ALBERTA NDP: Year-long wait times unacceptable at Edmonton multiple sclerosis clinic

Lauren Boothby 

© Provided by Edmonton Journal Health Critic David Shepherd joined by Dr. Mary Lou Myles, who has a community practice filling in at the Kaye Edmonton Clinic on January 12, 2022. (Supplied photo)

The Alberta NDP says the government needs to act fast to speed up wait times for multiple sclerosis patients in Edmonton who are being forced to wait up to a year for diagnosis and treatment.

Alberta Health Services (AHS) confirmed Thursday current wait times at Kaye Edmonton Clinic’s multiple sclerosis clinic are three to 12 months. The clinic diagnoses, treats and supports people with multiple sclerosis, helps with managing symptoms and medications, provides referrals and takes part in clinical trials, according to AHS’s website.

“Wait times and referrals have increased in recent months as community neurologists closed practices to new patients,” said AHS spokesman Kerry Williamson, in a statement Thursday. “Additional pressures have resulted at AHS, with MS nursing staff being re-deployed due to COVID-19 pandemic response.

“A team of multi-disciplinary experts at AHS is in the early stages of a comprehensive review of MS services in the zone, with a goal of optimizing care for MS patients and improving outcomes.”

Health Critic David Shepherd with Tam Rosnau of Edmonton on January 12, 2022, who was diagnosed with MS 18 years ago. The NDP were highlighting the long wait times for MS patients at the Kaye Clinic due to the ongoing pandemic. (Supplied photo)

NDP health critic David Shepherd said the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic is not only delaying surgeries, it’s also delaying important health treatments for patients with chronic illnesses.

“Lack of access to appropriate and timely care for those living with the disease can have a very significant and lasting negative impact. Unfortunately, today, many Albertans can’t get that timely care,” he said at a Wednesday news conference. “The situation at the Kaye Edmonton Clinic has been exacerbated by the challenge to recruit physicians to our province, while Jason Kenney continues his ongoing war with doctors.”

Edmonton neurologist Dr. Mary Lou Myles said some staff, like specialized nurses, have been pulled out of their field to help with the pandemic. This has created longer wait times for new multiple sclerosis patients which, to her, is unacceptable.

“There are many people in Alberta living with chronic disease who deserve access to a well functioning healthcare system and timely access to specialty care and treatment in order to live the best lives possible,” she said at the NDP’s news conference.
The importance of early treatment

But Myles said it’s especially important to get early diagnosis and treatment for multiple sclerosis so patients have the best chance of maintaining a good quality of life.

“When people are left untreated and they continue to have relapses, that causes ongoing damage to the nervous system,” she said. “They’re more at risk for not only becoming disabled in the short term, but also in the long term developing more progressive symptoms.”

Tam Rosneau, who has multiple sclerosis, said early treatment was really important in her own experience. She already has a neurologist, Dr. Myles, so she can get help if she starts to experience symptoms like double vision again. But that’s something patients on a waitlist don’t have.

“If I wasn’t linked to a neurologist and I didn’t have a diagnosis I wouldn’t have known what was going on,” she said. “(Relapse symptoms are) all very scary, and not being able to reach out to an expert and have some type of explanation, or person with an expertise being able to advocate for you and support you, (would be) really quite frustrating.”

lboothby@postmedia.com

REPUBLICAN WANNABE'S

Alberta and Saskatchewan resist calls for new restrictions as Omicron numbers rise

Heather Yourex-West 

Throughout the Omicron-fuelled fifth wave of the pandemic, Saskatchewan has proven to be an outlier. While Quebec imposed a curfew and Ontario put a stop to indoor dining and working out at gyms, Saskatchewan residents have enjoyed life virtually restriction-free. Students in that province even returned to in-person learning on schedule after the Christmas break.

© THE CANADIAN PRESS/Michael Bell Scott Moe, premier of Saskatchewan, speaks at a COVID-19 news update at the Legislative Building in Regina on March 18, 2020.

A day before testing positive for COVID-19 himself this week, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said he didn't believe these hard-line restrictions were effective against this highly transmissible variant of COVID-19.


Read more:
More people in Saskatchewan died waiting for surgery during COVID-19 than before, data says

"We've been watching to see if those restrictions are working to slow the transmission in our nation as well as whether they're slowing the rate of hospitalization," the premier said during a press conference on Wednesday. "I don't know that those are working in any other province across Canada. We're seeing numbers continue to spread in areas that have restrictions in place that go far beyond gathering limits and the numbers of the Omicron spread seems to continue."

After being hit hard by the Delta-fuelled fourth wave, intensive care units in Saskatchewan continue to see patient numbers fall. However, in recent days the number of COVID-19 admissions to hospital units outside the intensive care unit has increased, and epidemiologist Dr. Nazeen Muhajarine expects those numbers will continue to rise.

"I think that this fifth wave in Saskatchewan is about two to three weeks into what I think will be a five- to six-week duration so we are about halfway through," Muhajarine said from Saskatoon. "We are seeing 125 hospital beds occupied and I think it could easily be doubling and tripling from this point."

Muhajarine also disagrees with Moe's statement that gathering limits and other restrictions are ineffective.

"I actually don't know what empirical data he has to back up that claim."

Read more:

Other data to shed light on Alberta COVID trends in absence of broad PCR tests, Hinshaw says

Moe is not the only provincial leader resisting calls to introduce more public health measures in the face of the Omicron surge. On Thursday, Alberta's premier warned that with more than 60,000 active cases, the province was experiencing more infections than at any time in the pandemic.

"This is the highest number of active cases that we have identified in Alberta at any time during COVID and we know that these numbers only represent a fraction of the actual spread that's been happening in the province," Jason Kenney said.

Alberta has had to limit access to PCR testing and rapid antigen test kits, available free of charge to Albertans at pharmacies, are currently nearly impossible to find. The province is waiting on shipments that have been delayed with any available kits being distributed to K-12 students at Alberta schools.

Read more:

Shipment of rapid COVID-19 tests to Alberta delayed, feds say ‘this is a very competitive market’

"Given the number, the sheer number of cases in the province, we know that will continue to see hospitalizations continue to grow in the coming weeks, particularly for non-ICU beds," the premier said on Thursday.

Still, no new public health measures were announced. Former Alberta chief medical officer of health Dr. James Talbot says he's concerned that without additional restrictions, the province's hospitals could soon become overwhelmed.

"It takes about two weeks for things to move from when people were exposed to when they develop illness," he said. "That would suggest that we're not even seeing cases that were caused by the gatherings at Christmas or New Year's yet, so the odds are things are going to get significantly worse."

COVID-19 vaccine mandates would likely face legal hurdles in Canada

Hilary Young, Professor, Law, University of New Brunswick


Federal Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos wants provinces to make vaccination mandatory. Québec has proposed a health tax for the unvaccinated. And other democracies have proposed similar laws. But fining or taxing the unvaccinated raises practical and legal problems. Here, I focus on the legal issues.

© THE CANADIAN PRESS/Lars Hagberg People gather in Kingston, Ont., to protest COVID-19 vaccine mandates and masking measures on Nov. 14, 2021.

As the pandemic wears on, governments are bringing in more and more vaccine mandates. First you needed a vaccine to go to bars, restaurants and gyms. Then there were workplace mandates, then mandates to travel on trains and airplanes. Québec has recently required vaccines to enter liquor and cannabis stores.

With vaccination rates barely budging in recent weeks, governments are looking for new ways to get needles in arms.
Penalties for the unvaccinated

The latest proposal is to require vaccination, full stop. But it’s important to note that this doesn’t mean forcing people to be vaccinated. Rather, the most likely scenario is a provincial law making it an offence not to be vaccinated. The penalty would most likely be a fine, though jail time is not out of the question.

© THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang Federal Minister of Health Jean-Yves Duclos has suggested that provinces consider mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.

Consider what some European countries have done. Austria was the first in Europe to require vaccination with fines for non-compliance of up to 3,600 euros ($5,150). In Greece, a monthy fine of 100 euros will be imposed on those over 60 who are unvaccinated, starting Jan. 16. In Italy, those over 50 will face fines if they’re not vaccinated. While the penalty is still being determined, it appears it will be at least 100 euros.

Can Canada mandate vaccines?

Whether a government can mandate vaccines depends on what exactly a new law says. Canadians have rights to make decisions about vaccination but these rights are not absolute. And having rights does not mean there will be no consequences for your decisions.

If a province tried to impose a fine or other penalty on the unvaccinated, a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would surely follow. The argument would be that this violates people’s right to life, liberty and security of the person, and perhaps other rights like freedom of conscience.

Whether the law is constitutional would come down to issues like whether it’s as narrow as possible, whether it would significantly increase vaccination rates and whether the government had done enough to promote voluntary vaccination.

For example, laws with exceptions for those with medical reasons not to be vaccinated would be more likely to be constitutional. Those limited to people over a certain age (as in Italy and Greece) would be easier to justify. And first making all other reasonable efforts to promote voluntary vaccination would help make the law constitutional

.

© THE CANADIAN PRESS/Lars Hagberg If a province tried to impose a fine or other penalty on the unvaccinated, a Charter challenge would surely follow.

As for significantly increasing vaccination rates, it is debatable whether a vaccine mandate would do that. Many people may prefer to pay a fine than to be vaccinated. If the fine were high enough to change people’s minds, it may also be unduly harsh — especially for marginalized populations.

Governments should avoid a scenario in which the rich pay to avoid vaccination, while the poor have fewer options. One possibility is to have the amount of the fine or tax depend on one’s income.

Also at play in the effectiveness of a vaccine mandate is timing. A mandate likely wouldn’t take effect until after the peak of the fifth wave. The benefit of current vaccines for future waves or variants is unknown.

That will make it harder for governments to argue that such a law doesn’t erode rights any more than necessary — an important part of the constitutional analysis. That said, vaccines will surely continue to be a vitally important tool in fighting COVID-19.
Encouraging vaccination vs. recovering costs

A final issue, raised by Québec’s approach, is whether the law is meant to increase vaccination rates or recover health-care costs. Both fines and taxes add to a province’s bottom line but a law’s purpose matters in constitutional law.

A mandate is more likely to incentivize vaccinations while a health tax is primarily meant to recover health-care costs. (Singapore went further by charging the unvaccinated for their own hospital costs should they become hospitalized.)

Mandates more directly implicate one’s right to bodily autonomy. A tax could be said only to affect one’s finances. This may make a tax more constitutionally sound.

That said, it raises serious policy issues. Universal health care does not cost more for citizens simply because they are more likely to need health care. That’s part of what makes it universal. It’s not like private insurance that ties premiums to risk. Tobacco and alcohol may be heavily taxed, but we don’t tax dangerous sporting activities, unhealthy eating, having a stressful job or lack of exercise.

Charging more for universal health care based on personal choices is controversial and raises important moral and practical issues. Governments should think carefully about the implications before eroding the principle of universality.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:

Why the UK shouldn’t introduce mandatory COVID vaccination

How regulatory agencies, not the courts, are imposing COVID-19 vaccine mandates

Hilary Young does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Expect more worrisome variants after omicron, scientists say

By LAURA UNGAR


FILE - People wait in line at a COVID-19 testing site in Times Square, New York, Monday, Dec. 13, 2021. Scientists are warning that omicron’s lightning-fast spread across the globe practically ensures it won’t be the last worrisome coronavirus variant. And there’s no guarantee the next ones will cause milder illness or that vaccines will work against them. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)

Get ready to learn more Greek letters. Scientists warn that omicron’s whirlwind advance practically ensures it won’t be the last version of the coronavirus to worry the world.

Every infection provides a chance for the virus to mutate, and omicron has an edge over its predecessors: It spreads way faster despite emerging on a planet with a stronger patchwork of immunity from vaccines and prior illness.

That means more people in whom the virus can further evolve. Experts don’t know what the next variants will look like or how they might shape the pandemic, but they say there’s no guarantee the sequels of omicron will cause milder illness or that existing vaccines will work against them.

“The faster omicron spreads, the more opportunities there are for mutation, potentially leading to more variants,” Leonardo Martinez, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Boston University, said.

Since it emerged in mid-November, omicron has raced across the globe like fire through dry grass. Research shows the variant is at least twice as contagious as delta and at least four times as contagious as the original version of the virus.

Omicron is more likely than delta to reinfect individuals who previously had COVID-19 and to cause “breakthrough infections” in vaccinated people while also attacking the unvaccinated. The World Health Organization reported a record 15 million new COVID-19 cases for the week of Jan. 3-9, a 55% increase from the previous week.

Along with keeping comparatively healthy people out of work and school, the ease with which the variant spreads increases the odds the virus will infect and linger inside people with weakened immune systems - giving it more time to develop potent mutations.

“It’s the longer, persistent infections that seem to be the most likely breeding grounds for new variants,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University. “It’s only when you have very widespread infection that you’re going to provide the opportunity for that to occur.”

Because omicron appears to cause less severe disease than delta, its behavior has kindled hope that it could be the start of a trend that eventually makes the virus milder like a common cold.

It’s a possibility, experts say, given that viruses don’t spread well if they kill their hosts very quickly. But viruses don’t always get less deadly over time.

A variant could also achieve its main goal - replicating - if infected people developed mild symptoms initially, spread the virus by interacting with others, then got very sick later, Ray explained by way of example.

“People have wondered whether the virus will evolve to mildness. But there’s no particular reason for it to do so,” he said. “I don’t think we can be confident that the virus will become less lethal over time.”

Getting progressively better at evading immunity helps a virus to survive over the long term. When SARS-CoV-2 first struck, no one was immune. But infections and vaccines have conferred at least some immunity to much of the world, so the virus must adapt.

There are many possible avenues for evolution. Animals could potentially incubate and unleash new variants. Pet dogs and cats, deer and farm-raised mink are only a few of the animals vulnerable to the virus, which can potentially mutate within them and leap back to people.

Another potential route: With both omicron and delta circulating, people may get double infections that could spawn what Ray calls “Frankenvariants,” hybrids with characteristics of both types.

When new variants do develop, scientists said it’s still very difficult to know from genetic features which ones might take off. For example, omicron has many more mutations than previous variants, around 30 in the spike protein that lets it attach to human cells. But the so-called IHU variant identified in France and being monitored by the WHO has 46 mutations and doesn’t seem to have spread much at all.

To curb the emergence of variants, scientists stress continuing with public health measures such as masking and getting vaccinated. While omicron is better able to evade immunity than delta, experts said, vaccines still offer protection and booster shots greatly reduce serious illness, hospitalizations and deaths.

Anne Thomas, a 64-year-old IT analyst in Westerly, Rhode Island, said she’s fully vaccinated and boosted and also tries to stay safe by mostly staying home while her state has one of the highest COVID-19 case rates in the U.S.

“I have no doubt at all that these viruses are going to continue to mutate and we’re going to be dealing with this for a very long time,” she said.

Ray likened vaccines to armor for humanity that greatly hinders viral spread even if it doesn’t completely stop it. For a virus that spreads exponentially, he said, “anything that curbs transmission can have a great effect.” Also, when vaccinated people get sick, Ray said their illness is usually milder and clears more quickly, leaving less time to spawn dangerous variants.

Experts say the virus won’t become endemic like the flu as long as global vaccination rates are so low. During a recent press conference, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that protecting people from future variants — including those that may be fully resistant to today’s shots — depends on ending global vaccine inequity.

Tedros said he’d like to see 70% of people in every country vaccinated by mid-year. Currently, there are dozens of countries where less than a quarter of the population is fully vaccinated, according to Johns Hopkins University statistics. And in the United States, many people continue to resist available vaccines.

“These huge unvaccinated swaths in the U.S., Africa, Asia, Latin America and elsewhere are basically variant factories,” said Dr. Prabhat Jha of the Centre for Global Health Research at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto. “It’s been a colossal failure in global leadership that we have not been able to do this.”

In the meantime, new variants are inevitable, said Louis Mansky, director of the Institute for Molecular Virology at the University of Minnesota.

With so many unvaccinated people, he said, “the virus is still kind of in control of what’s going on.”

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

___

Follow AP’s coverage of the pandemic at https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic

In vaccination battles, pro athletes become proxy players
By ANDREW DALTON

1 of 9

FILE - Protesters rallying against COVID-19 vaccination mandates and in support of basketball player Kyrie Irving gather in the street outside the Barclays Center before an NBA basketball game between the Brooklyn Nets and the Charlotte Hornets, Sunday, Oct. 24, 2021, in New York. From the NBA's Kyrie Irving missing the first months of the Brooklyn Nets' season before making a partial return, to the NFL's Aaron Rodgers going from revered veteran to polarizing figure, to a diplomatic standoff over tennis star Novak Djokovic's exemption to play in the Australian Open, sports figures have found themselves cheered and jeered as the most famous faces in fights over vaccine mandates and refusals. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The pandemic-era saga of tennis star Novak Djokovic in Australia this week is but one of many: Pro athletes who have refused to be vaccinated have been put at center court in a larger contest — as famous faces who are becoming proxy players in the accelerating worldwide cultural battles over COVID jabs.

The NBA’s Kyrie Irving missed the first months of the Brooklyn Nets’ season before making a partial return. The NFL’s Aaron Rodgers went from revered veteran to polarizing figure. And we’re still not finished with the diplomatic standoff and fallout over Djokovic’s exemption to play in the Australian Open.

It’s a cultural issue, not a question of numbers. The vast majority of players in professional sports organizations are vaccinated — more than the U.S. population at large — and tacitly or explicitly accept the evidence of their safety and efficacy. But the handful of high-profile objectors represent a new front in what one expert calls the “oversized role of sports” in society’s conversations.

“We look to sports to give us an answer or clarify issues in the larger culture,” says Robert T. Hayashi, an associate professor of American studies at Amherst College in Massachusetts whose specialties include the history of sports. ”Many times, the most detailed conversations we see arising in the culture and the media are regarding sports.”

Their centrality is not necessarily because they are exceptional, but because they serve as avatars for all of us.

“They are all different individuals. They have different approaches,” says Dan Lebowitz, executive director of the Center for the Study of Sport in Society at Northeastern University. “Athletes,” he says, “are no different than really the whole of humanity.”

And in that sense, they are subject to the same information and misinformation — the same receptiveness or stubbornness — as the rest of the population.

“We live in a world where we’ve moved really far away from a central set of facts,” Lebowitz says. “None of these athletes are impervious to all the information that’s coming at them around the world, or impervious to the divisions that we have.”

While figures like Irving, Rodgers and Djokovic are at the center of the conversation, they may not actually be driving it. COVID vaccines, in their brief existence, have been fast-tracked into an elite group of divisive political and cultural issues — things about which people tend to pick a side and stick to it no matter what.

Mark Harvey, a professor at the University of Saint Mary in Kansas and author of “Celebrity Influence: Politics, Persuasion, and Issue-based Advocacy,” says these are the topics on which famous people may actually have the least sway.

“The kind of issues where they aren’t really influential are the traditional wedge issues,” Harvey says. “Celebrities aren’t really going to change anyone’s minds on abortion or guns. For most people, this has become part of what has become a wedge issue.”

Well-known voices then become something else — amplification devices, opinions used more as fodder for existing arguments than as actual agents of influence.

“People that have certain beliefs that they want to promulgate forward ... they’re going to grab on to these athletes as spokespersons for their cause,” Lebowitz says.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that famous voices have no actual effect, though. Harvey says a celebrity’s personal connection to an issue can matter — and can command attention.

For example: “Today” show host Katie Couric got a colonoscopy on the air in 2000 after her husband died from colon cancer, and the number of such procedures saw a major spike in the months that followed. And Elton John talking to LGBTQ communities — especially about LGBTQ issues — might find himself heard more than someone else.

By the same logic, devoted fans of a team like the Green Bay Packers might be more likely to listen to vaccination opinions from a storied local player like Rodgers. And the opinions of Black athletes might grab more traction in African-American communities, especially when tapping into a history of medical mistreatment.

“They can feel a sort of lack of trust, with memories of the Tuskegee experiments and forced sterilization for women of color,” Hayashi says. “Those identities are not stripped away in these situations.”

The stance of Djokovic might similarly resonate in the Serbian athlete’s home country, given its role in European conflicts of the 20th century.

“For Djokovic, the Serbian community with their role in Europe and how they’ve been presented as bad guys, he can become a symbol for some certainly by asserting a sort of national pride with the way he’s standing up,” Hayashi says.

While sports have always been indivisible from politics and public conflicts, there has been a major ground shift in the years since Michael Jordan made public neutrality on all non-sports issues an essential part of his brand. Today there is almost an expectation of advocacy, especially with the precedent set by Colin Kaepernick’s protests and the embrace by many athletes of the Black Lives Matter cause.

“We expect an awful lot of them,” Leibowitz says. “We ask them to fix hate and hurt. And now we expect a groundswell from them on public health.”

These expectations were heightened through the cultural crucible of the Trump era, which Harvey says were “defined by celebrity advocacy” under a president who himself — as businessman, reality-TV star and general high-profile person — helped build the notion of celebrity voice into an American bully pulpit in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.

“I think the moral of the story that celebrities are learning, which is where you kind of have to take a side,” Harvey says. “Nowadays, if you don’t take a side, people don’t think you don’t have a spine.”

And while athletes don’t necessarily feel the pressure they once might have to constantly think of the children they’re influencing, the expectation that they remain role models for the young remains embedded in the culture — as it has since the years of the earliest sports mega-celebrities like Babe Ruth more than a century ago.

“There’s a lot of things we see in society, sports being the crucible for shaping youth and certain ideas that we value, sacrifice and effort and goal orientation, learning how to work hard and set goals, to be this shaper of youth and morality,” Hayashi says. “I find this kind of perversely laughable that we turn to these kinds of figures for this. You can’t get that from being a disciplined violin player or an artist or a writer?”

___

Follow Los Angeles-based AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton on Twitter: https://twitter.com/andyjamesdalton

Biden administration threatens to pull COVID-19 relief money from Arizona

Gov. Doug Ducey (R) and his wife Angela walk out to greet the casket of Sen. John McCain that will be lying in state in the rotunda of the Arizona State Capital in Phoenix on August 29, 2018. File Photo by Art Foxall/UPI | License Photo

Jan. 14 (UPI) -- The Biden administration has given Arizona 60 days to reprogram $173 million in federal COVID-19 stimulus spending to use the money as Biden's American Rescue Act intended.

The Washington post said Friday that a letter was sent by the Treasury Department to Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey that threatens to rescind the funding.

The Post said Arizona legislators tapped the cash to support a ban on COVID-19 school mask mandates.

"Safety recommendations are welcomed and encouraged -- mandates that place more stress on students and families aren't," Ducey said in a statement in August announcing the spending. "These grants acknowledge efforts by schools and educators that are following state laws and keeping their classroom doors open for Arizona's students."

Arizona used $163 million of federal COVID relief money to state schools, but only if they obeyed state rules against requiring masks. Another $10 million in grants was offered by Arizona according to a state press release in August 2021 for parents to place their kids in charter schools if their public schools required COVID-19 masks.

The Treasury Department first raised the issue with Arizona in October telling the state the way it was using COVID-19 federal relief money was "not a permissible use" of those American Rescue Plan funds.

Treasury: Arizona risks relief funds over anti-mandate rules

By FATIMA HUSSEIN, ZEKE MILLER and BOB CHRISTIE


FILE - In this June 10, 2020, file photo, an ambulance is parked at Arizona General Hospital in Laveen, Ariz. Arizona is continuing to see slight downward trends with coronavirus hospitalizations as officials find more related deaths. Arizona is committing millions of dollars and asking the federal government for extra help as hospitals face a growing strain from rising COVID-19 caseloads and warn they are nearing their limits. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration is threatening to recoup COVID-19 relief funds sent to Arizona over state provisions that it says discourage families and school districts from following federal guidance recommending face coverings in schools.

At issue are two state programs that are meant to help schools and students but that direct funding away from jurisdictions with mask requirements. Arizona’s Education Plus-Up Grant Program provides $163 million in funding to schools, but districts that require face coverings are ineligible. And its COVID-19 Educational Recovery Benefit Program provides for up to $7,000 for parents if their child’s school requires face coverings or quarantines after exposure. It lets parents use the money for private school tuition or other education costs and its design mirrors the state’s existing school voucher program.

The program has had few takers, despite Republican Gov. Doug Ducey’s office touting it as a response to an outcry from parents. As of last week, only 85 students were getting the vouchers and less than $600,000 of the $10 million had been allocated.

Also last week, the governor created a third program that is likely to run afoul of Treasury Department spending rules. It is another $10 million school voucher program for parents whose children’s schools close for even one day after Jan. 2 due to COVID-19.

In a Friday letter, the Treasury Department warned that the state has 60 days to remove the anti-masking provisions before the federal government moves to recover the relief money, and it threatened to withhold the next tranche of aid as well.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends universal mask-wearing in school settings to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

“By discouraging families and school districts from following this guidance, the conditions referenced above undermine efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19,” the Treasury Department wrote. “Accordingly, these school programs as currently structured are ineligible uses of (Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds).”

Ducey’s chief of staff on Friday pushed back against the Biden administration’s claims.

“We think that this program is aboveboard,” Daniel Ruiz said. “We’re going to defend that program and any other future program that is designed to get kids caught back up and mitigate the learning loss” that has taken place over the last year.

Arizona has already received about half of the $4.2 billion awarded to the state under the 2021 coronavirus relief bill.

Governors turn to budgets to guard against climate change

By KATHLEEN RONAYNE

1 of 5

FILE - California Gov. Gavin Newsom examines a church marquee while visiting Greenville, which suffered extensive structure loss during the Dixie Fire, on Aug. 7, 2021, in Plumas County, Calif. Accompanying him is Cal Fire Assistant Region Chief Curtis Brown. Democratic governors such as California's Newsom and Washington's Jay Inslee have been clear about their plans to boost spending on climate-related projects, including expanding access to electric vehicles and creating more storage for clean energies such as solar. (AP Photo/Noah Berger, File)


SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Their state budgets flush with cash, Democratic and Republican governors alike want to spend some of the windfall on projects aimed at slowing climate change and guarding against its consequences, from floods and wildfires to dirty air.

Democratic governors such as California’s Gavin Newsom and Washington’s Jay Inslee have been clear about their plans to boost spending on climate-related projects, including expanding access to electric vehicles and creating more storage for clean energies such as solar. Newsom deemed climate change one of five “existential threats” facing the nation’s most populous state when he rolled out his proposed state budget this past week.

In Republican-led states, governors want to protect communities from natural disasters and drought, even as many of them won’t link such spending to global warming.

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey this past week pitched $1 billion for water infrastructure as drought grips the Western U.S., shriveling water supplies for cities and farms. Idaho Gov. Brad Little, who has acknowledged climate change’s role in worsening wildfires, proposed $150 million for five years’ worth of fire-fighting costs, plus more for new fire personnel. In South Carolina, Gov. Henry McMaster called on lawmakers to spend $300 million in federal money for, among other things, protecting the state’s coastline against flooding, erosion and storm damage.

“I can think of no more meritorious use of taxpayer funds than to protect these pristine properties for future generations of South Carolinians,” he said as he presented his proposed state budget, which also includes $17 million to use in the aftermath of hurricanes and other natural disasters.

Governors’ proposals are just the first step in budget negotiations, and they’ll have to work with state lawmakers on the final details. Many governors will issue their plans in the coming weeks, with some already telegraphing their priorities. New York’s Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, used her state of the state address to call for $500 million in spending on offshore wind projects.

This year’s discussions on how to spend taxpayers’ money comes not only as many states are seeing massive budget surpluses, but also as the negative effects of changing weather patterns are becoming ever harder to ignore. As drought continued in much of the West, an unseasonable December wildfire ripped through a Colorado neighborhood near Boulder. Deadly off-season tornados ravaged Kentucky, and several hurricanes hit the Gulf Coast. Late summer temperatures soared to sweltering, record-breaking levels in the Pacific Northwest.

“The climate crisis is not an abstraction. It is something that I and every governor in the United States, almost on a weekly basis, have to deal with,” Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, said this past week.

Meanwhile, Democratic President Joe Biden’s $2 trillion package of social and environmental initiatives is stalled in Congress, leaving the prospect of more federal money to fight climate change uncertain. States, mostly led by Democrats, took on a larger role advancing climate policies during former Republican President Donald Trump’s time in office.

Most states are awash in money as tax collections have exceeded expectations because of strong consumer spending and rising prices, which together have bolstered sales tax revenue. On top of that, states are taking in billions of dollars in federal pandemic relief and are preparing for a big boost in federal infrastructure money after Congress passed a $1 trillion public works bill in November. Beyond increasing climate spending, states are looking to the windfall to pad their reserves, cut taxes, boost funding for education and increase affordable housing.

California is home to the most ambitious climate spending, with Newsom calling for $22 billion for various projects spread over the next five years. The bulk of that would go to transportation projects such as electrifying school buses and expanding vehicle charging stations into disadvantaged communities. He also proposed another $2 billion for clean energy development and storage.

California-based companies that work to address climate change and develop green technologies could be eligible for tax credits. Through programs to build more housing in downtown corridors and make communities more walkable, Newsom threaded his efforts to tackle climate change throughout his budget proposal.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and legislative leaders promised increased investments related to wildfires, such as adding fire response equipment and training for firefighters, after last month’s Boulder County wildfire. The Democratic governor has requested about $75 million for such efforts, and the Democratic-led Legislature has signaled it wants more.

Polis also wants to spend $425 million on electrifying bus and truck fleets, aerial and ground monitoring of oil and gas emissions, and more.

“From extreme floods to megafires to seemingly never-ending ozone alerts, our state’s long-term health is on the line. ... We have to do everything in our power to make sure this is not the new normal,” Colorado Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg said.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, has asked the state legislature to fund the creation of a “climate change bureau,” with a 15-member staff and $2.5 million initial budget.

It would implement pollution standards for vehicles and push the state’s economy toward a point where just as much carbon is being taken out of the atmosphere as is being emitted. Her administration has offered limited details on the proposal.

Even as they prioritize climate initiatives, many governors are balancing those plans with a need to support their state’s current economy as it transitions away from a dependence on fossil fuels. In New Mexico, the output of oil and natural gas has surged to an all-time high under Lujan Grisham’s administration. At least one-fourth of the state’s general fund budget can be traced to income from the oil and natural gas industries – underwriting public education, health care and other services.

In some states, it’s lawmakers who are driving climate spending. Democrats who control Maryland’s legislature are pushing a climate change measure that would reduce methane emissions, modernize the electric grid and invest in green technology.

The package, subject to negotiations, would accelerate the state’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The current plan is to cut emissions by 40% of 2006 levels by 2030. The Democrats’ new plans is to raise that emissions reduction to 60%.

They also want to set a goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, meaning at least as much carbon is being removed from the atmosphere as what’s being emitted. Money for climate programs could come from the state’s $4.6 billion budget surplus and federal infrastructure funding.

Maryland Democrats have enough members to override any vetoes by Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, though he has previously supported efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

State Sen. Paul Pinsky, a Democrat, said advancing climate policy has political merits, particularly in the state that is home to Chesapeake Bay, the nation’s largest estuary. All Maryland state lawmakers are up for re-election this year, as are about two-thirds of governors across the U.S.

“I think legislators want to be able to run on something, and people should be accountable,” Pinsky said. “Do they support the environment and this kind of bold action or not?”

___

Associated Press writers Jim Anderson in Denver; Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix; Rachel La Corte in Olympia, Washington; Michelle Liu in Columbia, South Carolina; Keith Ridler in Boise, Idaho; and Brian Witte in Annapolis, Maryland, contributed to this report.

THIRD WORLD USA

A digital divide haunts schools adapting to virus hurdles

By ANNIE MA

1 of 8

Abigail Schneider, 8, center, completes a level of her learning game with her mother April in her bedroom, Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2021, in the Brooklyn borough of New York. "I'm determined to push and push to get them the things that help them," said April Schneider. "I have to go above and beyond to make sure whatever requirements they need they get." (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

When April Schneider’s children returned to in-person classrooms this year, she thought they were leaving behind the struggles from more than a year of remote learning. No more problems with borrowed tablets. No more days of missed lessons because her kids couldn’t connect to their virtual schooling.

But coronavirus cases in her children’s New York City classrooms, and the subsequent quarantines, sent her kids back to learning from home. Without personal devices for each child, Schneider said they were largely left to do nothing while stuck at home.

“So there you go again, with no computer, and you’re back to square one as if COVID just begun all over again in a smaller form,” Schneider said.

As more families pivot back to remote learning amid quarantines and school closures, reliable, consistent access to devices and home internet remains elusive for many students who need them to keep up with their schoolwork. Home internet access for students has improved since the onset of the pandemic with help from philanthropy, federal relief funding and other efforts — but obstacles linger, including a lack of devices, slow speeds and financial hurdles.

Concerns around the digital divide have shifted toward families that are “underconnected” and able to access the internet only sporadically, said Vikki Katz, a communication professor at Rutgers University.

“It’s about whether or not you can withstand the disruptions of these quick pivots in ways that don’t derail your learning,” she said.

In two studies, one conducted in 2015 and another in 2021, Katz and other researchers surveyed low-income families with young children. While rates of home internet access and computer ownership are up significantly, the proportion of lower-income families whose internet access is unreliable or insufficient remained roughly the same.

A year into the pandemic, more than half the families Katz surveyed reported that their children’s ability to tune into online classes had been disrupted in some way.

Racial and income divides persist in home internet access, according to data from the Pew Research Center. One survey conducted in April of 2020 found that during the initial school closures, 59% of lower-income families faced digital barriers, such as having to log on from a smartphone, not having a device or having to use a public network because their home network was not reliable enough.

About 34% of households making less than $30,000 reported having trouble paying for their home internet bill, as did 25% of those making between $30,000 and $50,000. Compared to white households, Black and Latino families were less likely to have access to broadband and a computer at home.

For Schneider’s children, not having enough working devices at home during the previous school year for remote learning meant missing assignments and classes. The kids struggled to focus on their work, even if they received paper assignments. During quarantine periods this year, she said, they were largely unable to participate in any instruction at all.

“Without the equipment ... their experience was that they were more off than on,” Schneider said. “As soon as they said school was going to back up ... I just had to take my chances and send them. They needed not to be out of school any longer.”

Even before the pandemic sent most schools to some form of remote learning, classrooms have increasingly embraced the role of technology in teaching, creating a “homework gap” between those who do and do not have access to internet and devices at home. Roughly 2.9 million school children lived in households without internet access, according to pre-pandemic Census data, and about 2.1 million lived in households without a laptop or desktop computer.

Some families are frustrated more hasn’t been done to close the gap.

When her grandchildren’s Pittsburgh school moved to online learning in March of 2020, Janice Myers and her four grandchildren shared a single laptop. One month, she struggled to afford the internet bill on her fixed retirement income. She tried to access the company’s $10 monthly rate designed to keep low-income kids connected during the pandemic, but said she was told she did not qualify because she was an existing customer.

This school year, the children were adjusting well to in-person learning until a quarantine sent them home for a week, Myers said. Around Thanksgiving, the school shut down in-person classes again, this time for nearly three weeks. Both times, the school did not send the children home with tablets, leaving them with little instruction except a thin packet of worksheets, she said.

“To my mind, you had an entire school year to learn how to be better prepared, and how to be proactive and how to incorporate a Plan B at the drop of a hat,” she said. “There was no reason why every student, when they returned to school, didn’t receive or keep their laptop.”

Among the districts using some of their federal relief money to boost home internet access is California’s Chula Vista Elementary School District, which is incorporating the cost of hotspots and other internet services into the budget for the next three years. It gives priority for internet hot spots to kids who have the most trouble connecting to school, such as foster children and youth experiencing housing instability.

Assistant superintendent Matthew Tessier said the district found many low-income families may have internet access through a wireless phone, but faced limits like data caps and set monthly minutes. Those caps often made connecting kids to homework and online resources a challenge even before the pandemic.

Identifying which kids are in greater need and having devices ready to go can help minimize the impact of disruptions to learning, Katz said.

“All these conversations we keep having about learning loss, whether or not we should use that term, places the responsibility and the blame for what kids have learned on the students and the family ... instead of recognizing that this is still the school’s responsibility to bridge this gap when they send kids home,” Katz said.

Labor Department vows to protect workers from Covid after Supreme Court blocks business vaccine mandate



The Supreme Court blocked President Biden's vaccine and testing rules for businesses, but also said the federal government can implement Covid-related safety measures in high-risk workplaces.
Unions are calling for the Labor Department to implement improved ventilation, physical distancing and masking in workplaces.

Some states and cities have their own specific rules in place that are not affected by the court's decision.

© Provided by CNBC US Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh speaks about Labor Unions during an event in the East Room of the White House September 8, 2021, in Washington, DC.

The Labor Department has vowed to use its authority to protect workers from Covid, after the Supreme Court blocked the Biden administration's vaccine and testing rules for private businesses.

Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, in a statement after the high court's ruling, said the Occupational and Safety Administration is evaluating its options to enforce safety standards against Covid in the workplace.

"Regardless of the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, OSHA will do everything in its existing authority to hold businesses accountable for protecting workers," Walsh said on Thursday.

OSHA still has general authority requiring employers to maintain a safe workplace and can fine businesses if they fail to do so. The agency has investigated thousands of Covid complaints with millions of dollars in proposed fines since the pandemic began.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority, in its 6-3 ruling, called the federal mandate a "blunt instrument" that "draws no distinctions based on industry or risk of exposure to Covid-19."

However, the high court said OSHA does have the authority to regulate specific workplaces where workers face a heighted threat from Covid.

"Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee's job or workplace, targeted regulations are plainly permissible," the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.

The court said it has "no doubt" that OSHA can implement safety measures to protect workers from Covid in particularly cramped or crowded environments.

In other words, OSHA could tailor a new regulation that targets high-risk industries, such as meatpacking, with safety measures that do not include the controversial vaccine rule, according Jordan Barab, deputy assistant secretary of OSHA during the Obama administration.

"There are a number of criteria OSHA could use to make it more risk based that would probably pass Supreme Court muster," Barab told CNBC on Friday.

Labor unions are already pushing in that direction. The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of unions in the U.S., called on the White House to issue a new workplace safety standard that would require improved ventilation, physical distancing, masking and paid leave for all workers

"While we are disappointed by the decision, the court's majority clearly acknowledged OSHA's authority to protect workers who face heightened risks of contracting Covid-19 in the workplace," AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said in a statement. "OSHA's responsibility to provide safe working conditions remains firmly in place."

The United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents 1.3 million people primarily in meatpacking and food processing, wants the White House and businesses to provide free personal protective equipment in addition to the measures the AFL-CIO is demanding.

The Service Employees International Union, which represents 2 million workers, is pushing for Congress and the states to step in and implement safety measures where the White House failed, including universal vaccination and broader access to testing.

"In light of the Supreme Court's callous abandonment of millions of essential workers, Congress and states must act with urgency to require employers to protect all workers," SEIU President Mary Kay Henry said in a statement.

More than 20 states operate their own workplace-safety plans, and some have implemented Covid safety requirements. California, for example, requires all employees and customers to wear masks indoors. Businesses must also implement Covid prevention plans, investigate outbreaks and notify employees within a day, and offer free testing to fully vaccinated employees among other measures.

New York City has implemented a vaccine mandate for all private businesses. Mayor Eric Adams made it clear on Friday the city's rules are still in place.

Chicago requires everyone older than 5 years of age to show proof of vaccination to eat indoors at restaurants, go to the gym, or enter indoor entertainment venues where food is served. Los Angeles has similar rules.

President Joe Biden, for his part, called on companies to voluntarily implement the vaccine and testing rules. A number of large companies – including Citigroup, Nike and Columbia Sportswear – have said they would begin firing unvaccinated workers.

"The court has ruled that my administration cannot use the authority granted to it by Congress to require this measure," Biden said. "But that does not stop me from using my voice as president to advocate for employers to do the right thing to protect Americans' health and economy."

However, other companies are already abandoning rules. General Electric, which has 174,000 employees, said on Friday that it suspended the vaccine and testing rules.

Businesses react to ruling against Biden vaccine mandate


President Joe Biden speaks about the government's COVID-19 response, in the South Court Auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House Campus in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 13, 2022. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)


For companies that were waiting to hear from the U.S. Supreme Court before deciding whether to require vaccinations or regular coronavirus testing for workers, the next move is up to them.

Many large corporations were silent on Thursday’s ruling by the high court to block a requirement that workers at businesses with at least 100 employees be fully vaccinated or else test regularly for COVID-19 and wear a mask on the job.

Target’s response was typical: The big retailer said it wanted to review the decision and “how it will impact our team and business.”

The Biden administration argues that nothing in federal law prevents private businesses from imposing their own vaccine requirements. However, companies could run into state bans on vaccine mandates in Republican-controlled states. And relatively few businesses enacted their own rules ahead of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirement, raising doubt that there will be rush for them now.

In legal terms, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said the OSHA lacked authority to impose such a mandate on big companies. The court, however, let stand a vaccination requirement for most health-care workers.

The National Retail Federation, the nation’s largest retail trade organization and one of the groups that challenged the OSHA action, called the court’s decision “a significant victory for employers.” It complained that OSHA acted without first allowing public comments, although administration officials met with many business and labor groups before issuing the rule.

Chris Spear, the president of the American Trucking Associations, another of the groups that fought the OSHA rule, said it “would interfere with individuals’ private health care decisions.”

Karen Harned, an official with the National Federation of Independent Business, said that as small businesses try to recover from nearly two years of pandemic, “the last thing they need is a mandate that would cause more business challenges.”

But mandate supporters called it a matter of safety for employees and customers.

Dan Simons, co-owner of the Founding Farmers chain of restaurants in the Washington area, said vaccine mandates are “common sense.” He requires his 1,000 employees to be fully vaccinated; those who request an exemption must wear a mask and submit weekly COVID test results.

“If your priority is the economy, or your own health, or the health of others, you would agree with my approach,” Simons said.

Administration officials believe that even though the OSHA rule has been blocked, it drove millions of people to get vaccinated. Companies that used mandates to achieve relatively high vaccination rates may decide that they have accomplished enough.

Ford Motor Co. said it was “encouraged by the 88% of U.S. salaried employees who are already vaccinated.” The car maker said it would review the court decision to see if it needs to change a requirement that most U.S. salaried workers get the shots.

Labor advocates were dismayed by the ruling.

“This decision will have no impact on most professional and white collar workers, but it will endanger millions of frontline workers who risk their lives daily and who are least able to protect themselves,” said David Michaels, who led OSHA during the Obama administration and now teaches at the George Washington University’s School of Public Health.

For their part, labor unions had been divided all along about Biden’s attempt to create a vaccine mandate, with many nurses and teachers groups in favor, but many police and fire unions opposed. Some unions wanted the right to bargain over the issue with companies.

The United Auto Workers, which encourages workers to get vaccinated, said the decision won’t change safety protocols such as face masks, temperature checks and distancing when possible for more than 150,000 union members at General Motors, Ford and Stellantis factories.

Among 543 U.S. companies surveyed in November by insurance broker and consulting firm Willis Towers Watson, employers were split on what to do with their unvaccinated workers. Fewer than one in five required vaccination. Two-thirds had no plans to require the shots unless the courts upheld the OSHA requirement.

Jeff Levin-Scherz, an executive in the firm’s health practice, said most companies with mandates will keep them because they are working. He said nothing short of a mandate can get vaccination rates to 90%, and “you really need a very high level of vaccination to prevent community outbreaks.”

United Airlines was one of the first major employers to announce a mandate, back in August. CEO Scott Kirby has said that 99% of United employees either got vaccinated or submitted a request for exemption on medical or religious grounds.

United declined to comment Thursday, but in earlier comments Kirby has sounded committed to the mandate for his employees because “it was the right thing to do for safety.”

Airlines fall under a separate Biden order that required federal contractors to get their workers vaccinated. That requirement was not part of Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, but it has been tied up separately since early December, when a federal district judge in Georgia issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the mandate.

“I would expect many federal contractors are going to wait and see because they don’t want to implement something if they don’t have to,” said Christopher Slottee, a commercial law attorney in Anchorage, Alaska.

___

AP Staff Writers Anne D’Innocenzio in New York, Paul Wiseman in Washington and Dee-Ann Durbin and Tom Krisher in Detroit contributed to this report.

___

This story was first published on January 13, 2022. It was updated on January 15, 2022 to correct the specialty of Chris Slottee. He is a commercial law attorney, not an employment attorney.

Biden team regroups after court loss on COVID shots-or-test

WASHINGTON (AP) — Concerned but not giving up, President Joe Biden is anxiously pushing ahead to prod people to get COVID-19 shots after the Supreme Court put a halt to the administration’s sweeping vaccinate-or-test plan for large employers.

At a time when hospitals are being overrun and record numbers of people are getting infected with the omicron variant, the administration hopes states and companies will order their own vaccinate-or-test requirements. And if the presidential “bully pulpit” still counts for persuasion, Biden intends to use it.

While some in the business community cheered the defeat of the mandate, Biden insisted the administration effort has not been for naught. The high court’s ruling on Thursday “does not stop me from using my voice as president to advocate for employers to do the right thing to protect Americans’ health and economy,” he said.

The court’s conservative majority all-but-struck down the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s requirement that employers with 100 or more employees require their workers to be vaccinated against the coronavirus or tested weekly. However, it did leave in place a vaccination requirement for health care workers.

Meanwhile, the White House announced Friday that the federal website where Americans can request their own free COVID-19 tests will begin accepting orders next Wednesday. Those tests could provide motivation for some people to seek vaccination, and the administration is looking to address nationwide shortages. Supplies will be limited to just four free tests per home.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that OSHA appeared to overstep its congressional authority to implement occupational standards, saying, “Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most.”

The mandate was announced last September, accompanied by biting criticism from Biden for the roughly 80 million American adults who hadn’t yet gotten shots

“We’ve been patient. But our patience is wearing thin, and your refusal has cost all of us,” he said. The unvaccinated minority, he said, “can cause a lot of damage, and they are.”

In a statement after the Supreme Court ruling, Biden expressed disappointment with the outcome but said the mandates have already had their desired effect on reducing the number of unvaccinated adults.

“Today, that number is down to under 35 million,” he said of the unvaccinated. “Had my administration not put vaccination requirements in place, we would be now experiencing a higher death toll from COVID-19 and even more hospitalizations.”

While the court left open the possibility for the U.S. to pursue more targeted mandates, White House officials said there were no immediate plans to seek a redo of the regulation.

“It’s now up to the states and individual employers to put in place vaccination requirements,” said White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Friday.

The United States is already “languishing,” with a 60% vaccination rate, near the bottom of peer nations, said Lawrence Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University.

“The OSHA rule was truly the president’s last best shot at significantly boosting the vaccination rate,” Gostin said. But the court, “in a very highly partisan way, intentionally tried to handcuff the president in doing what he needs to do.’’

Many large businesses that had already put in place vaccination-or-testing requirements indicated they had no plans to reverse course. But smaller companies said they were breathing a sigh of relief, fearing worker shortages if the OSHA rule had been allowed to go into force.

The Supreme Court decision has “taken a little bit of a burden of worry off of our shoulders,” said Kyle Caraway, marketing director at Doolittle Trailer Manufacturing, which joined a lawsuit by the Missouri attorney general challenging Biden’s policy. About 90% of the 175 employees at the Holts Summit, Missouri-based company had indicated they would refuse to comply with a vaccination requirement, he said.

“It became apparent to us that our team was going to shrink greatly overnight if that vaccine mandate went into place,” said Caraway, who counted himself among those opposing Biden’s policy. Halting production could have forced the company “to consider shuttering our doors,” he said.


- Mary Kay Henry, International President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) speaks before the second of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN, on July 31, 2019, in the Fox Theatre in Detroit. 

The Service Employees International Union, which represents more than 2 million workers, said the court decision was a relief for health care workers but leaves others without critical protections.

“In blocking the vaccine-or-test rule for large employers, the court has placed millions of other essential workers further at risk, caving to corporations that are trying to rig the rules against workers permanently,” the union said.

The union called on Congress and states to pass laws requiring vaccinations, masks and paid sick leave. Workers also need better access to testing and protective equipment, the union said.

The renewed debate over vaccination mandates comes as a record number of Americans are hospitalized with COVID-19, the country is averaging nearly 800,000 new cases and 1,700 deaths a day and resistance to vaccines remains a problem, most notably in deeply conservative states like Mississippi, Alabama, Wyoming and Idaho where less than half the population is fully vaccinated.

Hospitals nationwide are suffering chronic staffing shortages and being bombarded with people showing up at emergency rooms in need of virus tests. National Guard troops have been activated in dozens of states to help out at medical centers, nursing homes and testing sites.

A hospital on the edge of the Kansas City area had to borrow ventilators from the state of Missouri’s stockpile and hunt for more high-flow oxygen machines, and the largest county in Kansas said Friday that it’s running out of morgue space — again.

Gostin predicted the court’s action would have grave influence on other federal agencies’ efforts to protect public health, by ruling that OSHA can’t regulate something that would have a huge economic impact without explicit authorization from Congress. And he said states won’t be able to make up for the ruling’s impact.

“If COVID has taught us anything, it’s taught us that states can’t deal with big, bold problems, can’t prevent a pathogen from going from Florida to New York,” he said. “These are national problems requiring federal solutions.”

Psaki said the White House would work with businesses to promote the benefits of vaccination-or-testing requirements and that Biden would highlight successful programs.

“The Court has ruled that my administration cannot use the authority granted to it by Congress to require this measure,” Biden said. So “I call on business leaders to immediately join those who have already stepped up – including one third of Fortune 100 companies – and institute vaccination requirements to protect their workers, customers, and communities.”

___

David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri, and Lindsay Tanner in Chicago contributed.

Biden backers ‘not seeing the results’ a year into his term


1 of 5

 Claudia Cedillos, left, waves signs with her daughter Montserrat before a campaign rally for Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden, on Nov. 2, 2020, in Miami. Just over a year ago, millions of energized young people, women, voters of color and independents joined forces to send Joe Biden to the White House. But 12 months after he entered the Oval Office, many describe a coalition in crisis. 

(AP Photo/Lynne Sladky, File)

NEW YORK (AP) — Just over a year ago, millions of energized young people, women, voters of color and independents joined forces to send Joe Biden to the White House. But 12 months into his presidency, many describe a coalition in crisis.

Leading voices across Biden’s diverse political base openly decry the slow pace of progress on key campaign promises. The frustration was especially pronounced this past week after Biden’s push for voting rights legislation effectively stalled, intensifying concerns in his party that fundamental democratic principles are at risk and reinforcing a broader sense that the president is faltering at a moment of historic consequence.

“People are feeling like they’re getting less than they bargained for when they put Biden in office. There’s a lot of emotions, and none of them are good,” said Quentin Wathum-Ocama, president of the Young Democrats of America. “I don’t know if the right word is ‘apoplectic’ or ‘demoralized.’ We’re down. We’re not seeing the results.”

The strength of Biden’s support will determine whether Democrats maintain threadbare majorities in Congress beyond this year or whether they will cede lawmaking authority to a Republican Party largely controlled by former President Donald Trump. Already, Republicans in several state legislatures have taken advantage of Democratic divisions in Washington to enact far-reaching changes to state election laws, abortion rights and public health measures in line with Trump’s wishes.

If Biden cannot unify his party and reinvigorate his political coalition, the GOP at the state and federal levels will almost certainly grow more emboldened, and the red wave that shaped a handful of state elections last year could fundamentally shift the balance of power across America in November’s midterm elections.

For now, virtually none of the groups that fueled Biden’s 2020 victory are happy.

Young people are frustrated that he hasn’t followed through on vows to combat climate change and student debt. Women are worried that his plans to expand family leave, child care and universal pre-K are stalled as abortion rights erode and schools struggle to stay open. Moderates in both parties who once cheered Biden’s centrist approach worry that he’s moved too far left. And voters of color, like those across Biden’s political base, are furious that he hasn’t done more to protect their voting rights.

“We mobilized to elect President Biden because he made promises to us,” Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., told The Associated Press, citing Biden’s pledge to address police violence, student loan debt, climate change and voter suppression, among other issues.

“We need transformative change — our very lives depend on it,” Bush said. “And because we haven’t seen those results yet, we’re frustrated — frustrated that despite everything we did to deliver a Democratic White House, Senate and House of Representatives, our needs and our lives are still not being treated as a top priority. That needs to change.”

Facing widespread frustration, the White House insists Biden is making significant progress, especially given the circumstances when he took office.

“President Biden entered office with enormous challenges — a once-in-a-generation pandemic, economic crisis and a hollowed-out federal government. In the first year alone, he has delivered progress on his promises,” said Cedric Richmond, a senior adviser to the president. He pointed to more than 6 million new jobs, 200 million vaccinated Americans, the most diverse Cabinet in U.S. history and the most federal judges confirmed a president’s first year since Richard Nixon.

Richmond also highlighted historic legislative accomplishments Biden signed into law — specifically, a $1.9 trillion pandemic relief bill that sent $1,400 checks to most Americans and a subsequent $1 trillion infrastructure package that will fund public works projects across every state in the nation for several years.

In an interview, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a leading voice in the Democratic Party’s left wing, described Biden’s pandemic relief package as among the most significant pieces of legislation ever enacted to help working people.

“But a lot more work needs to be done,” he said.

Like other Biden allies, Sanders directed blame for the president’s woes at two Senate Democrats: Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. They are blocking the president’s plan to protect voting rights by refusing to bypass the filibuster, having already derailed Biden’s “Build Back Better” package, which calls for investments exceeding $2 trillion for child care, paid family leave, education and climate change, among other progressive priorities.

“It has been a mistake to have backroom conversations with Manchin and Sinema for the last four months, or five months,” Sanders said. “Those conversations have gotten nowhere. But what they have done is demoralize tens of millions of Americans.”

But blaming fellow Democrats will do little to improve Biden’s political standing.

According to Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research polling released last month, the president’s approval ratings have been falling among virtually every demographic as the pandemic continues to rage, inflation soars and the majority of his campaign promises go unfulfilled. A series of legal setbacks in recent days stand to make things worse. The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked Biden’s vaccine and testing requirements for big businesses.

About 7 in 10 Black Americans said they approved of Biden in December, compared with roughly 9 in 10 in April. Among Hispanics, support dipped to roughly half from about 7 in 10.

Just half of women approved of Biden last month compared to roughly two-thirds in the spring.

There was a similar drop among younger voters: Roughly half of Americans under 45 approved of the president, down from roughly two-thirds earlier in the year. The decline was similar among those age 45 and older. And among independents, a group that swung decidedly for Biden in 2020, just 40% of those who don’t lean toward a party approved of Biden in December, down from 63% in April.

“Biden is failing us,” said John Paul Mejia, the 19-year-old spokesman for the Sunrise Movement, a national youth organization focused on climate change. “If Biden doesn’t use the time he has left with a Democratic majority in Congress to fight tooth and nail for the promises that he was elected on, he will go down in history as a could-have-been president and ultimately a coward who didn’t stand up for democracy and a habitable planet.”

Christian Nunes, president of the National Organization for Women, said she wants to see more urgency from Biden in protecting women’s priorities.

“In these times, we need somebody who’s going to be a fighter,” she said.

Nunes called on Biden to work harder to protect voting rights and access to abortion, which have been dramatically curtailed in several Republican-led states. A looming Supreme Court decision expected this summer could weaken, or wipe away, the landmark Roe v. Wade precedent that made abortion legal.

“We are in a really dire time right now. We’re seeing so many laws passed that are really challenging peoples’ constitutional rights,” Nunes said. “We need someone who’s going to say we’re not going to tolerate this.”

Charlie Sykes, an anti-Trump Republican who backed Biden in 2020, said the president is also in danger of losing moderate voters in both parties unless he can shift his party’s rhetoric more to the middle when talking about public safety, crime and voting.

“He ran as very much a centrist, center-left candidate, but I think that a lot of moderate swing voters are feeling a little bit left out and wondering where the Joe Biden of 2020 went,” Sykes said.

Having only been in office for a year, Biden may have time to turn things around before the November midterms — especially as Trump reemerges as a more visible player in national politics. In recent years, nothing has unified Democrats more than Trump himself.

Mary Kay Henry, president of the two-million-member Service Employees International Union, said her members want more from Washington, but they would be out in full force this year to remind voters of the work Biden has already done to address concerns about the pandemic and economic security.

“President Biden is not the obstacle,” Henry said, pointing to the “intransigent Republican caucus in the Senate” who have unified against Biden’s Build Back Better package and his plan to protect voting rights. “We’re going to have this president’s back.”

Not everyone is as willing to commit to the Democratic president.

“We need to see Joe Biden the fighter. That’s kind of where I’m at,” said Wathum-Ocama, the Young Democrats of America president. “The unifier is appropriate at times. But we need somebody who’s going to fight for our issues if we’re going to come out and turn out for him in ’22.”

___

Associated Press polling specialist Hannah Fingerhut contributed to this report.