New research details effect of 'Black tax' on African American homeownership
BY ARIS FOLLEY - 10/22/20
Black Americans are paying more than white Americans to own a home, making it harder for Black households to accumulate housing wealth at the same rate as their white counterparts, according to new research from MIT.
In a study published earlier this month, MIT researchers found that Black Americans pay $743 more annually than white Americans when it comes to mortgage interest payments, $550 more per year in mortgage insurance premiums and $390 more each year in property taxes — totaling more than $13,000 over the life of the loan.
The study — authored by Ed Golding, executive director of the MIT Golub Center; Michelle Aronowitz, former deputy general counsel for enforcement and fair housing at the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Jung Hyun Choi, a researcher with the Housing Finance Policy Center at the Urban Institute — found that the inequities totaled to $67,320 in lost retirement savings for Black homeowners.
Citing income data from the National Association of Real Estate Brokers (NAREB), the country’s oldest minority trade association, the study said it found an income gap of $25,800 between Black and white Americans to be “exacerbated by this ‘Black tax’ on homeownership.”
The elimination of those additional costs, the study said, would cut in half the roughly $130,000 gap in liquid retirement savings between white and Black families.
The study also found that African Americans paid higher interest rates due to a lack of refinance opportunities, a problem researchers said results in Black homeowners paying "approximately another $475 per year more than white homeowners, which results in a loss of retirement savings of nearly $20,000."
Golding told The Hill that, for a variety of reasons, Black families don’t refinance or can’t refinance as easily or as quickly as white families.
“So, when the [Federal Reserve] lowers rates, people refinance to lower their mortgage rate. But more Black families are stuck at the old higher rates and our data shows that,” he said, while noting that African American families have a higher unemployment rate, meaning “they're more likely to be in that group that can't refinance.”
While the study notes that the inequities can be “traced to the long history of slavery, segregation, and race discrimination,” it also points to “current policy choices that maintain the disparities” and suggests reforms.
Some of the policy recommendations include forming a “government supported insurance program that makes mortgage payments in the event of unemployment or disability" and including “tax credits for first time homeowners, which could be used as a down payment to reduce the effect of risk-based pricing and the need for mortgage insurance.”
The MIT study builds on previous research from the real estate website Redfin in June that found the homeownership rate for Black families stood at less than 45 percent nationwide, compared to the 73 percent rate for white families.
And an analysis published over the summer — authored by economists Troup Howard, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Utah, and Carlos Avenancio-León, assistant professor of finance at Indiana University — found that Black and Hispanic residents bore a 10-13 percent “higher property tax burden than white residents" in the nation.
When discussing the homeownership gap in an interview this week, Antoine Thompson, executive director of NAREB, which works to promote democracy in housing, said the impact of racist practices in the country that have shut Black Americans out of housing, dating back to slavery, is still being felt today.
Thompson said the suggestion made in the MIT study to pool risk among borrowers in lieu of risk-based pricing was “a great idea,” and one that has been discussed before.
He also pointed to the Great Recession as to why some Black Americans could be reluctant to get a refinance.
For many Black Americans who lost their homes, Thompson said, “their first loan was good, but then someone went after them and encouraged them to refinance and then they no longer had a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage … and once they hit a cliff they couldn't recover.”
The MIT study pointed to capital standards that it noted have “the effect of placing the burden of staving off a repeat of the 2008 Great Recession on black homeowners, even though black homeowners were primarily the victims of the crisis, not its cause.”
Thompson said that going forward, the widening or narrowing of the racial homeownership gap will depend largely on "how we come out of COVID in terms of making sure that more African Americans get a forbearance that need it.”
Another key factor, he said, is employment and whether the country will be able to “break this trend of African Americans going back to work slower” than white Americans, citing data that shows white workers have been making job gains at faster rates than Black workers during the pandemic
Thursday, October 22, 2020
Intercept bureau chief on Bolivian election: Right-wing government 'reminded everybody how important it was to have socialists in power'
10/20/2020
The presumptive victory in Bolivia's presidential election by Luis Arce shows the enduring strength of socialist parties and politicians in that country, the Washington, D.C., bureau chief of The Intercept said Tuesday on Hill.TV.
“People who were in their 20s there basically never knew anything other than Morales being in leadership,” the Intercept's Ryan Grim said, referring to the former Bolivian leader Evo Morales, who was forced out of office last year.
“But one year of right wing government reminded everybody how important it was to have socialists in power. The right wing government had no mandate when they came in,” Grim said.
Arce is an ally of Morales, who was also a mentor of new new Bolivian leader.
While the vote is still being counted in the race, the main centrist candidate has conceded, all but completely assuring a victory for Arce, the Socialist candidate.
Grims credited Arce's victory to the previous government doing more “looting the Treasury than actually governing.” He also said the current government was criticized over its handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
10/20/2020
The presumptive victory in Bolivia's presidential election by Luis Arce shows the enduring strength of socialist parties and politicians in that country, the Washington, D.C., bureau chief of The Intercept said Tuesday on Hill.TV.
“People who were in their 20s there basically never knew anything other than Morales being in leadership,” the Intercept's Ryan Grim said, referring to the former Bolivian leader Evo Morales, who was forced out of office last year.
“But one year of right wing government reminded everybody how important it was to have socialists in power. The right wing government had no mandate when they came in,” Grim said.
Arce is an ally of Morales, who was also a mentor of new new Bolivian leader.
While the vote is still being counted in the race, the main centrist candidate has conceded, all but completely assuring a victory for Arce, the Socialist candidate.
Grims credited Arce's victory to the previous government doing more “looting the Treasury than actually governing.” He also said the current government was criticized over its handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
Top court in Poland strikes down law allowing abortions for birth defects
BY KAELAN DEESE - 10/22/2020
© Getty
Poland's top court ruled Thursday that a law permitting abortion of fetuses with congenital disabilities is unconstitutional.
The country's Constitutional Court ruled the ban will be effective immediately, outlawing abortions in cases where congenital disabilities are discovered and further limiting abortion access, The Associated Press reported.
Poland, a predominantly Catholic country, already maintains one of the strictest abortion laws in Europe.
The ruling was in response to motions from right-wing lawmakers who argued terminating a pregnancy when congenital disabilities are detected in the fetus was in violation of the Polish Constitution protecting every individual's life.
Julia Przylebska, the court’s president and a supporter of the right-wing government, first announced the verdict Thursday, The Washington Post reported.
The law being challenged was first introduced in 1993 and allowed for abortions when a woman's life or health was endangered or if they are a victim of rape or another illegal act.
Two judges on the 13-member court did not support the majority ruling.
Before the ruling, abortion rights groups demonstrated in protests and human rights organizations argued against further restricting abortion rights.
Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatović posted on social media the ruling Thursday was a "sad day for women’s rights."
“Removing the basis for almost all legal abortions in #Poland amounts to a ban & violates #HumanRights,” she penned on Twitter. “Today’s ruling of the Constitutional Court means underground/abroad abortions for those who can afford & even greater ordeal for all others. A sad day for #WomensRights.”
Some Polish lawmakers considered a bill earlier this year to implement nearly a full ban on abortions. However, it postponed a final vote on the proposal brought by a Catholic group, the Post reported.
BY KAELAN DEESE - 10/22/2020
© Getty
Poland's top court ruled Thursday that a law permitting abortion of fetuses with congenital disabilities is unconstitutional.
The country's Constitutional Court ruled the ban will be effective immediately, outlawing abortions in cases where congenital disabilities are discovered and further limiting abortion access, The Associated Press reported.
Poland, a predominantly Catholic country, already maintains one of the strictest abortion laws in Europe.
The ruling was in response to motions from right-wing lawmakers who argued terminating a pregnancy when congenital disabilities are detected in the fetus was in violation of the Polish Constitution protecting every individual's life.
Julia Przylebska, the court’s president and a supporter of the right-wing government, first announced the verdict Thursday, The Washington Post reported.
The law being challenged was first introduced in 1993 and allowed for abortions when a woman's life or health was endangered or if they are a victim of rape or another illegal act.
Two judges on the 13-member court did not support the majority ruling.
Before the ruling, abortion rights groups demonstrated in protests and human rights organizations argued against further restricting abortion rights.
Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatović posted on social media the ruling Thursday was a "sad day for women’s rights."
“Removing the basis for almost all legal abortions in #Poland amounts to a ban & violates #HumanRights,” she penned on Twitter. “Today’s ruling of the Constitutional Court means underground/abroad abortions for those who can afford & even greater ordeal for all others. A sad day for #WomensRights.”
Some Polish lawmakers considered a bill earlier this year to implement nearly a full ban on abortions. However, it postponed a final vote on the proposal brought by a Catholic group, the Post reported.
Sanctuary city policies did not result in crime increase: study
BY JUSTINE COLEMAN - 10/21/20
In recent weeks, ICE has focused on sanctuary jurisdictions through Operation Rise, making more than 300 arrests, according to the Post.
Local officials who pass sanctuary policies assert that the policies make immigrants more likely to report crimes instead of avoiding police out of a fear they could face deportation.
BY JUSTINE COLEMAN - 10/21/20
© Getty
Sanctuary city policies have not resulted in an increase in crime in communities that have imposed them, according to a Stanford University study published this week.
Researcher David Hausman concluded that evidence does not support the argument, voiced by the Trump administration, that sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, threaten residents' public safety
The study, which was obtained by The Washington Post, was published in the academic journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Hausman studied violent crime and property crime statistics across more than 200 sanctuary jurisdictions between 2010 and 2015, a time period when many of the sanctuary policies in the country were instituted to protect immigrants living in the country illegally.
He determined that the policies helped decrease deportations of nonviolent offenders. But deportations of violent offenders continued at the same rate, which Hausman said was because many sanctuary policies do not take much action to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from intervening in those cases.
Overall, deportations reduced by about one-third in places with sanctuary policies, and immigrants arrested but not convicted of a crime were about 50 percent less likely to get deported.
“There’s no evidence sanctuary policies harm public safety, and there’s no evidence those policies increase crime,” Hausman, who previously worked with the American Civil Liberties Union that has challenged the administration’s immigration policies, told the Post.
“I think it’s disappointing that the government and this administration rely on anecdotes when there is data,” he added. “The government itself keeps the data I rely on, and if the administration had looked at its own data, it would know these claims are not true.”
ICE officers have the authority to make arrests anywhere in the country, but jurisdictions with sanctuary policies usually do not assist them by detaining suspects for federal authorities to pick up.
The agency sent a statement to The Hill that did not directly address Hausman’s findings but cited instances of crimes linked to immigrants who were previously let go.
“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) maintains that cooperation with local law enforcement is essential to protecting public safety, and the agency aims to work cooperatively with local jurisdictions to ensure that criminal aliens are not released into U.S. communities to commit additional crimes,” an ICE spokesperson said. “There are numerous examples where an individual without legal status was arrested by state or local law enforcement and released into the community to reoffend while an ICE detainer was in place.”
Sanctuary city policies have not resulted in an increase in crime in communities that have imposed them, according to a Stanford University study published this week.
Researcher David Hausman concluded that evidence does not support the argument, voiced by the Trump administration, that sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, threaten residents' public safety
The study, which was obtained by The Washington Post, was published in the academic journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Hausman studied violent crime and property crime statistics across more than 200 sanctuary jurisdictions between 2010 and 2015, a time period when many of the sanctuary policies in the country were instituted to protect immigrants living in the country illegally.
He determined that the policies helped decrease deportations of nonviolent offenders. But deportations of violent offenders continued at the same rate, which Hausman said was because many sanctuary policies do not take much action to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from intervening in those cases.
Overall, deportations reduced by about one-third in places with sanctuary policies, and immigrants arrested but not convicted of a crime were about 50 percent less likely to get deported.
“There’s no evidence sanctuary policies harm public safety, and there’s no evidence those policies increase crime,” Hausman, who previously worked with the American Civil Liberties Union that has challenged the administration’s immigration policies, told the Post.
“I think it’s disappointing that the government and this administration rely on anecdotes when there is data,” he added. “The government itself keeps the data I rely on, and if the administration had looked at its own data, it would know these claims are not true.”
ICE officers have the authority to make arrests anywhere in the country, but jurisdictions with sanctuary policies usually do not assist them by detaining suspects for federal authorities to pick up.
The agency sent a statement to The Hill that did not directly address Hausman’s findings but cited instances of crimes linked to immigrants who were previously let go.
“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) maintains that cooperation with local law enforcement is essential to protecting public safety, and the agency aims to work cooperatively with local jurisdictions to ensure that criminal aliens are not released into U.S. communities to commit additional crimes,” an ICE spokesperson said. “There are numerous examples where an individual without legal status was arrested by state or local law enforcement and released into the community to reoffend while an ICE detainer was in place.”
In recent weeks, ICE has focused on sanctuary jurisdictions through Operation Rise, making more than 300 arrests, according to the Post.
Local officials who pass sanctuary policies assert that the policies make immigrants more likely to report crimes instead of avoiding police out of a fear they could face deportation.
The sad secrets of Glasgow's abandoned mental hospital
Hidden away in a secluded rural spot north of Glasgow, Lennox Castle Hospital is an abandoned building with a very interesting history.
Hidden away in a secluded rural spot north of Glasgow, Lennox Castle Hospital is an abandoned building with a very interesting history.
By The Newsroom
The ruins of Lennox Castle Hospital hide a sad and traumatic history. Picture: Ron Shephard/Wikimedia Commons
The castle itself was built in the 1830s, but in early 20th century, the space was converted into what would later become a truly infamous psychiatric hospital.
Lennox Castle Hospital was eventually closed in 2002, leaving the institution’s sad and difficult history to be forgotten, just like its crumbling, abandoned former home.
In 1925, plans were drawn up by Glasgow Council for a new ‘Mental Deficiency Institution’, and the Lennox Castle Hospital complex was opened a few years later, in 1936. When it opened, Lennox was hailed as being way ahead of its time, and was the largest and best equipped hospital of its kind in Britain
The hospital cost over £1 million to build, and had space for 1,200 patients. There were separate dormitories for male and female patients, each one holding around 60 people in two wards.
Patients also had access to two communal dining halls (with seating for 600 people in each) and a central Assembly Hall, which housed a stage, equipment for cinema shows, and recreational facilities.
Despite a promising start, conditions at Lennox Castle Hospital soon began to deteriorate. The hospital was vastly overcrowded, understaffed and underfunded. Vulnerable patients were left to fend for themselves in the large wards.
Friends and family of patients generally reported that staff tried their best, despite the lack of resources, but conditions in the hospital were described as “wretched and dehumanising”. Conditions were so bad by the 1980s that Doctor Alasdair Sim (the hospital’s Medical Director at the time), said he had never worked in a “worse pit”, and that he was “sick to the stomach about the plight of these poor people”.
A 1989 study by the British Medical Journal found that a quarter of patients at Lennox Castle Hospital were dangerously underweight and malnourished. Some claim that there was more than neglect going on at Lennox Castle Hospital.
Former patients recall being given unnecessarily cruel punishments for small offences. Incidents included being struck with a baseball bat and being made to run laps barefoot around the castle, just for forgetting to address a staff member as “sir”.
In more recent years, comparisons have been drawn between Lennox and cult TV series, American Horror Story: Asylum, thanks to the allegations of abuse, neglect and terrible conditions. Those who attempted to run away would be caught and locked up in isolation for up to six weeks, drugged with heavy doses of medication, and refused contact with visitors.
Patients who didn’t need drugs were given them, as a way of ensuring they remained calm and didn’t cause trouble in the overcrowded conditions. In reality, only around 10 per cent of the hospital’s residents genuinely required anti-psychotic drugs.
There are several reports of patients dying or being seriously injured due to the lack of care at Lennox Castle Hospital. One man was found set alight in the bathroom in the middle of the night and died the following day. Another was seriously injured when a nurse threw a scalding cup of tea on him, while a heart attack (brought on by severe distress while being physically restrained) resulted in another patient’s death.
After decades of keeping patients shut away from the outside world, Lennox Castle Hospital finally closed in 2002.
The last few remaining patients were reintegrated back into the local community, or transferred to more modern psychiatric units, before the hospital was abandoned.
Since then, the eerie site has lain empty, and the buildings have rapidly deteriorated. The formerly grand Lennox Castle is now a crumbling shell. The area remains empty, aside from occasional urban explorers looking to catch a glimpse of the former hospital.
Although several plans have been put forward to restore the castle and build new housing on the grounds, none have been successful so far.
In 2007, Celtic Football Club built a new training facility on the grounds of Lennox Castle. It’s likely that many of the players and staff come and go without having any idea about what went on at the former hospital, less than half a mile away from their state of the art training ground.
The castle itself was built in the 1830s, but in early 20th century, the space was converted into what would later become a truly infamous psychiatric hospital.
Lennox Castle Hospital was eventually closed in 2002, leaving the institution’s sad and difficult history to be forgotten, just like its crumbling, abandoned former home.
In 1925, plans were drawn up by Glasgow Council for a new ‘Mental Deficiency Institution’, and the Lennox Castle Hospital complex was opened a few years later, in 1936. When it opened, Lennox was hailed as being way ahead of its time, and was the largest and best equipped hospital of its kind in Britain
The hospital cost over £1 million to build, and had space for 1,200 patients. There were separate dormitories for male and female patients, each one holding around 60 people in two wards.
Patients also had access to two communal dining halls (with seating for 600 people in each) and a central Assembly Hall, which housed a stage, equipment for cinema shows, and recreational facilities.
Despite a promising start, conditions at Lennox Castle Hospital soon began to deteriorate. The hospital was vastly overcrowded, understaffed and underfunded. Vulnerable patients were left to fend for themselves in the large wards.
Friends and family of patients generally reported that staff tried their best, despite the lack of resources, but conditions in the hospital were described as “wretched and dehumanising”. Conditions were so bad by the 1980s that Doctor Alasdair Sim (the hospital’s Medical Director at the time), said he had never worked in a “worse pit”, and that he was “sick to the stomach about the plight of these poor people”.
A 1989 study by the British Medical Journal found that a quarter of patients at Lennox Castle Hospital were dangerously underweight and malnourished. Some claim that there was more than neglect going on at Lennox Castle Hospital.
Former patients recall being given unnecessarily cruel punishments for small offences. Incidents included being struck with a baseball bat and being made to run laps barefoot around the castle, just for forgetting to address a staff member as “sir”.
In more recent years, comparisons have been drawn between Lennox and cult TV series, American Horror Story: Asylum, thanks to the allegations of abuse, neglect and terrible conditions. Those who attempted to run away would be caught and locked up in isolation for up to six weeks, drugged with heavy doses of medication, and refused contact with visitors.
Patients who didn’t need drugs were given them, as a way of ensuring they remained calm and didn’t cause trouble in the overcrowded conditions. In reality, only around 10 per cent of the hospital’s residents genuinely required anti-psychotic drugs.
There are several reports of patients dying or being seriously injured due to the lack of care at Lennox Castle Hospital. One man was found set alight in the bathroom in the middle of the night and died the following day. Another was seriously injured when a nurse threw a scalding cup of tea on him, while a heart attack (brought on by severe distress while being physically restrained) resulted in another patient’s death.
After decades of keeping patients shut away from the outside world, Lennox Castle Hospital finally closed in 2002.
The last few remaining patients were reintegrated back into the local community, or transferred to more modern psychiatric units, before the hospital was abandoned.
Since then, the eerie site has lain empty, and the buildings have rapidly deteriorated. The formerly grand Lennox Castle is now a crumbling shell. The area remains empty, aside from occasional urban explorers looking to catch a glimpse of the former hospital.
Although several plans have been put forward to restore the castle and build new housing on the grounds, none have been successful so far.
In 2007, Celtic Football Club built a new training facility on the grounds of Lennox Castle. It’s likely that many of the players and staff come and go without having any idea about what went on at the former hospital, less than half a mile away from their state of the art training ground.
LONGEVITY HACKS
SCIENCE REVEALS THE PERFECT TIME TO DRINK COFFEE FOR A HEALTHY METABOLISM
South_agency/DigitalVision Vectors/Getty Images
"Knowing this can have important health benefits for us all."
ALI PATTILLO 10.18.2020
IT'S A VICIOUS CYCLE: Stay up late into the night and revive yourself upon waking with a cup of strong coffee. While the caffeine may perk you up, it could also have a negative effect on your metabolism, new research suggests.
According to the new study, published in the journal British Journal of Nutrition, a single bad night's sleep isn't likely to acutely impair metabolism. Having coffee before breakfast the next day can.
In the experiment, participants who drank strong, black coffee after a disrupted night's sleep, and followed that up with a sugary drink had impaired blood sugar control — a marker for metabolic dysfunction.
"It may be better to wait until after breakfast to have coffee following a bad night of sleep — rather than before breakfast in order to balance the stimulating effects of the coffee with their potential to disrupt glucose metabolism," study co-author Harry Smith, a researcher at the Centre for Nutrition, Exercise & Metabolism at the University of Bath, tells Inverse.
Moderate coffee drinking is linked to health benefits like lower risk of heart disease, certain cancers, and neurological conditions, so the findings "don’t mean that coffee can’t be part of a healthy balanced lifestyle," Smith adds.
What the research does say is that it may be worth considering when to down your java.
COFFEE EXPERIMENT — To determine how broken sleep and morning coffee influence metabolic function, researchers recruited 29 healthy men and women. The group participated in three overnight experiments in random order:
Participants had a normal night's sleep (approximately eight hours) and consumed a sugary drink upon waking in the morning.
Participants experienced a disrupted night's sleep (where the researchers woke them every hour for five minutes using specially designed texting prompts) and then upon waking were given the same sugary drink.
Participants experienced the same sleep disruption but were first given a strong black coffee (including approximately 300 milligrams of caffeine) 30 minutes before consuming the sugary drink.
At the start of the study, researchers measured participants' height, weight, and waist circumference along with health metrics like sleep quality, mood, and appetite. After completing each condition, researchers took samples of the participants' blood after drinking the sugary drink. The drink was designed to mirror the calories of a typical breakfast.
THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF A CUP OF JOE — The scientists found that one night of broken sleep did not affect people's insulin sensitivity or glucose tolerance —two markers of metabolic health — the next day, compared to a full night of sleep.
The study may be reassuring for those who occasionally miss out on their full eight hours of rest. But those who regularly lose out on snoozing time aren't out of the woods, metabolically speaking.
"More severe acute sleep disruption and/or chronic sleep disruption have been associated with impaired glucose metabolism and increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease," Smith notes.
The results may throw a wrench in the morning routines of avid coffee drinkers.
In the study, consuming strong, black coffee after broken sleep substantially increased the blood glucose response to breakfast by around 50 percent. This shift doesn't necessarily put someone at risk for diabetes or other metabolic disorders, but the scientists say it could influence health if the spike occurs habitually.
"Single occasions of elevated blood glucose responses such as in the study can be predictive of cardiometabolic events in the future, and this response repeated over a long period of time certainly could have an impact on health such as reduced insulin sensitivity," Smith explains. Still, other factors such as physical activity need to be considered when predicting long-term outcomes.
SHIFTING COFFEE ROUTINES — Taken together, these findings suggest drinking coffee after a bad night's sleep can make you feel alert, but may limit your body's ability to tolerate the sugar in your breakfast.
That's because the caffeine contained in coffee beans has a negative effect on sensors in the muscle that help take glucose out of the blood, therefore resulting in this higher blood glucose response, Smith explains. Caffeine also stimulates a greater release of lipids into the blood which also negatively impacts our muscles' ability to take glucose out of the blood.
"If this scenario of caffeinated coffee before breakfast is continued over a prolonged period it is possible that this may have longer-term health implications, however, it is also likely that our body clock may adjust to the morning spike in blood glucose," Smith says.
More, larger randomized clinical trials are needed to hammer out exactly how coffee routines impact daily metabolic function. But for now, these findings suggest people should consume their bean juice after breakfast, not before, to support a healthy metabolism.
"We know that nearly half of us will wake in the morning and, before doing anything else, drink coffee - intuitively the more tired we feel, the stronger the coffee," study co-author James Betts, co-director of the Centre for Nutrition, Exercise and Metabolism at the University of Bath, said in a related statement. "This study is important and has far-reaching health implications as up until now we have had limited knowledge about what this is doing to our bodies, in particular for our metabolic and blood sugar control."
Coffee is the world's most popular beverage, so drinking morning coffee at the perfect time is useful information for billions of individuals.
"Put simply, our blood sugar control is impaired when the first thing our bodies come into contact with is coffee especially after a night of disrupted sleep. We might improve this by eating first and then drinking coffee later if we feel we still feel we need it. Knowing this can have important health benefits for us all."
ALI PATTILLO 10.18.2020
IT'S A VICIOUS CYCLE: Stay up late into the night and revive yourself upon waking with a cup of strong coffee. While the caffeine may perk you up, it could also have a negative effect on your metabolism, new research suggests.
According to the new study, published in the journal British Journal of Nutrition, a single bad night's sleep isn't likely to acutely impair metabolism. Having coffee before breakfast the next day can.
In the experiment, participants who drank strong, black coffee after a disrupted night's sleep, and followed that up with a sugary drink had impaired blood sugar control — a marker for metabolic dysfunction.
"It may be better to wait until after breakfast to have coffee following a bad night of sleep — rather than before breakfast in order to balance the stimulating effects of the coffee with their potential to disrupt glucose metabolism," study co-author Harry Smith, a researcher at the Centre for Nutrition, Exercise & Metabolism at the University of Bath, tells Inverse.
Moderate coffee drinking is linked to health benefits like lower risk of heart disease, certain cancers, and neurological conditions, so the findings "don’t mean that coffee can’t be part of a healthy balanced lifestyle," Smith adds.
What the research does say is that it may be worth considering when to down your java.
COFFEE EXPERIMENT — To determine how broken sleep and morning coffee influence metabolic function, researchers recruited 29 healthy men and women. The group participated in three overnight experiments in random order:
Participants had a normal night's sleep (approximately eight hours) and consumed a sugary drink upon waking in the morning.
Participants experienced a disrupted night's sleep (where the researchers woke them every hour for five minutes using specially designed texting prompts) and then upon waking were given the same sugary drink.
Participants experienced the same sleep disruption but were first given a strong black coffee (including approximately 300 milligrams of caffeine) 30 minutes before consuming the sugary drink.
At the start of the study, researchers measured participants' height, weight, and waist circumference along with health metrics like sleep quality, mood, and appetite. After completing each condition, researchers took samples of the participants' blood after drinking the sugary drink. The drink was designed to mirror the calories of a typical breakfast.
THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF A CUP OF JOE — The scientists found that one night of broken sleep did not affect people's insulin sensitivity or glucose tolerance —two markers of metabolic health — the next day, compared to a full night of sleep.
The study may be reassuring for those who occasionally miss out on their full eight hours of rest. But those who regularly lose out on snoozing time aren't out of the woods, metabolically speaking.
"More severe acute sleep disruption and/or chronic sleep disruption have been associated with impaired glucose metabolism and increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease," Smith notes.
The results may throw a wrench in the morning routines of avid coffee drinkers.
In the study, consuming strong, black coffee after broken sleep substantially increased the blood glucose response to breakfast by around 50 percent. This shift doesn't necessarily put someone at risk for diabetes or other metabolic disorders, but the scientists say it could influence health if the spike occurs habitually.
"Single occasions of elevated blood glucose responses such as in the study can be predictive of cardiometabolic events in the future, and this response repeated over a long period of time certainly could have an impact on health such as reduced insulin sensitivity," Smith explains. Still, other factors such as physical activity need to be considered when predicting long-term outcomes.
SHIFTING COFFEE ROUTINES — Taken together, these findings suggest drinking coffee after a bad night's sleep can make you feel alert, but may limit your body's ability to tolerate the sugar in your breakfast.
That's because the caffeine contained in coffee beans has a negative effect on sensors in the muscle that help take glucose out of the blood, therefore resulting in this higher blood glucose response, Smith explains. Caffeine also stimulates a greater release of lipids into the blood which also negatively impacts our muscles' ability to take glucose out of the blood.
"If this scenario of caffeinated coffee before breakfast is continued over a prolonged period it is possible that this may have longer-term health implications, however, it is also likely that our body clock may adjust to the morning spike in blood glucose," Smith says.
More, larger randomized clinical trials are needed to hammer out exactly how coffee routines impact daily metabolic function. But for now, these findings suggest people should consume their bean juice after breakfast, not before, to support a healthy metabolism.
"We know that nearly half of us will wake in the morning and, before doing anything else, drink coffee - intuitively the more tired we feel, the stronger the coffee," study co-author James Betts, co-director of the Centre for Nutrition, Exercise and Metabolism at the University of Bath, said in a related statement. "This study is important and has far-reaching health implications as up until now we have had limited knowledge about what this is doing to our bodies, in particular for our metabolic and blood sugar control."
Coffee is the world's most popular beverage, so drinking morning coffee at the perfect time is useful information for billions of individuals.
"Put simply, our blood sugar control is impaired when the first thing our bodies come into contact with is coffee especially after a night of disrupted sleep. We might improve this by eating first and then drinking coffee later if we feel we still feel we need it. Knowing this can have important health benefits for us all."
Coronavirus survives on skin for nine hours: Study
The study backs World Health Organisation guidance for regular and thorough hand washing to limit transmission of the virus.
PHOTO: EPA-EFE
PUBLISHED OCT 19, 2020,
TOKYO • The coronavirus remains active on human skin for nine hours, Japanese researchers have found, in a discovery they said showed the need for frequent hand washing to combat the Covid-19 pandemic.
By comparison, the pathogen that causes the flu survives on human skin for about 1.8 hours, according to the study published this month in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal.
"The nine-hour survival of Sars-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) on human skin may increase the risk of contact transmission in comparison with IAV (influenza A virus), thus accelerating the pandemic," said the study.
The research team tested skin collected from autopsy specimens, about one day after death.
Both the coronavirus and the flu virus are inactivated within 15 seconds by applying ethanol, which is used in hand sanitiser.
"The longer survival of Sars-CoV-2 on the skin increases contact-transmission risk; however, hand hygiene can reduce this risk," said the study, which backs World Health Organisation guidance for regular and thorough hand washing to limit Covid-19's transmission.
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Why washing hands with soap is critical in battling Covid-19
Virus that causes Covid-19 can survive 28 days on banknotes, glass and stainless steel: Study
PUBLISHED OCT 19, 2020,
TOKYO • The coronavirus remains active on human skin for nine hours, Japanese researchers have found, in a discovery they said showed the need for frequent hand washing to combat the Covid-19 pandemic.
By comparison, the pathogen that causes the flu survives on human skin for about 1.8 hours, according to the study published this month in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal.
"The nine-hour survival of Sars-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) on human skin may increase the risk of contact transmission in comparison with IAV (influenza A virus), thus accelerating the pandemic," said the study.
The research team tested skin collected from autopsy specimens, about one day after death.
Both the coronavirus and the flu virus are inactivated within 15 seconds by applying ethanol, which is used in hand sanitiser.
"The longer survival of Sars-CoV-2 on the skin increases contact-transmission risk; however, hand hygiene can reduce this risk," said the study, which backs World Health Organisation guidance for regular and thorough hand washing to limit Covid-19's transmission.
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Why washing hands with soap is critical in battling Covid-19
Virus that causes Covid-19 can survive 28 days on banknotes, glass and stainless steel: Study
DOCTOR WHO?
Whatever happened to Deborah Birx?
BY BRETT SAMUELS - 10/18/20
Deborah Birx is nowhere to be found at the White House these days.
Though she retains the title of coordinator of the White House coronavirus response, Birx has not attended any of President Trump's press briefings on the pandemic since he started them anew in late July, nor was she at a recent event to tout the administration's advances in testing.
Instead, Birx has been on the road, visiting 36 states and 27 different colleges and universities since the end of June to meet with state, local and university leaders to advise on best practices for containing the coronavirus and to gather information on what's been working in each place.
Olivia Troye, a former coronavirus task force adviser who worked with Birx and is now a Trump critic, said White House officials grew irritated by Birx's detailed and data-heavy presentations in the early summer that showed emerging hot spots and difficulties getting the virus under control. Some officials rolled their eyes as Birx delivered a message that clashed with the administration's preferred narrative that things were improving, Troye said.
The frustration preceded a push to get Birx out on the road to meet with state and local leaders, multiple officials familiar with the discussions said. She last appeared publicly alongside Trump in an early August Oval Office meeting with Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R).
"It’s convenient because they don’t want her at the White House and don’t want her at the podium,” Troye said. “But in many ways it probably ended up being better for her."
Administration officials and those who have met with Birx recently say she remains a vital resource and argue that she may be more comfortable being away from Washington, D.C., where she had to navigate the politics of the White House. She often drew criticism for praising Trump publicly while attempting privately to impress upon others the seriousness of the situation.
But her absence is a sign of how Trump has spurned the same doctors who were the face of the coronavirus response in the early months of the pandemic in favor of advisers who align with his views.
She has joined the likes of Anthony Fauci, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield, and Surgeon General Jerome Adams as fixtures of White House briefings from February to April who have since been relegated to the background, while Scott Atlas, who is not an epidemiologist and has pushed the controversial herd immunity theory, has gained the president's ear.
Unlike Fauci, Birx no longer appears on Sunday morning shows or cable news. Those appearances proved problematic at times for Birx, as she would often be pressed to contradict or call out the president's latest misleading or questionable comments about the pandemic.
“She navigates the political atmosphere much better than a lot of the doctors at times, but it’s exhausting, and I’ve certainly seen it firsthand, and I’ve certainly seen it weigh on her,” said Troye, who left the White House in July.
The White House coronavirus task force provides tailored recommendations to governors and health commissioners, and Birx’s travel has been a key component of understanding their problems and offering guidance, an administration official said.
“Dr. Birx continues to lead the Task Force and travel the country working hand-in-hand with Governors and local health officials to ensure we are defeating this virus at the local level with federal support,” White House deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews said in a statement.
Birx did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Vice President Pence tapped Birx in late February to coordinate the White House coronavirus response when there were just 60 known COVID-19 cases in the United States. Birx was appointed by former President Obama in 2014 as an ambassador-at-large to lead the country’s global efforts to combat HIV/AIDS.
She became a fixture at press briefings early in the coronavirus pandemic. Her scarves spawned parody Instagram accounts, and she and Fauci emerged as authoritative voices at the White House. But as Trump and others in the building pushed for states to lift restrictions and insisted the country was rounding the turn on the pandemic, Birx appeared less frequently.
Since then, cases have spiked around the United States. The country recorded more than 60,000 new infections on Thursday. Officials in Wisconsin, Montana and other states have raised concerns that their hospital systems could soon be overwhelmed.
Those who know Birx or who have met with her in recent weeks have universally praised her professionalism and helpfulness. They say she is simply looking for ways to be most effective in an administration where the president has repeatedly contradicted and ridiculed his own top health officials.
"It is really, I would say, close to impossible to do anything reasonable with this White House. And she tried initially inside, and now what I think she's trying is she's trying outside," said Carlos del Rio, an infectious disease expert at Emory University who has worked with Birx through her role in the State Department.
"I think she’s trying to figure out how can she do the best in, quite frankly, a very complicated environment," he added.
Birx has recently visited states such as Alabama, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Texas. Birx told one university president she met with that she’d traveled more than 16,000 miles over the last few months.
Birx typically meets with college and university leadership during those stops and occasionally with governors and local officials. Each visit tends to include press briefings with local media. She discusses the importance of masks and physical distancing, and she has urged students to be mindful of the risks when they return home for Thanksgiving and interact with family.
“It was a very buttoned-up visit, I would say,” said Max Reiss, communications director for Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D). “It had a very clear public health focus the entire visit. She met with the governor one-on-one. She met with the heads of the [University of Connecticut] system one-on-one.”
Birx last week visited Stony Brook University in New York to meet with school leaders, researchers and students. She also met with leaders of the university’s hospital, which was inundated in the early months of the pandemic.
Stony Brook President Maurie McInnis said Birx was interested in how the school had maintained such a low case load during the fall semester and had gotten widespread compliance from students to wear masks.
“We were all really just both enormously appreciative and learned so much from her visit, and I think it sharpened our thinking about winter and the important messaging that we are going to need to follow,” McInnis said.
Scott Atlas: Fauci 'just one person on the task force'
Even hundreds of miles away, though, it’s impossible for Birx to completely separate herself from the latest White House controversies.
During a recent trip to New Jersey, Birx danced around a question about the president attending a fundraiser the same day he tested positive for COVID-19. In Connecticut, local media asked her about Trump’s claim that Americans shouldn’t be afraid of the virus. And during her stop at Stony Brook, reporters asked what Birx made of Trump’s treatment when he had the virus, McInnis said.
“At the press briefing, she got several questions from reporters [about Trump], and she very deftly did not answer them,” McInnis said. “She was very focused on her message, which is the public health message, what we all need to be doing to be safe and keep coronavirus at low levels.”
Whatever happened to Deborah Birx?
BY BRETT SAMUELS - 10/18/20
Deborah Birx is nowhere to be found at the White House these days.
Though she retains the title of coordinator of the White House coronavirus response, Birx has not attended any of President Trump's press briefings on the pandemic since he started them anew in late July, nor was she at a recent event to tout the administration's advances in testing.
Instead, Birx has been on the road, visiting 36 states and 27 different colleges and universities since the end of June to meet with state, local and university leaders to advise on best practices for containing the coronavirus and to gather information on what's been working in each place.
Olivia Troye, a former coronavirus task force adviser who worked with Birx and is now a Trump critic, said White House officials grew irritated by Birx's detailed and data-heavy presentations in the early summer that showed emerging hot spots and difficulties getting the virus under control. Some officials rolled their eyes as Birx delivered a message that clashed with the administration's preferred narrative that things were improving, Troye said.
The frustration preceded a push to get Birx out on the road to meet with state and local leaders, multiple officials familiar with the discussions said. She last appeared publicly alongside Trump in an early August Oval Office meeting with Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R).
"It’s convenient because they don’t want her at the White House and don’t want her at the podium,” Troye said. “But in many ways it probably ended up being better for her."
Administration officials and those who have met with Birx recently say she remains a vital resource and argue that she may be more comfortable being away from Washington, D.C., where she had to navigate the politics of the White House. She often drew criticism for praising Trump publicly while attempting privately to impress upon others the seriousness of the situation.
But her absence is a sign of how Trump has spurned the same doctors who were the face of the coronavirus response in the early months of the pandemic in favor of advisers who align with his views.
She has joined the likes of Anthony Fauci, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield, and Surgeon General Jerome Adams as fixtures of White House briefings from February to April who have since been relegated to the background, while Scott Atlas, who is not an epidemiologist and has pushed the controversial herd immunity theory, has gained the president's ear.
Unlike Fauci, Birx no longer appears on Sunday morning shows or cable news. Those appearances proved problematic at times for Birx, as she would often be pressed to contradict or call out the president's latest misleading or questionable comments about the pandemic.
“She navigates the political atmosphere much better than a lot of the doctors at times, but it’s exhausting, and I’ve certainly seen it firsthand, and I’ve certainly seen it weigh on her,” said Troye, who left the White House in July.
The White House coronavirus task force provides tailored recommendations to governors and health commissioners, and Birx’s travel has been a key component of understanding their problems and offering guidance, an administration official said.
“Dr. Birx continues to lead the Task Force and travel the country working hand-in-hand with Governors and local health officials to ensure we are defeating this virus at the local level with federal support,” White House deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews said in a statement.
Birx did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Vice President Pence tapped Birx in late February to coordinate the White House coronavirus response when there were just 60 known COVID-19 cases in the United States. Birx was appointed by former President Obama in 2014 as an ambassador-at-large to lead the country’s global efforts to combat HIV/AIDS.
She became a fixture at press briefings early in the coronavirus pandemic. Her scarves spawned parody Instagram accounts, and she and Fauci emerged as authoritative voices at the White House. But as Trump and others in the building pushed for states to lift restrictions and insisted the country was rounding the turn on the pandemic, Birx appeared less frequently.
Since then, cases have spiked around the United States. The country recorded more than 60,000 new infections on Thursday. Officials in Wisconsin, Montana and other states have raised concerns that their hospital systems could soon be overwhelmed.
Those who know Birx or who have met with her in recent weeks have universally praised her professionalism and helpfulness. They say she is simply looking for ways to be most effective in an administration where the president has repeatedly contradicted and ridiculed his own top health officials.
"It is really, I would say, close to impossible to do anything reasonable with this White House. And she tried initially inside, and now what I think she's trying is she's trying outside," said Carlos del Rio, an infectious disease expert at Emory University who has worked with Birx through her role in the State Department.
"I think she’s trying to figure out how can she do the best in, quite frankly, a very complicated environment," he added.
Birx has recently visited states such as Alabama, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Texas. Birx told one university president she met with that she’d traveled more than 16,000 miles over the last few months.
Birx typically meets with college and university leadership during those stops and occasionally with governors and local officials. Each visit tends to include press briefings with local media. She discusses the importance of masks and physical distancing, and she has urged students to be mindful of the risks when they return home for Thanksgiving and interact with family.
“It was a very buttoned-up visit, I would say,” said Max Reiss, communications director for Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D). “It had a very clear public health focus the entire visit. She met with the governor one-on-one. She met with the heads of the [University of Connecticut] system one-on-one.”
Birx last week visited Stony Brook University in New York to meet with school leaders, researchers and students. She also met with leaders of the university’s hospital, which was inundated in the early months of the pandemic.
Stony Brook President Maurie McInnis said Birx was interested in how the school had maintained such a low case load during the fall semester and had gotten widespread compliance from students to wear masks.
“We were all really just both enormously appreciative and learned so much from her visit, and I think it sharpened our thinking about winter and the important messaging that we are going to need to follow,” McInnis said.
Scott Atlas: Fauci 'just one person on the task force'
Even hundreds of miles away, though, it’s impossible for Birx to completely separate herself from the latest White House controversies.
During a recent trip to New Jersey, Birx danced around a question about the president attending a fundraiser the same day he tested positive for COVID-19. In Connecticut, local media asked her about Trump’s claim that Americans shouldn’t be afraid of the virus. And during her stop at Stony Brook, reporters asked what Birx made of Trump’s treatment when he had the virus, McInnis said.
“At the press briefing, she got several questions from reporters [about Trump], and she very deftly did not answer them,” McInnis said. “She was very focused on her message, which is the public health message, what we all need to be doing to be safe and keep coronavirus at low levels.”
Trump Is Charging Ahead With Cataclysmic Deregulation in Case of Election Loss
Allowing so-called “bomb trains” that transport highly combustible liquefied natural gas on freight trains.
Exempting certain commercial drivers from mandatory hour limits and rest periods.
Placing limits on how science is used in the air pollution rule-making process.
And Matthew Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, tweeted: “I think people underestimate the amount of time and energy that is going to be needed just to climb out from under the mountain of shit this administration leaves behind.”
Many of the changes reflect the agendas of the powerful corporate and other business interests whose key players have donated generously to Trump, belying the president’s oft-repeated claim that he is “draining the swamp.” Other regulator rollbacks come despite warnings from career officials within federal agencies about the harm they could cause.
Alarmed by the administration’s rushed rate of regulatory rollbacks, a group of over 15 Democratic senators earlier this month sent a letter (pdf) to Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia warning of “profound economic implications” for some 143 million U.S. workers that would result from curtailing public comment periods for the proposed rule change regarding independent contractors.
“Workers across the country deserve a chance to fully examine and properly respond to these potentially radical changes, and a 30-day comment period is not nearly enough,” the letter states.
Donald Trump holds an executive order on "Continuing the President's National Council for the American Worker and the American Workforce Policy Advisory Board" which he signed during an American Workforce Policy Advisory Board Meeting in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 26, 2020.MANDEL NGAN / AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
BYBrett Wilkins, Common Dreams PUBLISHED October 18, 2020
With President Donald Trump’s re-election very much in doubt, his administration is rushing to ram through regulatory rollbacks that could adversely affect millions of Americans, the environment, and the ability of Joe Biden — should he win — to pursue his agenda or even undo the damage done over the past four years.
Reporting by the New York Times details how the administration is cutting corners as it scrambles to enact as much of its agenda as possible before ceding power on January 20 if Trump loses the election. Required public comment periods and detailed analyses, according to the Times, are being eschewed in favor of streamlined approval processes that have left even staunch deregulation defenders sounding the alarm.
“Two main hallmarks of a good regulation is sound analysis to support the alternatives chosen and extensive public comment to get broader opinion,” Susan E. Dudley, director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center and formerly head of regulation in the George W. Bush White House, told the Times. “It is a concern if you are bypassing both of those.”
Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told the Times that the president has always “worked quickly… to grow the economy by removing the mountain of Obama-Biden job-killing regulations.”
Reporting by the New York Times details how the administration is cutting corners as it scrambles to enact as much of its agenda as possible before ceding power on January 20 if Trump loses the election. Required public comment periods and detailed analyses, according to the Times, are being eschewed in favor of streamlined approval processes that have left even staunch deregulation defenders sounding the alarm.
“Two main hallmarks of a good regulation is sound analysis to support the alternatives chosen and extensive public comment to get broader opinion,” Susan E. Dudley, director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center and formerly head of regulation in the George W. Bush White House, told the Times. “It is a concern if you are bypassing both of those.”
Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told the Times that the president has always “worked quickly… to grow the economy by removing the mountain of Obama-Biden job-killing regulations.”
JUST POSTED: Facing the prospect that President Trump could lose his re-election bid, his cabinet is scrambling to enact regulatory changes affecting millions of Americans in a blitz so rushed it may leave some changes vulnerable to court challenges
However, critics are warning that some of the proposed changes are being rushed through with insufficient regard to the harm they might cause. Some of the issues that are raising red flags include:
Refusing to lower limits on dangerous particulate and ozone pollution, which cause thousands of annual premature deaths.
Allowing so-called “bomb trains” that transport highly combustible liquefied natural gas on freight trains.
Determining when workers can be classified as employees or independent contractors.
Exempting certain commercial drivers from mandatory hour limits and rest periods.
Placing limits on how science is used in the air pollution rule-making process.
Expanding regulation of immigrants by requiring citizenship applicants to submit biometric data, by forcing sponsors of immigrants to stay off welfare and prove their financial independence.
In response to the reporting, critics of the administration like writer Matthew Kressel said that it helps make clear that if the Republicans in the White House cannot win reelection, they’ll “scorch the earth before they go.”
In response to the reporting, critics of the administration like writer Matthew Kressel said that it helps make clear that if the Republicans in the White House cannot win reelection, they’ll “scorch the earth before they go.”
And Matthew Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, tweeted: “I think people underestimate the amount of time and energy that is going to be needed just to climb out from under the mountain of shit this administration leaves behind.”
Many of the changes reflect the agendas of the powerful corporate and other business interests whose key players have donated generously to Trump, belying the president’s oft-repeated claim that he is “draining the swamp.” Other regulator rollbacks come despite warnings from career officials within federal agencies about the harm they could cause.
Alarmed by the administration’s rushed rate of regulatory rollbacks, a group of over 15 Democratic senators earlier this month sent a letter (pdf) to Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia warning of “profound economic implications” for some 143 million U.S. workers that would result from curtailing public comment periods for the proposed rule change regarding independent contractors.
“Workers across the country deserve a chance to fully examine and properly respond to these potentially radical changes, and a 30-day comment period is not nearly enough,” the letter states.
Nurses Association’s refusal to denounce Trump angers members
BY TINA VASQUEZ, SENIOR REPORTER (PRISM REPORTS)
This story was originally published by Prism Reports
The American Nurses Association (ANA), one of the largest professional nursing organizations in the world representing the interests of 4.2 million registered nurses, recently rescinded its presidential endorsement policy, choosing 2020 as the first time in decades the powerful trade organization will not endorse a presidential candidate.
The timing is curious.
The 2020 election is one that “could break America,” The Atlantic recently reported, and Americans have lost more than 200,000 loved ones to the COVID-19 crisis, which the White House has largely treated as a partisan issue—pretending the highly contagious disease is not deadly.
The outright rejection of science and the lack of federal response and aid has meant that the coronavirus has firmly rooted in the United States, leaving healthcare workers on the frontlines ill-equipped to handle the overwhelming caseload and scrambling for basic resources like Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). These harsh and risky working conditions not only violate the rights of registered nurses, according to a damning report released in September by the National Nurses United, one of the largest nurses unions in the country, but have resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,718 healthcare workers.
During the pandemic, tensions have grown between longtime ANA members and the organization’s leadership, according to nurses who spoke to Prism. The ANA’s attempt to appear nonpartisan by refusing to speak out against President Donald Trump’s disregard for science and his defiance of public health officials has led longtime ANA members to break with the organization.
‘Gross malpractice’
In May, when the COVID-19 death toll surpassed the number of U.S. military deaths in the Vietnam and Korean wars combined, the ANA’s president, Ernest J. Grant went to the White House for a National Nurses Day event in which Grant, President Trump, and other nurse leaders did not wear masks. (Just four months later, the president and other senior White House officials would test positive for the coronavirus just days after they refused to wear masks during a tightly-packed “super-spreader” event in the White House Rose Garden.)
Jerry Soucy, a Massachusetts registered nurse with more than 40 years of experience in serious illness and end-of-life care, called the National Nurses Day event “gross malpractice.”
“When all of those nurse leaders jammed into the Oval Office, shoulder-to-shoulder with no masks during a pandemic, it was egregious,” Soucy said. “Any nurse with a real commitment to this work would have said, ‘I can’t do it. If I can’t have my mask on, I’m not going to participate.’ But no one said that.”
The ANA appears to be making a concerted effort to toe the line during the 2020 election. In August, a West Virginia nurse named Amy Johnson Ford (also known as Amy Jolene Thorn and Amy Johnson) spoke at the Republican National Convention praising Trump’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. RN Action, the policy and advocacy arm of the ANA, tweeted that it was “great to see nurses featured in both conventions,” using the hashtags #ThankANurse, #NursesVote, and #RNC2020. The organization later deleted the tweet, saying on Twitter, “We recognize our posts highlighting nurses involvement in both national conventions may be construed as supporting the respective candidate.” (The West Virginia nurse was arrested and charged earlier this month with allegedly shooting another woman in the stomach.)
The ANA has also refrained from explicitly blaming the Trump administration for the federal government’s abject failure to provide resources and guidance during the pandemic.
Last month, the ANA released findings from its nationwide COVID-19 survey of more than 21,000 U.S. nurses, 42% of whom say they are still experiencing widespread or intermittent PPE shortages. Without mentioning Trump, the organization called on the “administration and Congress” to address the insufficient PPE supply; implement the full use of the Defense Production Act; pass the Medical Supply Chain Emergency Act of 2020; and expand investment in testing and public health infrastructure. Not only has the Trump administration outright refused some of these measures, but medical supply chains have experienced a “catastrophic collapse” under the Trump administration, a recent Associated Press and Frontline investigation found—and this collapse is one of the “most consequential failures to control the virus.”
In the midst of the pandemic, the Trump administration has also fought diligently to end the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is the only source of health care for more than half a million people who lost their health insurance amid the pandemic’s economic shutdown. This doesn’t even include the 135 million Americans with pre-existing conditions who would be stripped of health care if the Trump administration successfully strikes down the ACA.
“This is simply not the time to be neutral,” said Teri Mills, a nurse, educator, and advocate whose career spans more than four decades. Mills has been a member of the ANA for more than 30 years and she is a prominent member of Oregon’s nursing community who was named Oregon Nurse of the Year in 2019.
The ANA’s push to appear nonpartisan has actually made it appear as if the organization is signing off on the Trump administration’s deadly inaction, longtime ANA members told Prism, and some are beginning to wonder if the organization’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate has more to do with appeasing its membership base.
‘The ugly reality’
In 2019, the ANA’s membership assembly—the governing and official voting body of the ANA composed of 200 representatives—overwhelmingly voted to rescind the organization’s 1984 policy of endorsing a presidential candidate. According to a Sept. 14 email from the ANA, 87.7% of the membership assembly was in favor of ending the practice of endorsing a candidate, pushing the board to consider “whether it was in the best interest of the association’s mission, politically diverse membership, and long-term goals to endorse in the 2020 presidential election,” according to the email.
The decision to rescind the policy was ultimately upheld in a closed ANA board of directors meeting. In its place, the ANA adopted a “Presidential Engagement Policy” that encourages nurses to “get out and vote,” according to an open letter from Grant, who characterized the decision to rescind the policy as “one of the most important and toughest decisions” the board has ever made. Grant also acknowledged the nation is “in the middle of one, if not the most, divisive election in history.”
Mills told Prism she can still remember the day in 2019 when the membership assembly voted to rescind the policy. The nurse and educator said she was the only one at the meeting who spoke out against the decision. As an ANA member for over three decades, Mills said it’s “not easy” to speak out against the organization, but she felt “strongly compelled to” because the ANA is violating its own Code of Ethics by refusing to denounce Trump. The nurse is now an active member and supporter of Nurses For Biden, a coalition of nurses nationwide who are organizing to help elect Biden.
Mills expressed her concerns to the ANA leadership to no avail and she has since publicly broken away from the organization because of what she says is the organization’s “betrayal”—its betrayal to nurses on the frontlines of the pandemic, to the American public, and to the Code of Ethics for Nurses. The Trump administration’s racism, treatment of immigrant communities, and failure to respond to gun violence all fly in the face of the ANA’s Code of Ethics, Mills said.
In May, when the COVID-19 death toll surpassed the number of U.S. military deaths in the Vietnam and Korean wars combined, the ANA’s president, Ernest J. Grant went to the White House for a National Nurses Day event in which Grant, President Trump, and other nurse leaders did not wear masks. (Just four months later, the president and other senior White House officials would test positive for the coronavirus just days after they refused to wear masks during a tightly-packed “super-spreader” event in the White House Rose Garden.)
Jerry Soucy, a Massachusetts registered nurse with more than 40 years of experience in serious illness and end-of-life care, called the National Nurses Day event “gross malpractice.”
“When all of those nurse leaders jammed into the Oval Office, shoulder-to-shoulder with no masks during a pandemic, it was egregious,” Soucy said. “Any nurse with a real commitment to this work would have said, ‘I can’t do it. If I can’t have my mask on, I’m not going to participate.’ But no one said that.”
The ANA appears to be making a concerted effort to toe the line during the 2020 election. In August, a West Virginia nurse named Amy Johnson Ford (also known as Amy Jolene Thorn and Amy Johnson) spoke at the Republican National Convention praising Trump’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. RN Action, the policy and advocacy arm of the ANA, tweeted that it was “great to see nurses featured in both conventions,” using the hashtags #ThankANurse, #NursesVote, and #RNC2020. The organization later deleted the tweet, saying on Twitter, “We recognize our posts highlighting nurses involvement in both national conventions may be construed as supporting the respective candidate.” (The West Virginia nurse was arrested and charged earlier this month with allegedly shooting another woman in the stomach.)
The ANA has also refrained from explicitly blaming the Trump administration for the federal government’s abject failure to provide resources and guidance during the pandemic.
Last month, the ANA released findings from its nationwide COVID-19 survey of more than 21,000 U.S. nurses, 42% of whom say they are still experiencing widespread or intermittent PPE shortages. Without mentioning Trump, the organization called on the “administration and Congress” to address the insufficient PPE supply; implement the full use of the Defense Production Act; pass the Medical Supply Chain Emergency Act of 2020; and expand investment in testing and public health infrastructure. Not only has the Trump administration outright refused some of these measures, but medical supply chains have experienced a “catastrophic collapse” under the Trump administration, a recent Associated Press and Frontline investigation found—and this collapse is one of the “most consequential failures to control the virus.”
In the midst of the pandemic, the Trump administration has also fought diligently to end the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is the only source of health care for more than half a million people who lost their health insurance amid the pandemic’s economic shutdown. This doesn’t even include the 135 million Americans with pre-existing conditions who would be stripped of health care if the Trump administration successfully strikes down the ACA.
“This is simply not the time to be neutral,” said Teri Mills, a nurse, educator, and advocate whose career spans more than four decades. Mills has been a member of the ANA for more than 30 years and she is a prominent member of Oregon’s nursing community who was named Oregon Nurse of the Year in 2019.
The ANA’s push to appear nonpartisan has actually made it appear as if the organization is signing off on the Trump administration’s deadly inaction, longtime ANA members told Prism, and some are beginning to wonder if the organization’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate has more to do with appeasing its membership base.
‘The ugly reality’
In 2019, the ANA’s membership assembly—the governing and official voting body of the ANA composed of 200 representatives—overwhelmingly voted to rescind the organization’s 1984 policy of endorsing a presidential candidate. According to a Sept. 14 email from the ANA, 87.7% of the membership assembly was in favor of ending the practice of endorsing a candidate, pushing the board to consider “whether it was in the best interest of the association’s mission, politically diverse membership, and long-term goals to endorse in the 2020 presidential election,” according to the email.
The decision to rescind the policy was ultimately upheld in a closed ANA board of directors meeting. In its place, the ANA adopted a “Presidential Engagement Policy” that encourages nurses to “get out and vote,” according to an open letter from Grant, who characterized the decision to rescind the policy as “one of the most important and toughest decisions” the board has ever made. Grant also acknowledged the nation is “in the middle of one, if not the most, divisive election in history.”
Mills told Prism she can still remember the day in 2019 when the membership assembly voted to rescind the policy. The nurse and educator said she was the only one at the meeting who spoke out against the decision. As an ANA member for over three decades, Mills said it’s “not easy” to speak out against the organization, but she felt “strongly compelled to” because the ANA is violating its own Code of Ethics by refusing to denounce Trump. The nurse is now an active member and supporter of Nurses For Biden, a coalition of nurses nationwide who are organizing to help elect Biden.
Mills expressed her concerns to the ANA leadership to no avail and she has since publicly broken away from the organization because of what she says is the organization’s “betrayal”—its betrayal to nurses on the frontlines of the pandemic, to the American public, and to the Code of Ethics for Nurses. The Trump administration’s racism, treatment of immigrant communities, and failure to respond to gun violence all fly in the face of the ANA’s Code of Ethics, Mills said.
Teri Mills
“The first provision [of the code] is practicing with compassion and respect for the inherent dignity, worth, and personal attributes of every person without prejudice. Provision three says we are to promote, advocate for, and protect the rights, health, and safety of the patient. This includes our immigrant population,” Mills said. “It’s like the ANA is saying none of this seems to matter.”
The Oregon Nurse of the Year declined to share any presumptions she may have about why the ANA will not speak out against Trump, but Soucy had no such reservations.
“The ugly truth is the ANA likes to portray nurses as angels and heroes, but we’re not. We’re just people and like the larger American population that is abominably racist, that’s also true of nurses. Just like there are millions of Americans who are right wing white supremacists, the same is true for nurses,” Soucy said.
The nurse told Prism his read on the situation is that the ANA doesn’t want to alienate nurses who are Trump supporters or who subscribe to his worldview.
“They are trying to thread the needle very carefully because endorsing Biden would mean risking exposing the ugly reality that a lot of nurses think Trump is great,” Sousy said.
Demographics for the ANA’s membership are not publicly available, but what is certain is that over the years the organization has overwhelmingly contributed to Democratic candidates, according to data from FollowTheMoney. This includes contributions to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016. Also notable: In June 2018 the ANA’s membership assembly elected Grant, the first ever Black man to serve as the organization’s president. During the summer when a nationwide uprising unfolded as part of the Movement for Black Lives, Grant issued a statement urging nurses to use their voices to “call for change.”
“The Code of Ethics obligates nurses to be allies and to advocate and speak up against racism, discrimination, and injustice,” Grant said in the statement.
Historically, Black nurses were denied membership to national professional organizations like the ANA. The National Black Nurses Association formed in 1971 in part, because Black nurses and the issues they faced were not represented by the ANA. Nursing continues to be a field dominated by white women: More than 60% of registered nurses in the United States are white and more than 88% are women.
Roberta Lavin, a professor of nursing and the PhD program director for the University of New Mexico’s College of Nursing, has been a member of the ANA since 1991. Back in August, she wrote a controversial blog post that outlined her issues with the ANA’s handling of the Trump administration. In it, she shared an exchange with a member of the ANA’s leadership who told her to “overlook” the organization’s refusal to denounce Trump because “they didn’t want to alienate Republican nurses.” After the blog began making the rounds in online nursing circles, Lavin, a longtime registered independent, told Prism a nurse reached out to share that she once tried to write an editorial critical of Republicans for a major nursing publication, but was told it would result in “huge pushback.”
“You need to understand that a good portion of nurses are white, and if you look at the majority of [the nurses], the majority of them are Republican, so it’s self-preservation,” Lavin said.
There is also a real risk is parting ways with the ANA. Academics who want to become fellows of the American Academy of Nursing must be an ANA member in order to be a fellow and a member of the Academy. This is a big deal for universities because when the U.S. News ranks universities, one of the criteria they rank nursing colleges on is how many faculty are fellows of the Academy. Lavin said that if a nurse chooses not to pay ANA dues, because they find the organization to be “immoral and unacceptable,” they could lose their status as a fellow of the American Academy of Nursing, which hurts their university ranking.
Coercive membership aside, the ANA’s refusal to denounce the Trump administration’s racist rhetoric and failed response to the COVID-19 crisis sends a clear message to communities of color hardest hit by the pandemic because of the health disparities they experience—and to Black nurses who encounter insurmountable barriers in the nursing field.
“Nursing as a whole has done a horrible job of increasing representation for all groups who aren’t Caucasian women. Only 6% of nursing doctoral graduates across the country and 6.2% of all registered nurses are African Americans. Nursing remains a field that is predominantly white women from predominantly middle class families and we see the world as middle class white women, which impacts who gets accepted into nursing schools, our definitions of health, and everything else we do,” Lavin said.
Maria Elena Diaz, the only registered nurse of color who spoke to Prism for this reporting, has been in the nursing field for over 30 years and said she can still remember her educators at California State University, Los Angeles urging her to join the ANA.
In the Los Angeles area where Elena Diaz grew up, the demographics of nursing were more diverse than in other parts of the country during the same time period. Elena Diaz was inspired to enter the field when she worked alongside a Black charge nurse at a county hospital where she was a volunteer. After graduating from nursing school, one of Elena Diaz’s first jobs was at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, where she often translated for immigrant families. While working at the Children’s Hospital, she once accidentally opened up the wrong paycheck and saw that a white junior nurse she’d been training and who went to the same college as her was getting paid $2 an hour more than she was. Not long after, Elena Diaz left the hospital to work more directly in her community.
“The first provision [of the code] is practicing with compassion and respect for the inherent dignity, worth, and personal attributes of every person without prejudice. Provision three says we are to promote, advocate for, and protect the rights, health, and safety of the patient. This includes our immigrant population,” Mills said. “It’s like the ANA is saying none of this seems to matter.”
The Oregon Nurse of the Year declined to share any presumptions she may have about why the ANA will not speak out against Trump, but Soucy had no such reservations.
“The ugly truth is the ANA likes to portray nurses as angels and heroes, but we’re not. We’re just people and like the larger American population that is abominably racist, that’s also true of nurses. Just like there are millions of Americans who are right wing white supremacists, the same is true for nurses,” Soucy said.
The nurse told Prism his read on the situation is that the ANA doesn’t want to alienate nurses who are Trump supporters or who subscribe to his worldview.
“They are trying to thread the needle very carefully because endorsing Biden would mean risking exposing the ugly reality that a lot of nurses think Trump is great,” Sousy said.
Demographics for the ANA’s membership are not publicly available, but what is certain is that over the years the organization has overwhelmingly contributed to Democratic candidates, according to data from FollowTheMoney. This includes contributions to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016. Also notable: In June 2018 the ANA’s membership assembly elected Grant, the first ever Black man to serve as the organization’s president. During the summer when a nationwide uprising unfolded as part of the Movement for Black Lives, Grant issued a statement urging nurses to use their voices to “call for change.”
“The Code of Ethics obligates nurses to be allies and to advocate and speak up against racism, discrimination, and injustice,” Grant said in the statement.
Historically, Black nurses were denied membership to national professional organizations like the ANA. The National Black Nurses Association formed in 1971 in part, because Black nurses and the issues they faced were not represented by the ANA. Nursing continues to be a field dominated by white women: More than 60% of registered nurses in the United States are white and more than 88% are women.
Roberta Lavin, a professor of nursing and the PhD program director for the University of New Mexico’s College of Nursing, has been a member of the ANA since 1991. Back in August, she wrote a controversial blog post that outlined her issues with the ANA’s handling of the Trump administration. In it, she shared an exchange with a member of the ANA’s leadership who told her to “overlook” the organization’s refusal to denounce Trump because “they didn’t want to alienate Republican nurses.” After the blog began making the rounds in online nursing circles, Lavin, a longtime registered independent, told Prism a nurse reached out to share that she once tried to write an editorial critical of Republicans for a major nursing publication, but was told it would result in “huge pushback.”
“You need to understand that a good portion of nurses are white, and if you look at the majority of [the nurses], the majority of them are Republican, so it’s self-preservation,” Lavin said.
There is also a real risk is parting ways with the ANA. Academics who want to become fellows of the American Academy of Nursing must be an ANA member in order to be a fellow and a member of the Academy. This is a big deal for universities because when the U.S. News ranks universities, one of the criteria they rank nursing colleges on is how many faculty are fellows of the Academy. Lavin said that if a nurse chooses not to pay ANA dues, because they find the organization to be “immoral and unacceptable,” they could lose their status as a fellow of the American Academy of Nursing, which hurts their university ranking.
Coercive membership aside, the ANA’s refusal to denounce the Trump administration’s racist rhetoric and failed response to the COVID-19 crisis sends a clear message to communities of color hardest hit by the pandemic because of the health disparities they experience—and to Black nurses who encounter insurmountable barriers in the nursing field.
“Nursing as a whole has done a horrible job of increasing representation for all groups who aren’t Caucasian women. Only 6% of nursing doctoral graduates across the country and 6.2% of all registered nurses are African Americans. Nursing remains a field that is predominantly white women from predominantly middle class families and we see the world as middle class white women, which impacts who gets accepted into nursing schools, our definitions of health, and everything else we do,” Lavin said.
Maria Elena Diaz, the only registered nurse of color who spoke to Prism for this reporting, has been in the nursing field for over 30 years and said she can still remember her educators at California State University, Los Angeles urging her to join the ANA.
In the Los Angeles area where Elena Diaz grew up, the demographics of nursing were more diverse than in other parts of the country during the same time period. Elena Diaz was inspired to enter the field when she worked alongside a Black charge nurse at a county hospital where she was a volunteer. After graduating from nursing school, one of Elena Diaz’s first jobs was at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, where she often translated for immigrant families. While working at the Children’s Hospital, she once accidentally opened up the wrong paycheck and saw that a white junior nurse she’d been training and who went to the same college as her was getting paid $2 an hour more than she was. Not long after, Elena Diaz left the hospital to work more directly in her community.
Maria Elena Diaz
The California nurse has been an ANA member for decades and she told Prism she chose not to renew her membership with the organization when the ANA confirmed it would not endorse a presidential candidate. It’s not that she believes nurses don’t have the right to be Republicans and conservatives, she said; it’s that compassion and trustworthiness are core values for nurses and the Trump administration is “the opposite.”
“For almost two decades, we have been voted as the most trustworthy profession. That comes with a responsibility to our patients. Where I work, a lot of our patients are low-income and undocumented. I know that health equity is a racial justice issue and that long standing systematic and social inequities have meant that people of color are at greater risk of dying from COVID-19,” Elena Diaz said. “This administration is anti-science and the [the ANA’s] decision not to speak out against Trump just felt like such a sucker punch.”
Nurses who decide to leave the ANA are making a sacrifice because being a member of the organization provides certain benefits. The ANA California chapter where Elena Diaz was a member granted her access to minute-by-minute information on issues that were important to her, including bills she personally lobbied for. Elena Diaz told Prism she will miss the larger community she was tapped into as an ANA California member, and that she is sad for the ANA: The organization is losing someone committed to racial justice in the medical field.
Elena Diaz said it’s important to note that the decision to rescind the 1984 policy for endorsing presidential candidates was not made by nurses like her—who are working in communities of color on the frontlines. The decision was made by nurses with more elite positions in the ANA, she said.
“Nurses like me had no influence on the decision,” Elena Diaz said. “I don’t think our opinions even matter.”
The ANA did not respond to Prism’s multiple requests for comment over the span of one month.
The California nurse has been an ANA member for decades and she told Prism she chose not to renew her membership with the organization when the ANA confirmed it would not endorse a presidential candidate. It’s not that she believes nurses don’t have the right to be Republicans and conservatives, she said; it’s that compassion and trustworthiness are core values for nurses and the Trump administration is “the opposite.”
“For almost two decades, we have been voted as the most trustworthy profession. That comes with a responsibility to our patients. Where I work, a lot of our patients are low-income and undocumented. I know that health equity is a racial justice issue and that long standing systematic and social inequities have meant that people of color are at greater risk of dying from COVID-19,” Elena Diaz said. “This administration is anti-science and the [the ANA’s] decision not to speak out against Trump just felt like such a sucker punch.”
Nurses who decide to leave the ANA are making a sacrifice because being a member of the organization provides certain benefits. The ANA California chapter where Elena Diaz was a member granted her access to minute-by-minute information on issues that were important to her, including bills she personally lobbied for. Elena Diaz told Prism she will miss the larger community she was tapped into as an ANA California member, and that she is sad for the ANA: The organization is losing someone committed to racial justice in the medical field.
Elena Diaz said it’s important to note that the decision to rescind the 1984 policy for endorsing presidential candidates was not made by nurses like her—who are working in communities of color on the frontlines. The decision was made by nurses with more elite positions in the ANA, she said.
“Nurses like me had no influence on the decision,” Elena Diaz said. “I don’t think our opinions even matter.”
The ANA did not respond to Prism’s multiple requests for comment over the span of one month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)