back home. Generations pass, and there's no one really back home to talk to. And there's not much you want to tell them, because they'll only find out years later, and then you'll hear back from them years after that.

"The connection to Earth dwindles over time. And eventually, perhaps, we'll get to the point where there's no real contact with Earth, except to send the occasional update.

"And as long as the language changes on the vessel, and then at an eventual colony, the question becomes 'Do we still bother learning how to communicate with people on Earth?' Yes. So if we have Earth English and vessel English, and they diverge over the years, you have to learn a little Earth English to send messages back, or to read the instruction manuals and information that came with the ship.

"Also, keep in mind that the language back on Earth is going to change, too, during that time. So they may well be communicating like we'd be using Latin -- communicating with this version of the language nobody uses."

The authors also point out that an adaptation in the form of sign language will be needed for use with and among crew members who, genetics tell us, are sure to be born deaf.

In any case, they write, "every new vessel will essentially offload linguistic immigrants to a foreign land. Will they be discriminated against until their children and grandchildren learn the local language? Can they establish communication with the colony ahead of time to learn the local language before arrival?

"Given the certainty that these issues will arise in scenarios such as these, and the uncertainty of exactly how they will progress, we strongly suggest that any crew exhibit strong levels of metalinguistic training in addition to simply knowing the required languages. There will be need for an informed linguistic policy on board that can be maintained without referring back to Earth-based regulations."

If a study of the linguistic changes aboard ship could be performed, it would only "add to its scientific value," McKenzie and Punske conclude.

Journal Reference:
McKenzie, A.; Punske, J. Language Development During Interstellar Travel. Acta Futura, 2020; 12: 123-132 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3747353

University of Kansas. "Researchers foresee linguistic issues during space travel: Without care, Lost in Space could mean Lost in Translation." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 6 July 2020. .

Community initiative increases teenage use of effective contraception

Study finds that teenagers utilize Long-Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) at a rate five times higher than the United States as a whole.

Date:July 9, 2020

Source:University of Rochester Medical Center

A new study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology shows that a University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) community outreach initiative has helped adolescents in Rochester adopt long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) at a rate far higher than the U.S. overall.

The study, "Impact of the Rochester LARC Initiative on Adolescents' Utilization of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception," used Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System data from the years 2013, 2015, and 2017 for Rochester, New York City, New York State, and the U.S. overall. These years cover the time before and after the Initiative began in 2014.

The study found that usage of LARC among sexually active high school females in Rochester increased from 4 to 24 percent from 2013-2017, compared to an increase from 2.7 to 5.3 percent in New York City, 1.5 to 4.8 percent in New York State, and 1.8 to 5.3 percent in the U.S. overall.

The Greater Rochester LARC Initiative was started six years ago by the Hoekelman Center for Health Beyond Medicine, a unit of the URMC Department of Pediatrics that connects doctors with non-profits to benefit kids and adults by making communities healthier places to live. Primarily funded by the Greater Rochester Health Foundation, the Initiative aims to increase access to highly effective methods of birth control, including intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants (LARCs) for adolescents in Rochester.

Andrew Aligne, M.D., M.P.H., director of the Hoekelman Center, and his team have led the community effort to promote LARC by conducting outreach to local organizations that work with youth. They employ a simple "lunch-and-learn" approach to disseminate accurate information that forms the backbone of the Hoekelman Center's advocacy work.

"An interesting aspect of the LARC project is that we talk to adults, not to teens. We work with our community partners to teach adults about birth control. This way, they can help teens to make well-informed choices about preventing unintended pregnancy," says Jessica VanScott, M.P.H., the LARC Initiative's health project coordinator.

Through their research with area teens, the LARC project team found that many were interested in learning about birth control, and that they often asked their most trusted peers and adults for advice.

"If teens are learning outside the medical setting from trusted youths and adults, then how do we increase the likelihood that anyone they talk to will share accurate information? We thought it could help if we gave resources with useful information to adults who work with teens in the community," said Aligne, associate professor of Pediatrics at URMC.

So far, the team has presented to more than 2,700 adults in health care settings, as well as those in community settings such as staff of after-school programs. The talks provide information about the safety, efficacy, and availability of LARC, with the goal of improving knowledge and access at the community level.

This approach is different from previous attempts to disseminate information about LARC. Typically, past outreach efforts have focused on targeting primary care providers or utilizing advertising resources to raise awareness. The Hoekelman Center's community-based approach achieved strong results because few of these community organizations had ground-level information available about LARC, according to Aligne.

"Almost nobody knew that the LARC program was free and covered by Medicaid," said Aligne. 26 states offer reimbursement for LARC under the Medicaid Family-Planning Benefit -- included as part of the Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- and Aligne believes these states could scale-up the Hoekelman Center's model to raise awareness as well.

Studies have shown that unintended teen pregnancy can lead to a number of critical health and social problems for young parents and their children: low birth weight, unemployment, school failure, and many other serious issues. Because of these risks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has declared teen pregnancy a national public health priority, and the CDC -- along with the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists -- recommends LARC as a safe and highly effective method of pregnancy prevention for adolescents seeking contraception.

"LARCs are more effective than pills, patches, and other contraceptives because they remain in place all the time," said Katherine Greenberg, M.D., an adolescent medicine specialist at UR Medicine's Golisano Children's Hospital. "Today's LARCs are safe, effective, invisible, and can be easily removed with no lingering effects when you decide to become pregnant." LARC methods protect against pregnancy for up to three to 12 years, can be removed at any time, and are 40 times more effective for teens than the traditional birth control pill.

The Hoekelman Center's efforts are bolstered by an extensive network of local agencies, including the Initiative's core partners: the Metro Council for Teen Potential, Healthy Baby Network, Highland Family Planning, and Planned Parenthood of Central and Western New York.

"As we strive to fulfill our mission to pursue and invest in solutions that build a healthier region where all people can thrive, we are proud to support the LARC Initiative at URMC, and celebrate its successes," said Matthew Kuhlenbeck, president and CEO of the Greater Rochester Health Foundation.

"The LARC project team takes a proactive, practical approach in its efforts to help reduce teen pregnancy by sharing information and increasing awareness of options, and we are especially grateful for the collaboration among URMC and community partners who are working together to address this challenge."

LARC services have continued during COVID-19, and access expanded at an increasing number of primary care practices serving teens and young adults throughout the Finger Lakes region during the last year, thanks to Accountable Health Partners (AHP), URMC's clinically integrated network of hospitals and physicians. In partnership with the Hoekelman Center team, and funded by a grant from the Finger Lakes Performing Provider System (FLPPS), AHP has promoted training in both reproductive counseling and LARC placement for primary care providers in order to further reduce access barriers for patients.

"The LARC Initiative demonstrates true collaboration between health care and community and is a significant population health success for our region," said Laura Jean Shipley, M.D., professor of clinical pediatrics, vice chair for Population and Behavioral Health at URMC and associate medical director at AHP.

Journal Reference:
C. Andrew Aligne, Rachael Phelps, Jessica L. VanScott, Sarah A. Korones, Katherine B. Greenberg. Impact of the Rochester LARC Initiative on adolescents’ utilization of long-acting reversible contraception. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2020; 222 (4): S890.e1 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.029

University of Rochester Medical Center. "Community initiative increases teenage use of effective contraception." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 July 2020. .