Asian American and Pacific Islanders could be tiebreakers in key swing states, survey and early voting results show

THE ROCK ENDORSES BIDEN

About a third of all AAPI voters live in the 10 most competitive states. More politically engaged than four years ago, they have an outsize influence on the election.


Oct. 30, 2020, By Claire Wang

Asian American and Pacific Islanders could provide the margin of victory in the country’s 10 most contested states, which are scattered across the Midwest, South and Southwest, according to a new report commissioned by the National Education Association.

The survey, conducted in July and September with 875 Asian constituents, finds new insight into an overlooked community that holds an outsize influence on Senate and presidential races. A majority of the study respondents are of Chinese, Indian and Filipino descent.

The report highlighted the fact that a third of registered AAPI voters, more than 2 million in total, live in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin.

“When there’s national polling done on the AAPI electorate, states like California, Texas, New York and New Jersey are overrepresented,” Carrie Pugh, the national political director at the NEA, the nation's largest teachers union, told NBC Asian America.

Because the racial group is “most populous in places that aren’t battleground states,” she said, national voter data rarely provides candidates accurate profiles of more obscure populations, such as Pennsylvania’s Vietnamese residents.

The survey is among the first to explore the politics of Asian Americans who live in areas targeted in the “race to 270 electoral votes,” Pugh said.

 Based on 2016 exit polls cited in the research, a higher AAPI turnout could have propelled Hillary Clinton to victory in several swing states. In Michigan, where she lost by 10,000 votes, more than 50,000 eligible AAPI voters chose not to cast a ballot. In Pennsylvania, where the margin of victory was 44,000 votes, nearly 100,000 people abstained.

Voting among 18-29 year-old Asian Americans is up nearly 400 percent compared to 2016.

But this year, more than 50 percent of swing state constituents say they feel “much more enthusiastic” about voting than before, suggesting that Asian Americans could make a bigger impact on Election Day.

 Early turnout seems to support this idea: The group has so far cast about a half-million more absentee and early ballots than it did four years ago, according to the data consulting firm Catalist. Of the 1.8 million people who voted, a third abstained in 2016. This growth is most pronounced among 18- to 29-year-olds, who have cast roughly 330,000 ballots — a nearly 400 percent increase from 2016.

This willingness to participate in the political process, the survey shows, can be partly attributed to a fraught socioeconomic climate. Asian Americans in the 10 competitive states rank jobs and health care as the top two election issues. Immigration, college affordability and voter suppression — concerns that typically occupy top spots — are still considered important but have been superseded by the pandemic. At the same time, respondents find more abstract concepts, like a sense of civic duty, moral responsibility and faith in democracy, to be stronger motivators to vote than displeasure toward President Donald Trump and his perceived policy failures.

“It’s clear AAPI voters don’t like Trump,” said Fred Yang, a Democratic pollster and partner at the Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group, the polling firm that conducted the study. “But their dislike of Trump is not enough to make them vote.”

In general, respondents favor former Vice President Joe Biden over Trump by wide margins. But mobilizing young people to vote, Pugh and Yang say, can be the key to turning swing states blue. Nearly 70 percent of young Asian Americans support Biden, compared to just 49 percent of seniors. “We need to motivate young people to vote more because they’re more likely to vote Democrat,” Yang said, adding that one goal of the study was to hone in on messaging that fuels youth turnout.

Pugh credits the Biden campaign for aggressively ramping up in-language outreach to AAPI communities, which has been instrumental in generating interest in civic participation. His staff has invested in a host of creative and culturally sensitive initiatives, from running targeted ads in local ethnic media to hiring bilingual Asian outreach directors across the country. “I’ve been doing politics for three decades and have never seen this robust level of engagement,” Pugh said. “It’s kind of our time.”

Ultimately, she said, gathering data on AAPI constituents, especially those in regions with smaller Asian populations, should be an ongoing effort to ensure every community feels seen. The NEA has been collecting data for a post-election national poll, which is expected to be released next month. Along with general turnout numbers, it’ll provide a snapshot of the issues and circumstances that motivated most people to vote—points that can inform future outreach.

“Our community has been overlooked and underresourced for way too long,” Pugh said. “Having the data element is an important part in running more sophisticated programs and highlighting us in a way that should be more commensurate with our population growth.”

Federal wildland firefighters say they're burned out after years of low pay, little job stability

As record fire years continue, USFS “forestry technicians” push for better working conditions.

Among those problems is their classification as forestry technicians, instead of being fully recognized for their firefighting work.

“What the federal government is doing is asking 20-year-olds to risk their lives for $13 to $15 and say, ‘Sayonara,’ with no retirement benefits, nothing,” 

United States Forest Service “forestry technicians” are pushing for fairer wages and better working conditions. Cornelia Li / for NBC News

Oct. 31, 2020, 
By Cyrus Farivar and Alicia Victoria Lozano

What started as a single tree fire in the mountains of Idaho in 2012 quickly escalated into a smoke-filled inferno that surrounded United States Forest Service helicopter rappeller Jonathon Golden and his small team.

Capable of accessing land that is too rugged or steep to reach by foot, rappel crews are the first to respond to wildfires buried deep within forests. Their goal is simple: stop small fires before they balloon out of control.

Golden, who retired from the agency in 2019, was the first of his four-person team to rappel into the smoldering ridge. He remembers the smoke being so thick that not even the whirl of the helicopter improved visibility on the ground.

“One tree turned into five, five trees turned into 20. It was this cascade of fire erupting,” Golden said. “You could hear the unmistakable sound of a freight train of fire roaring up at you.”

A forest service helicopter returns to the south fork of the Payette River on Aug. 6, 2012, after dropping water on the Springs Fire, east of Banks, Idaho.

Joe Jaszewski / The Idaho Statesman via AP

Golden, who was 30 years old at the time, had heard about previous firefighter fatalities in the region and didn’t want to take any chances. He was working to establish an escape route when one of his crew members went “rogue,” compromising the team’s ability to stay together.

Using his radio, Golden asked for additional air support but other crews were tied up with their own attack plans. His team was forced to find its own way out.

“I thought we were done, frankly,” Golden said. “I thought we were going to die.”

Eight years later, Golden still cannot shake the experience. He was forced to leave behind his equipment and pack, including his wallet and many of his belongings. They were all destroyed in what was later named the Mustang Fire, which incinerated more than 300,000 acres in the Salmon-Challis National Forest.

Golden was a temporary seasonal forestry technician at the time and never received treatment for what he thinks could be post-traumatic stress. He took just one day off to order a new bank card and was back at work the next day. When he tried to talk to his supervisor about the experience, he was told to move on: “You might as well forget about it.”

Missing birthdays and other special events is one of the many drawbacks wildland firefighters like Jonathon Golden face.

Courtesy of Jonathon Golden

Golden is just one of thousands of federal wildland firefighters who work six months out of the year and whose part-time status doesn’t come with the typical benefits or job security given to state and city firefighters.

NBC News spoke with 27 current and former USFS firefighters with similar stories. Nearly all of them said they are grossly underpaid to perform life-threatening work. Many don’t have access to health care and other benefits, particularly during the off-season. They are not even considered to be firefighters, instead falling into a bureaucratic quagmire that designates them as forestry technicians. Some grimly joke that only in death does the agency recognize them as bona fide firefighters.

“It takes us dying to get their attention,” said Riva Duncan, a forest management officer.

Despite the low pay and benefits, many wildland firefighters said they can’t imagine a life outside fire. For some, the adrenaline rush becomes a kind of compulsion. For others, sleeping under the stars and protecting federal land is a higher calling.

“For those of us who stick it out, our love for what we do outweighs everything,” said Duncan, who has been with the USFS for 37 years. “The sacrifices we have made — it’s because we believe in the mission.”

Amid escalating fire threats fueled by climate change and forest mismanagement, these workers are now organizing and lobbying Congress in new ways. They are finding bipartisan support among some Western lawmakers, but many worry the federal agency that employs them is ill-equipped to provide adequate pay and benefits despite the dangerous nature of their jobs.

A plane drops repellant on a forest fire Jonathon Golden was fighting.

Jonathon Golden

According to the Congressional Research Service, as of Oct. 1, over 44,000 wildfires have burned nearly 7.7 million wildland acres this year alone. That’s more than 12,000 square miles, or an area about 1 1/2 times the size of New Jersey.

Over the last decade, fire seasons have gradually turned into fire years. This year, more than 4 million acres have already burned in California alone, forcing thousands of evacuations and power outages across the state. Longer-burning fires have also resulted in more dangerous work. In September, a Hotshot squad leader was killed battling the El Dorado Fire in San Bernardino County, California.

The USFS declined to make anyone in leadership available for an interview and did not directly address many of NBC News’ detailed questions.

Babete Anderson, a spokeswoman for the USFS, said in a statement that the agency is “working to identify solutions by listening to our firefighters to ensure their needs are met.”

“We need to treat the landscape at a much larger scale, 2-3 times what we do now, together with our partners,” she wrote. “Only then will we significantly reduce the threat of wildfire to communities, ensure our forests endure into the future and provide firefighters the safe spaces they need to respond.”

Low pay, few benefits

It’s difficult to fully appreciate how large the American West is, and most don’t realize how much of it is federally owned and managed. Most states west of Kansas have substantial portions of their territory controlled by the federal government.

The U.S. Forest Service, which operates under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is responsible for roughly 30 percent of all federal land: 193 million acres, or over 301,000 square miles, the overwhelming majority of it in the West. The total area of USFS-managed land is larger than the entire state of Texas by approximately 30,000 square miles.

Western federal lands managed by five agencies.

Congressional Research Service

To oversee all of that land, and the 28,000 employees that work on it, the agency has an annual budget of $5.3 billion. Nearly half ($2.4 billion) of that budget is currently spent on “wildland fire management.” A 2015 USFS report estimated this cost will rise to over two-thirds of the agency’s annual budget by 2025, to the detriment of nearly all other agency priorities, including vegetation and watershed management, facilities maintenance and more.

Every fire season, in the spring, USFS ramps up and hires an additional 12,000 seasonal employees, hired primarily for firefighting, most of whom have to reapply for their job each season.

This seasonal employment model is one that many younger firefighters who spoke with NBC News lament: In the off-season, they seek work in fields as diverse as construction to farming to photography, and some even receive unemployment benefits.

In the parlance of the agency, the bulk of the USFS firefighters are “1039s,” referring to the number of work hours they are capped at in a given season. That is just a single hour shy of six months of paid work, which means the federal government can classify those workers as temporary. They are not able to receive automatic health care, retirement or other benefits afforded to permanent employees.

In practice, firefighters battling an active fire often end up working well beyond the 1,039 base hours with overtime, sometimes accruing up to additional 1,000 hours.

One current forest service employee, who asked not to be named for fear of retribution, said his low pay means he sometimes can’t afford basic necessities for his kids.

“I struggle to put new shoes on my children as a temporary firefighter,” he said. “I had to look at my 6-year-old and tell her I couldn’t afford brand-new shoes for her while we were shopping at a thrift store after a complete season of firefighting.”USFS firefighter pay is dictated by the federal pay scale, where most start at the GS-3 level and where pay tops out at around $31,000 annually for full-time employees. By comparison, a first-year firefighter with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, better known as Cal Fire, makes nearly double that amount.

Most rank-and-file temporary seasonal workers are starting at an hourly base salary of approximately $13 per hour plus overtime and hazard pay. One current USFS firefighter posted to Reddit recently showing that after eight years of service his gross pay topped out at around $30,000 annually.

“What the federal government is doing is asking 20-year-olds to risk their lives for $13 to $15 and say, ‘Sayonara,’ with no retirement benefits, nothing,” said Brandon Dunham, a former USFS and Bureau of Land Management firefighter. “That is a human tragedy right there.”

  

U.S. Forest Service firefighters monitor a back fire while battling to save homes at the Camp Fire in Paradise, Calif., on Nov. 8, 2018.Stephen Lam / Reuters file

Dunham and others recently sent a letter to top senators seeking to “advocate for fair pay and wage equality,” among other requests for their ilk.

The former “helitack” crew member — a type of wildland firefighter specializing in helicopter operations — has given up firefighting after 11 years, in favor of working construction, spending more time at home with his wife and hosting a podcast by and for wildland firefighters called “The Anchor Point Podcast.” He decided to leave the field as he felt there was no future for him there.

When asked if he would like to return to wildland firefighting, with an agency like Cal Fire, Dunham did not hesitate.

“I would go jump on a Cal Fire engine in a heartbeat,” he said.

Larger fires, increasing demand

The Reno, Nevada, resident left the USFS at a time when, according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service, an average of nearly 7 million acres of federal land has burned every year since 2000, more than double the average annual acreage burned during the 1990s.

Beginning in the USFS 2019 Budget Justification document, even the USFS itself began remarking on the fact that there is now “year-round fire activity” rather than a traditional fire season. “ 

The Nation is experiencing more extreme fire behavior and high risk, high cost wildfire suppression operations in the wildland-urban interface have progressively become the new normal over the last two decades,” the fiscal year 2021 document stated.

 “It is estimated that 63 million acres of National Forest System lands and 70,000 communities are at risk from uncharacteristically severe wildfires. Annually, there are typically more than 5,000 fires on National Forest System lands.”

There is a rapidly increasing disconnect between the fiscal realities of firefighting (they are paid relatively little) and the ground truth: Fires are burning larger areas than ever before and these firefighters are in higher demand.

“The bureaucracy of the federal government does not match the speed with which fire is changing,” said one USFS firefighter based in Oregon who wished to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal.

As fires have increased in frequency and intensity in recent years, fatalities among wildland firefighters have also increased. A 2014 Quadrennial Fire Review commissioned by the USFS and the Department of the Interior Office of Wildland Fire found that the 10-year moving average of wildland firefighter fatalities had nearly doubled in 40 years.

Juggling family and firefighting

Despite the increased fire threat, many wildland firefighters say they are not given the resources or protections necessary to continue working with the U.S. Forest Service year after year.

It took Mike West a decade to become a full-time employee with the agency and even then finding treatment for his PTSD was difficult.

“I had too many close calls,” he said. “I didn’t really want to be out in the field anymore.”
 

Mike West at the Gasquet Fire on the Six Rivers National Forest in 2015.

Courtesy of Mike West

In 2013, a childhood friend who worked as a smokejumper was killed by a limb from a burning tree. The loss devastated West and triggered an onslaught of symptoms — including anxiety, nightmares and depression — he later learned were caused by PTSD.

“I just sort of covered it up,” he said. “At the time I thought it would be weak if I said anything, so I didn’t tell anybody.”

Three years later the symptoms were worse. He developed short-term memory loss and decided to seek treatment through the USFS. The first counselor assigned to him did not have the necessary background to treat PTSD, West said. He found another doctor that could address his trauma but that therapist was located 90 miles away in Reno, Nevada.

For six months West made the commute, which only exacerbated problems at home. He had two small children that he rarely saw and a wife who grew increasingly tired of juggling child care and her own full-time job.

One night, after working an 18-hour shift as a dispatcher, West had enough.

“It got to the point where I had to choose: Do I want to be a good family man and a bad firefighter or do I want to be a really good firefighter and bad with my family? I couldn’t find a balance,” he said.

“More often than not, people leave because of the strain,” he added. “I don't know too many people who are married and still do the work.”

West finally resigned from the Forest Service in July after 17 years with the agency and became a teacher. His final pay scale as a dispatcher came out to $21.50 an hour plus overtime. In his resignation letter, West pointed to “systemic problems” within the service that made it impossible to continue working for the agency.

Among those problems is their classification as forestry technicians, instead of being fully recognized for their firefighting work.

“You’re a firefighter if you’re thinking about applying, a forestry technician while you’re fighting fires, and if you die you’re a firefighter again?” West wrote in the letter. "I didn’t want to risk my children growing up without a dad because I died fighting fire for an agency that didn’t even consider me a firefighter."

‘A tipping point’

Communication breakdowns and department mismanagement have persisted for over a generation — and it’s frustrating the dwindling ranks of seasonal firefighters, as retirements are outpacing hiring. This is especially problematic at a time when wildland fires continue to burn larger, faster and stronger than ever before.

In April, 11 U.S. senators sent a letter to U.S. Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen warning that the confluence of Covid-19 and high levels of drought in many Western states could make for volatile firefighting conditions, including a 6 percent "'cumulative mortality rate' at large fire camps."

The warning was not passed down to those on the front lines. Instead, it was circulated among crews after someone found it on Reddit.

“I am more than happy to put my life in danger for the work that I do but it felt like a stab in the back,” a current wildland firefighter, who asked to remain anonymous, said.

Jonathon Golden and crew responding to a wildfire.

Courtesy Jonathon Golden

When asked about the breakdown in communication between USFS and its employees, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who signed the letter, said, “I’m not just angry about that. I’m furious.”

“We’re going to get through this fire season, but we’re not going through another fire season where there is this kind of fragmented, poorly coordinated policy that our very own firefighters aren’t even getting adequate information from Washington, D.C.,” he said. “It’s unacceptable.”

The seasonality of the work, coupled with the low wages and risk, has made recruitment more difficult over the last two decades — and the government has done little to fix the problem.

In 1999, the Government Accountability Office told a House subcommittee it had found that the “firefighting workforces” of both the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management “are shrinking” as a result of retirement.

Over a decade later, the USDA’s Office of Inspector General, the department’s internal watchdog, reached a similar conclusion, warning of a wave of retirement without a corresponding increase in new hires.

In addition to the firefighter recruitment concerns, there’s also a budgetary shortfall for the agency to perform adequate year-round forest management work aimed at reducing wildfire risk.

In 2015, in a USFS paper, the agency warned that absent new large-scale funding, it had been forced to reallocate its budget toward firefighting and away from other priorities, concluding that the agency was now “at a tipping point.”

“As more and more of the agency’s resources are spent each year to provide the firefighters, aircraft, and other assets necessary to protect lives, property, and natural resources from catastrophic wildfires, fewer and fewer funds and resources are available to support other agency work—including the very programs and restoration projects that reduce the fire threat,” the paper stated.

Mike Rogers, a former Angeles National Forest supervisor and board member of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees, said forest management was originally the cornerstone of the agency’s work.

“Our workforce was never a fire department,” he said, underscoring that he began at the agency in 1957. “In the old days, everyone put out the fire when we had a fire but then we went back to our jobs and that was managing the forest. We didn’t have specialized firefighters.”

Despite these stark warnings, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, there has been little has been little substantial progress on increasing the Forest Service’s budget, nor has there been substantive movement on reclassification of forestry technicians as firefighters, expanding fuel reduction and other preventative efforts.

However, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., collaborated with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on the Emergency Wildfire and Public Safety Act of 2020, which aims to reduce fire risk in their respective states.

In a recent letter to Senate leadership, the two senators had a dire warning.

“If we don’t take strong action now, we worry that what’s happening to California and Montana will soon become the new normal in every state in the West,” they wrote.

Cyrus Farivar is a reporter on the tech investigations unit of NBC News in San Francisco.

Alicia Victoria Lozano is a Los Angeles-based digital reporter for NBC News.

Top GOP official says cyber attackers stole $2.3 million from Republican Party of Wisconsin
Bill Glauber and Patrick Marley, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 


MILWAUKEE – The top official of the Republican Party of Wisconsin said Thursday that hackers stole $2.3 million during a crucial phase of the presidential campaign.

© Republican Party of Wisconsin Andrew Hitt

Party Chairman Andrew Hitt said the loss was attributed to a phishing attack that has been reported to the FBI.

The FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office would not confirm or deny they were investigating, citing their protocols.

"It was a devastating moment," Hitt said of when the discovery was made.

Hitt said the party discovered the attack Oct. 22 and by Friday morning realized the money was taken from accounts and the FBI was notified. The money had been earmarked to pay vendors working on President Donald Trump's re-election campaign, Hitt said.

Hitt said the Republican National Committee made the initial contact with the FBI and then he was called by the FBI's Madison Field Office.

"The sophisticated criminal began with a phishing attack," Hitt said. "Once in the system, they were able to manipulate information in our emails and on invoices and documents that then resulted in them obtaining $2.3 million."




Hitt said the attackers "were able to change invoices, wire instructions ... The money was wired to the hackers instead of the vendors."

"Obviously, the hackers were extremely skilled and knowledgeable," he said. "They came into one of the most vital battleground states at the perfect time when resources are being spent."

Hitt said the hackers "targeted only vendors that were working for the president's campaign."

He emphasized the party was not wiped out financially and still has resources to move forward in the closing days of the campaign.

"The president's re-election plan is in place," he said. "It's an extremely strong plan moving forward and being implemented. A lot of those things are in place."

Even prior to the alleged attack, the RPW was operating at a significant financial disadvantage in this election cycle. The party was vastly behind in fundraising to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.

Contributing: Molly Beck, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Top GOP official says cyber attackers stole $2.3 million from Republican Party of Wisconsin

A GOP reckoning? If Trump loses his reelection bid, the party may face an identity crisis

WASHINGTON – Donald Trump’s hold on the Republican Party is something few could have imagined when he launched what seemed an unlikely bid for the 2016 nomination.

But even if Trump loses reelection Tuesday, his grip on the GOP is now strong enough that it could take some time before the party figures out a path forward.

“I do not think this is a party that is ready to grapple with what it’s been doing or reassess itself anytime soon,” said GOP consultant Brendan Buck, who worked for the past two Republican House speakers and does not support Trump.

Trump’s takeover of the GOP was swift. While he was front and center during the 2016 primary debates, Trump was initially slow to consolidate support. Even as late as the convention, the possibility of a floor fight loomed over his nomination.

© Joe Raedle, Getty Images Supporters of President Donald Trump demonstrate together outside where Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is holding a campaign rally at the Broward College North Campus on October 29, 2020 in Coconut Creek, Florida.

Once Trump was elected, however, he reshaped the party in his image and GOP officeholders have been judged – by him and by voters – primarily on their loyalty to the president.


“Until that changes,” Buck said, “it’s going to be hard to have a real conversation about changing who we are as a party.”

That’s despite the fact that the headlines have been filled with former GOP officeholders who reject Trump – even as the party's base remains passionate about the president.

Trump's promises: Which has he kept and what is he still working on?

USA TODAY/Suffolk Poll: Ahead of Election Day, 3 of 4 voters worry about violence in a divided nation

Ninety-five percent of Republicans approve of how Trump is doing his job, a figure similar to George W. Bush’s standing before his 2004 re-election, according to Gallup.

But Trump has generally been viewed much less favorably than Bush was among independents and Democrats in the months leading up the election.
Loss of older voters, women

Some of the worst erosion has been among older voters, those with a college education and women.

Trump to women at Michigan rally: 'We're getting your husbands back to work'

Such changes could force a long-term political realignment, according to William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who worked in the Clinton administration. Voters who are breaking their ties with the GOP to back Democratic challenger Joe Biden could make a temporary move permanent if they like what they see in a Biden presidency.

“This could be an extremely significant election in that regard because that would mean a shift in the plate tectonics of politics in the United States,” Galston said. “This could be a big one.”

One group of former Republicans who are giving up on reshaping the party is the Lincoln Project, which has run some of the toughest ads against Trump as well as gone after Senate Republicans on the ballot.

“There are a lot of folks who might be very interested in rebuilding the Republican Party,” said Reed Galen, a co-founder of the Lincoln Project who worked for President George W. Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain. “We are not them.”

Galen sees the Lincoln Project as being a “coalition partner” with a Biden administration.

“If you want to get the country healthy and back to work and back to school, it’s going to take a broad-based, bipartisan, nationwide effort to make it happen,” he said. “To the extent that we can be helpful to a President Biden in that regard, we want to do that.”

The Lincoln Project gleefully tweeted recently that its 2.6 million followers had surpassed the Republican National Committee’s 2.5 million.

To Republicans like Buck, that just proves the group won’t have a voice at the conservative table.

“I think they are a bunch of guys who are effectively leading a Democratic political organization and their followers are Democrats who are happy to see them take out Republicans for them,” he said.
Can Trump supporters and Never Trumpers co-exist?

In fact, it’s not clear whether conservatives who have pushed back against Trump and the changes he’s brought to the party are a significant force, said Vanessa Williamson, co-author of “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.”

"The question I think that remains open is how much support those individuals have either institutionally or in terms of voter support," Williamson said during a recent discussion at the Brookings Institution, where she is a senior fellow. “It is not, I think, at the level where I would describe it as a faction, even, for the Republican Party, in terms of its level of organization or power within the party."

Trump campaign stops: Coronavirus cases surged in his wake in at least five places.

© SAUL LOEB, AFP via Getty Images US President Donald Trump throws a MAGA hat into the crowd as he arrives fora Make America Great Again campaign rally at Altoona-Blair County Airport in Martinsburg, Pennsylvania, October 26, 2020.

At the conservative American Enterprise Institute, scholar Yuval Levin has been bringing together policy advisers to politicians to discuss how to change what conservatives are offering voters.

Levin, who worked on domestic policy for Bush, was among those arguing “well before Trumpism” that base tenants of Reaganism – lowering taxes and letting market forces rule – that drove the party for many years are not delivering for working families.

“That’s very much a debate within the right,” he said. “I think that Republican politicians still are deeply perplexed about what happened in 2016.”

Similarly, a new think tank, the American Compass, is trying to make it clear that “post-Trumpism needs to be very different from pre-Trumpism.”

“Trump just proved wrong virtually everything that the right-of-center thought it knew about what its politicians were supposed to be saying, what it’s constituents actually cared about,” said executive director Oren Cass, a former adviser to Sen. Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign.

Cass argues conservative public policy became too dominated by libertarian impulses, a hands-off approach that has left a lot of needs unaddressed.

“We see a much more substantial role for public policy to play in making the market work well,” he said.
A big tent?

In order to recalibrate, Republicans will have to first wander in the wilderness, said Sarah Longwell, founder of Republicans for the Rule of Law and Defending Democracy Together.

“It comes down to how tight a grip does Donald Trump retain on the party,” she said. “Because one of the things that’s really important to understand about Donald Trump is that he cares less about beating Democrats than he does about owning the Republican Party.”

For that reason, Longwell thinks voters have to "absolutely annihilate" Republicans on Nov. 3.

But the groups she leads aren’t actively working to defeat any Republicans except Trump, as the Lincoln Project is.

For Defending Democracy Together’s $30 million campaign aimed at giving Republicans the “permission” to vote against Trump through testimonials of Republicans who are doing just that, Longwell wanted as big a tent as possible.

“Ninety percent of the people in our project explicitly endorse Biden and are probably going to vote straight ticket,” she said. “But lots of others might not. And we wanted to have a project that gave everybody in that space a home.”

John Pudner, a former adviser to Romney who supports Trump, said the “Never Trumpers” lost credibility with rank-and-file Republicans when they started going after senators.

“I just don’t see how a conservative thinks we’re better off with every branch being controlled by Democrats,” he said.

© MANDEL NGAN, AFP via Getty Images Nuns wearing masks displaying Trump's MAGA slogan listen as US President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pickaway Agriculture and Event Center in Circleville, Ohio on October 24, 2020.

Tom Nichols, a senior adviser to the Lincoln Project, said it’s laughable to argue that Republicans should keep the Senate to serve as a check-and-balance on Democrats, if they lose the White House.

“I don’t remember, over 40 years, anybody ever saying, `Now we’re on the verge of a landslide…but we’d better leave some Democrats in power so that we don’t go crazy,” said Nichols, author of “The Death of Expertise.”

And since it’s “pretty rare for parties to die,” he said, the most likely future is some kind of reconstituted Republican Party.

“But it needs to have new people in it,” he added.

Even if Trump loses, it’s impossible to predict what things will feel like after Nov. 3, Levin said.

But, soon enough, he said, “these conversations will be happening everywhere on the right.”

“I mean,” Levin added, “it will be all we have to do.”

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: A GOP reckoning? If Trump loses his reelection bid, the party may face an identity crisis

 

DONALD TRUMP'S FIRST TERM: The graphic novel

Josh Adams and Anthony Del Col 

Josh Adams for Business Insider

This story is about two moments that revealed President Donald Trump's character to the world: his reaction to the tragedy at Charlottesville and then, just more than three years later, his response to widespread demonstrations following the killing of George Floyd.

Part one is called "You Never Apologize." Part two is called "Always Dominate."

August 2017 and even June 2020 seem like a very long time ago. Our aim is to bring those moments back to life as America finishes voting in the 2020 election.

Insider is proud to present "Never Show Weakness: Trump in Power." https://www.insider.com/donald-trumps-first-term-graphic-novel-2020-10#-1

 

Most Arab Americans plan to vote for Joe Biden but support for Trump has also grown among Arab American Republicans, according to a new poll

Azmi Haroun BI

Reuters

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is likely to receive more of the Arab American vote than President Donald J. Trump, according to the Arab American Institute.

Biden's leading margin with Arab Americans may be smaller than Hillary Clinton's in 2016, and Arab American turnout is expected to be high.

The Biden campaign and the Trump campaign have made late pitstops in Michigan, directly and indirectly focusing messaging on the Arab American community.


Most Arab American voters plan to vote for Joe Biden over Donald J. Trump in the 2020 election, according to a new poll conducted in the second week of October by the Washington, DC-based Arab American Institute (AAI).

The study, which was completed by 805 respondents, indicated that 59% of Arab Americans polled support Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and 35% support President Donald J. Trump. The poll also asked respondents questions about foreign and domestic policies related to both candidates.

Trump's support among Arab American Republicans has grown, according to AAI. In 2016 the polling found that 58% of Arab American voters supported Hillary Clinton and 25% supported Donald Trump, showing that this year, his percentage points jumped up 10%.

A separate poll by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding correlated the findings that support for Trump among conservative American Muslims has increased since 2016.

The majority of respondents to AAI's poll, though, showed strong backing for Biden on the issues and disapproval of Trump's handling of various issues, from the pandemic to protests for racial justice. A quarter of those supporting Biden stated that they were voting for the former Vice President in opposition to Trump, as opposed to directly supporting the Biden campaign.

Overall, Arab Americans who responded showed that their greatest concerns this election year were ranked as race relations, then the faltering economy, and third, healthcare, as the pandemic continues. Seventy percent of those polled said that they viewed the nationwide demonstrations supporting Black Lives Matter in a positive light.

Respondents also relayed that Palestine, "meeting the humanitarian concerns of the Syrian people," and addressing the political and economic crisis in Lebanon, were the top areas of concern on international issues. By a margin of two to one, Trump was seen as being more ineffective than effective in addressing polled domestic and foreign policy issues. Most respondents answered that Biden could improve relations with the Arab world.

The AAI also found that turnout will likely be high for Arab Americans in this election, particularly in Michigan, where Arab Americans could make up 5% of the electorate. More than 80% responded that they were likely to vote, as the Trump and Biden campaigns make their final pitch across the crucial swing state.

Last week, Jill Biden spoke to Arab American activists and community members in Dearborn, Michigan, in front of the iconic Shatila Bakery, an Arab bakery and community mainstay which has been around since the 1970s. There, she spoke about the US being a "nation of immigrants" and claimed that Joe Biden's vision included Arab American communities. Senator Kamala Harris, Biden's vice-presidential pick, also campaigned on the ground, speaking to Arab voters in Dearborn.

On Friday, in Michigan, Trump again touted his support in the Chaldean Iraqi community, a Christian minority that played a helpful role in the 11,000 vote lead which tipped Trump over the edge in Michigan in 2016. The Chaldean community has experienced a subsequent wave of deportations by ICE throughout Trump's presidency, including the case of Jimmy Aldaoud, a 41 year old Iraqi national who had never lived in Iraq. Aldaoud was deported to Iraq, without family on the ground or insulin for his diabetes, and later died, homeless in Baghdad.

Glenn Greenwald resigns from The Intercept

Joe Concha THE HILL 30/10/2020

Journalist Glenn Greenwald has resigned from The Intercept, seven years after co-founding the online publication, citing censorship by his own editors over an article concerning former Vice President Joe Biden.

© Getty Images Glenn Greenwald resigns from The Intercept

The 53-year-old shared his resignation letter in a tweet to his more than 1.5 million followers on Thursday afternoon, in which he accused editors of refusing to publish an article he wrote unless he removed "all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression."

Greenwald, who came to prominence for helping break the news on classified documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, has built a reputation as one of the media's most combative and contrarian voices. He has frequently battled other journalists online who have criticized his appearances on Fox News and what they say is his dismissal of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

He has also emerged as a vocal critic of the mainstream media, accusing it of quashing alternative views when it comes to coverage of certain news stories. In his resignation letter, Greenwald accused Intercept editors in New York of becoming "increasingly authoritarian" and "repressive."

"The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden's conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication," he wrote in his letter.

"All this time, as things worsened, I reasoned that as long as The Intercept remained a place where my own right of journalistic independence was not being infringed, I could live with all of its other flaws," Greenwald concluded. "But now, not even that minimal but foundational right is being honored for my own journalism, suppressed by an increasingly authoritarian, fear-driven, repressive editorial team in New York bent on imposing their own ideological and partisan preferences on all writers while ensuring that nothing is published at The Intercept that contradicts their own narrow, homogenous ideological and partisan views: exactly what The Intercept, more than any other goal, was created to prevent."

The New York-born former litigator wrote for Salon and The Guardian newspaper based in London.

The Intercept responded in a statement to The Hill by calling Greenwald's charge of censorship "preposterous."

"Glenn Greenwald's decision to resign from The Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship," the statement reads. "Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor."

"Thus, the preposterous charge that The Intercept's editors and reporters, with the lone, noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency. A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Biden will suffice to refute those claims," it continues.

"We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not The Intercept," the statement adds.

"We have no doubt that Glenn will go on to launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors - such is the era of Substack and Patreon. In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues and friends as partisan hacks," it concludes. "We get it. But facts are facts, and The Intercept's record of fearless, rigorous, independent journalism speaks for itself."

The resignation comes one month after Greenwald told Megyn Kelly on her podcast that he was "formally banned" from MSNBC because of his criticism of the network's coverage of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. MSNBC has denied the ban.

American Medical Association slams Trump's claim that doctors are making money from listing COVID-19 as cause of death, as cases continue to climb

© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images During a rally in Michigan, the president said doctors are improperly citing COVID as a cause of death in some cases for monetary gain. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The American Medical Association hit back on Friday after President Donald Trump suggested doctors are inflating COVID-19 death counts for money, as cases continue to climb across the country.

During a rally in Michigan, the president erroneously claimed doctors are improperly citing COVID as a cause of death in some cases for monetary gain.

"The suggestion that doctors—in the midst of a public health crisis—are overcounting COVID-19 patients or lying to line their pockets is a malicious, outrageous, and completely misguided charge," the AMA said in a statement.

The American Medical Association hit back on Friday after President Donald Trump falsely suggested doctors are inflating COVID-19 death counts for money, as cases continue to climb across the country.

During a Michigan rally on Friday, the president lamented the increase in coronavirus cases, blaming it on an increase in testing, a claim his own testing czar has disputed. He then said doctors are improperly citing COVID-19 as a cause of death in some cases for monetary gain.

"You know, our doctors get more money if someone dies from COVID. You know that, right?" Trump asked the crowd. He characterized US doctors on the frontlines of coronavirus as saying, "When in doubt, choose COVID," for the cause of death.


Dr. Jha on Trump's claim that doctors are Inflating Covid deaths for money


The AMA, the country's largest association of physicians, responded to the accusation in a strongly-worded statement that did not address the president by name. The statement said frontline healthcare workers have risked their lives to fight the virus "because duty called and because of the sacred oath they took."

"The suggestion that doctors — in the midst of a public health crisis — are overcounting COVID-19 patients or lying to line their pockets is a malicious, outrageous, and completely misguided charge," Susan Bailey, president of the AMA, said.

"Rather than attacking us and lobbing baseless charges at physicians, our leaders should be following the science and urging adherence to the public health steps we know work — wearing a mask, washing hands, and practicing physical distancing," she added.

The statement also noted that coronavirus cases are currently at record-high numbers. According to The COVID Tracking Project, the US daily case number broke records again on Friday by surpassing 97,000 cases.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Health workers slam Trump’s ‘malicious’ claim doctors profiting from coronavirus deaths

U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated false claim that American doctors and hospitals are profiting from coronavirus deaths is being called "malicious" and "baseless" by top medical associations

© (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally at Oakland County International Airport, Friday, Oct. 30, 2020, at Waterford Township, Mich.

Trump has made the claim twice in the past week, most recently on Friday at a campaign rally in Waterford Township, Mich.

Read more: Trump splits with top health officials amid latest U.S. coronavirus surge

"You know our doctors get more money if somebody dies from COVID(-19)," he told the crowd, explaining how Germany and other countries attribute deaths of some coronavirus patients to other causes if those patients are suffering from additional health issues.

"With us, when in doubt, (doctors) choose COVID," he said. "It's like $2,000 more, so you get more money. This could only happen to us."

Video: Trump and Biden supporters view pandemic differently

The president made the comments at the end of a week when roughly 1,000 people had died nearly each day from COVID-19, according to data from the COVID Tracking Project and Johns Hopkins University.

Experts at the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention have said the official national death toll, which now stands at over 229,000, is likely an undercount.

Cases have also escalated dramatically, reaching around 100,000 on Friday alone — setting a world record for a country's single-day case load. Infections are surging in a majority of states, along with hospitalizations, according to the CDC.

On Friday, 16 U.S. states reported their highest one-day coronavirus infections while 13 states were at record levels of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, according to Reuters.

Video: Trump calls U.S. COVID-19 spike a media conspiracy

A statement from the American Medical Association issued Friday said Trump's "suggestion that doctors — in the midst of a public health crisis — are overcounting COVID-19 patients or lying to line their pockets is a malicious, outrageous, and completely misguided charge."

"Rather than attacking us and lobbing baseless charges at physicians, our leaders should be following the science and urging adherence to the public health steps we know work — wearing a mask, washing hands and practicing physical distancing," the association's president Susan Bailey said in the statement.

Read more: COVID-19 concerns in a solid red state, voters divided on Trump presidency

Trump's claim about "more money" may refer to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act passed by the U.S. Congress, which Trump himself signed into law in March. The bill reimburses hospitals for treating uninsured patients and seniors covered by Medicare.

But there is nothing in the bill about bonus payments to doctors for classifying deaths as being related to COVID-19.

Trump also sparked outcry when he made that same claim at another campaign stop in Wisconsin on Oct. 24. The American College of Emergency Physicians said it was "appalled" by Trump's "reckless and false assertions."

"Emergency physicians and other health care workers have risked their lives day in and day out for almost a year battling the greatest public health crisis in a generation," the college's statement read, "all while watching countless patients die alone, going to work without sufficient protection equipment, and struggling with crushing anxiety about getting sick or spreading the virus to their loved ones."

Video: Coronavirus: ‘We’re not going to control the pandemic,’ Trump’s chief of staff says

The Council of Medical Specialty Societies released a statement that was backed by the Society of Hospital Medicine, calling Trump's claims "baseless" and "an affront" to physicians and other health workers.

"Many physicians have taken pay cuts to ensure that struggling medical practices and healthcare facilities remain open for their patients," the statement read.

Trump has ramped up false assertions about the virus in the final weeks of the presidential campaign, repeatedly claiming the country is "rounding the turn" on the pandemic as cases rise.

Read more: Trump calls U.S. coronavirus case spike a media ‘conspiracy’

Earlier this week, the president — who contracted the virus himself in early October, requiring three days of hospital care — claimed COVID-19 is a "media conspiracy" against him.

On Friday, House Democrats released a report condemning the Trump administration's pandemic response as being "among the worst failures of leadership in American history." At least six million Americans have been thrust into poverty and millions more are jobless, it said.

The 71-page interim report also said investigators identified more than 60 instances in which Trump administration officials overruled or sidelined top scientists to advance the president's political interests.

"The administration's response to this economic crisis has benefited larger companies and wealthy Americans, while leaving behind many disadvantaged communities and struggling small businesses," the report said.

—With files from Reuters

Health-care workers file lawsuit against OSHA, accusing agency of failing to keep them safe

Eli Rosenberg

Unions representing hundreds of thousands of nurses and health-care workers filed a lawsuit against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on Thursday, alleging that the agency is violating its duties to keep workers safe by failing to issue an infectious-disease standard to protect health-care workers during the pandemic.

© ANGELA WEISS/Getty Images via Bloomberg Medical staff move bodies from the Wyckoff Heights Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York to a refrigerated truck in April. (Angela Weiss/AFP/Getty Images)

The lawsuit was filed by the American Federation of Teachers, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Washington State Nurses Association and the United Nurses Associations of California with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. It alleges OSHA’s decision not to set safety standards about infectious diseases is “unreasonable and unlawful” and a violation of federal law that requires the agency to issue standards for significant health risks.

The move is the latest example of the brewing frustrations among labor advocates and Democrats over OSHA’s refusal to aggressively enforce workplace safety during the pandemic. A similar lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO during the pandemic was dismissed by a judge in the summer, while another lawsuit, filed by a group of meatpacking workers who say OSHA’s inaction has left them in danger, is ongoing.

Former OSHA officials have spoken out forcefully against the agency, but the Trump administration has defended the agency’s approach.

The lawsuit seeks a writ of mandamus — a court order that would require OSHA to fulfill its duties.

“OSHA has a duty to issue a safety and health standard to protect healthcare workers from the significant risk of harm from infectious diseases,” the complaint reads. “The record of this risk to public health, even in ordinary times, is clear. The risks are especially high during pandemics like H1N1 in 2009 and now COVID-19. OSHA’s 10-year delay in acting on the Infectious Diseases Standard is unreasonable.”

OSHA says its existing standards are sufficient to keep workers safe from the pandemic at work. It has received 9,818 coronavirus-related complaints during the pandemic and issued 112 citations. In a statement sent by spokeswoman Megan P. Sweeney, it pointed to the dismissal of the AFL-CIO’s lawsuit.

“The Department is committed to protecting America’s workers during the pandemic, and OSHA has been working around the clock to that end,” the statement said. “Since that court ruling, OSHA has continued to rely on its preexisting authorities in order to keep America’s workplaces safe.”

More than 192,000 health-care workers have been infected with the coronavirus and at least 771 have died, according to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The complaint gives a detailed history of the effort by OSHA to draft a rule for infectious diseases for health-care facilities.

The effort began during the Obama administration before languishing during the Trump administration.

After the H1N1 outbreak in 2009, OSHA began the long process of drafting a new rule. In the ensuing years, it sought outside input, created a proposed regulatory framework and met with small businesses and other stakeholders.

But the Trump administration moved the process from the Unified Regulatory Agenda to the list of “Long-Term Actions,” effectively shelving it, the complaint argues.

Michael Martinez, a lawyer at Democracy Forward, a left-leaning group that is helping litigate the case, said it was different from the AFL-CIO case, which sought an emergency standard that would have been temporary. The new lawsuit seeks the resumption of the existing rulemaking process for a new permanent safety standard that would apply only to workers at health-care facilities.

“The risk has been here for a decade, but now we’re in the middle of a pandemic,” he said. “There’s no real end in sight. And the next pandemic is around the corner.”

The lawsuit notes that infections in health-care facilities were a significant issue even before the pandemic: They lead to approximately 99,000 patient deaths and $20 billion in additional health-care costs every year, the complaint said.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, which represents more than 100,000 health-care workers in addition to teachers, said the lawsuit was given more urgency by the virus’s recent surge.

“OSHA’s abdication of its responsibility to keep workers safe is as important today as it was in March and April,” she said in an interview. “So we are trying to get them to do their job, which under the Trump administration they have refused to do. It is terrifying to see how the Trump administration sees regular workers as disposable and expendable.”

USA
Faith, foster care and LGBT rights collide at Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court, with newly confirmed conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, will face its first major test on religious liberty and LGBT rights just one day after the 2020 election

.

© Tom Brenner/Reuters Judge Amy Coney Barrett holds her hand on the Holy Bible as she is sworn in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on the South Lawn of the White House, Oct. 26, 2020.

The justices on Wednesday will hear oral arguments on whether the city of Philadelphia can enforce a non-discrimination policy for sexual orientation on Catholic Social Services, a leading faith-based child welfare agency that does not work with same-sex foster parents.

Philadelphia refused to renew its contract with CSS for the city's foster care program in 2018 because of the group's refusal to accept gay or lesbian applicants. The agency and several Catholic foster parents sued the city, alleging it targeted their religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment.MORE: Offering hope to those in foster care

"I was devastated. I just couldn't believe it," said plaintiff Sharonnell Fulton, a foster parent with Catholic Social Services who could no longer accept new foster children after the city severed ties with the organization.

"I have room in my house and time in my life and I want to make a difference," said Fulton, who's fostered more than 40 children over nearly 30 years. "Catholic Social Service does wonderful work and we have children that hurt and we need to serve."© ABC News Catholic foster parent Sharonnell Fulton is a plaintiff in the Supreme Court case challenging Philadelphia's non-discrimination policy applied to contracted foster care agencies.

Lower federal courts rejected CSS claims of religious discrimination, upholding the city's ability to set neutral terms for all contracts involving taxpayer funds. But now the Supreme Court will take another look at whether the city went too far.

"There had been no complaints against Catholic Social Services," said Lori Windham, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Fulton and Catholic Social Services. "No same-sex couple had ever approached them. But if one did, they would help them to find an agency that could serve that family and help them on their foster care journey."

Of the 24 private agencies in Philadelphia's foster care network, Catholic Social Services is the only one that would deny applications from same-sex couples as a matter of faith.MORE: Aging out of the foster care system

"This is a voluntary contract. We don't hold any provider to commit to having to sign if they don't want to adhere to the contract language," said Philadelphia Deputy Mayor Cynthia Figueroa. "The city is pretty straightforward. You've entered into a contract that says very explicitly that you are to serve all and that's mutually applied to all providers."

Catholic teaching says that marriage is between one man and one woman. The church does not consider LGBT families morally compliant.

© ABC News Attorney Lori Windham of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is representing Catholic Social Services in the Supreme Court case challenging Philadelphia's non-discrimination policy for faith-based foster care agencies.

Figueroa, who is Catholic, maintains that even if other organizations will accept LGBT prospective foster parents the city's faith-neutral non-discrimination policy is valid and important.

"There's LGBTQ youth in the system. And I think it sends a very strong message to them that they're supported and protected as children, but as adults, their rights would be discriminated against," Figueroa said of the situation.

Caught in the middle are at-risk Philadelphia children and teens. There are currently 4,300 kids in the city's resource homes, including nearly 1,900 with foster families, according to the Philadelphia Department of Human Services Data Report. About 300 children are in group facilities awaiting placement

.

© ABC News Deputy Philadelphia Mayor Cynthia Figueroa enforced the city's non-discrimination policy on Catholic Social Services in 2018 refusing a foster care contract for the agency unless it accepted gay and lesbian prospective parents.

The case has prompted strong feelings from foster families on both sides of the dispute, including those without a direct stake in the case.

"We have kids dying in the street every single day. And you want to fight about who can foster a child? By god, let's get past that," said retired police officer Kevin Bernard, who recently became a foster parent for the first time when he and his wife Patti took in a 5-month-old girl from a family with ties to their non-denominational Christian church.MORE: Coronavirus keeping American couple from their adopted daughter in China

"I'm not a lawyer, but I say this: Catholic Services, they signed a contract and the contract specifically states that you're going to include all types of families," said Paige Davis, who has been fostering Philadelphia children with her wife Shannon for seven years.

The Davises, who are LGBT Catholics but did not attempt to work with Catholic Social Services, say having same-sex parents in the foster system is critical.

Studies show LGBT young people are disproportionately in need of foster care and that many who were removed or ran away from foster placements did so because of a caregiver's hostility toward their sexual orientation or gender identity

.

© ABC News Patti and Kevin Bernard of Philadelphia recently became first-time foster parents to a five-month-old girl.

"If we could have been that intermediary between a child transitioning into their adulthood and into their own identity and show them that is safe, we want to be there for those children in order to do that," said Davis. "To eliminate families based on them being same-sex is eliminating a loving home for a child."

But after nearly 200 years of Catholic Social Services working with children and families in Philadelphia, Bernard wonders whether the city's move to cut ties with the agency over its beliefs on homosexuality is fair and constitutional.MORE: 9-year-old boy in foster care receives thousands of adoption submissions

"Freedom is both sides. There's two sides of freedom, right? And this country was founded on religious freedom. And as such, you should be able to help where you can help and still practice your faith," Bernard said. "And so if the church wants to help, but they can't do it in another area, then there should be somebody that can help those people also do that."

© ABC News Shannon and Paige Davis of Philadelphia say same-sex parents are essential for foster care programs since LGBT youth make up a disproportionate share of at-risk youth.

Fulton said she hopes the court will agree and allow her to get back to work fostering children through the agency she loves.

"At this age and in my life, I don't want to start all over again with somebody else's rules and regulations who don't respect my religious values. And I believe in what I'm saying," Fulton said. "It would be difficult for me to continue fostering through a new agency."

The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision by the end of June 2021.