Web search data shows soaring interest in police reform, study finds

Hundreds of demonstrators gather in downtown Los Angeles, Calif., on May 27 to protest the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis two days earlier. Floyd died after an officer kept him pinned on the ground for several minutes with his knee pressed to the back of his neck, suffocating him. File Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo


Oct. 21 (UPI) -- Interest by Americans in police reform has reached unprecedented levels this year judging from how they researched the subject online, according to a study published Wednesday.

Researchers at the University of California at San Diego found that in the 41 days following the May 25 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Google searches for "police" and "reform(s)" rose to record highs, eclipsing past searches on the topic more than 150-fold.

There were more than 1.3 million total searches, said lead author John Ayers, co-founder of the Center for Data Driven Health at the Qualcomm Institute at UC-San Diego.

"Discussing political opinions openly in this polarized landscape is not something anyone is eager to do," Ayers said. "Instead, when it comes to controversial issues like police reform, you're far more likely to stay mum and search online about what you may be thinking."

By examining Internet searches, he said, "decision makers can discover what issues and policies resonate with the public."

The analysis, titled "Quantifying Public Interest in Police Reforms by Mining Internet Search Data Following George Floyd's Death," found that searches for specific topics within the realm of "police reform" following Floyd's death also set new national records.

Searches for "police" and "union(s)" exceeded all-time highs and reached about 1.2 million searches. Queries combining "police" and "training" rose nearly 5 times (820,000 searches) and "police" and "immunity" increased 53-fold (360,000 searches), the researchers found.

Results varied by state. Residents in 33 states, including Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and New Jersey, searched more for police "training" than any other reform topic. Sixteen states, including Wyoming, Mississippi, South Dakota and West Virginia, searched most for police "union(s)."

Only two states, North Dakota and New Mexico, searched most for police "immunity."

The authors suggested that analyzing Internet search data is a powerful new scientific tool for policy makers for quickly gauging public sentiment.

"Currently, we evaluate the public's interest in policy using methods, like surveys, that ask specific questions relating to a specific point in time... a snapshot of sorts," said co-author Alicia Nobles, assistant professor of medicine at UC-San Diego.

"However, monitoring Internet searches gives us a more robust picture of public interest -- we can capture more voices, in their own words, and in near real time engendering more democratic policy making."

Protesters demand justice in police killing of George Floyd

Demonstrators hold a sign in Los Angeles on June 14 for Breonna Taylor, a black woman who was shot by police in her home while she was sleeping. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo

CHEMICAL WARFARE
Environmental groups sue DHS over use of tear gas in Portland

The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Department of Homeland Security over its use of chemical munitions in Portland. Photo by Doug Brown/ACLU of Oregon

Oct. 21 (UPI) -- A coalition of environmental, public health and social justice groups in Oregon has sued the Department of Homeland Security over its use of tear gas and chemical weapons to quell protests in Portland, accusing the federal agency of creating "potentially grave health and environmental hazards."

Filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon on Tuesday in an Oregon district court, the lawsuit accuses the DHS of breaking environmental law when its agents of Operation Diligent Valor deployed an "unprecedented amount of dangerous chemical weapons" to disperse protests against police brutality and racial inequality.

The complaint accuses the federal agency of deploying the chemical munitions without preparing an environmental assessment and an environmental impact statement as mandated for major federal actions by the National Environmental Policy Act.

"In short, NEPA required Defendants to consider the potentially severe environmental and human health impacts of Operation Diligent Valor, but they did not do so. And they continue to abdicate that responsibility to Plaintiffs and the public," the lawsuit states.

Operation Diligent Valor was deployed July 4 to Portland in a bid to protect federal buildings amid months-long protests that erupted in response to the police-involved killing of George Floyd on Memorial Day.

The plaintiffs Neighbors for Clean Air, Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, Cascadia Wildlands, 350PDX and Willamette Riverkeeper said in the lawsuit that the chemical weapons and tear gas used during the operation have "infiltrated" nearby residences, buildings and parks and may have permeated the city's vegetation.

"The manner and volume of tear gas and other munitions deployed in relation to Operation Diligent Valor in Portland has been so excessive and substantial that visible munitions residue and sediment have accumulated in and on Portland's streets, sidewalks, curbs, bioswales, stormwater system, buildings and standing water," the lawsuit said.

Kelly Simon, interim legal director at ACLU Oregon, equated environmental justice with racial justice in a statement, saying that they both disproportionally deny minorities the right to a safe and healthy community.

"The large volumes of tear gas and other chemical weapons that federal officers recklessly and thoughtlessly unleashed in Portland is yet more evidence of the Trump administration's racist disregard for public health and a safe living environment," Simon said. "So, we will see them in court, again."

The coalition is seeking an injunction forcing the DHS to stop using chemical munitions, including tear gas, until the proper studies and analysis as mandated by the NEPA are completed.

The ACLU has already filed lawsuits against DHS and other federal agencies over its response to protests in Portland.

On July 22, it filed a lawsuit accusing the federal agency of targeting and attacking several volunteer street medics. The lawyers group was also awarded a court order prohibiting law enforcement from attacking journalists and legal observers in Portland amid the protests.

Protect Democracy later in July also filed a lawsuit against the DHS, its leaders and other federal agencies, accusing them of exceeding their authority in Portland with Operation Diligent Valor.

The lawsuit claims agents deployed in Operation Diligent Valor exceeded their authority to protect federal buildings by making arrests, injuring protesters and firing tear gas.

 Trump donor pleads guilty to secretly lobbying for foreign interests

By Darryl Coote

Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Elliott Broidy, a former major fundraiser for President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, pleaded guilty Tuesday to violating lobbying laws by secretly accepting millions of dollars from foreign interests to influence the White House.

Broidy, 66, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly for the District of Columbia to one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act, agreeing to forfeit the $6.6 million he profited in the scheme as part of his plea deal, the Justice Department said in a release.

The venture capitalist from Beverly Hills faces up to five years in prison with sentencing scheduled for Feb. 12.

Prosecutors charged Broidy earlier this month with conspiring to secretly work for a Chinese government minister and a foreign national to influence the Trump administration.

"Elliott Broidy sought to lobby the highest levels of the U.S. government to drop one of the largest fraud and money laundering prosecutions ever brought and to deport a critic of the Chinese Communist Party, all the while concealing the foreign interests whose bidding he was doing," Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers of the Justice Department's National Security Division said in a statement. "His guilty plea is the first step in vindicating the principle of transparency that undergirds the free flow of ideas in our democratic system."

The Justice Department said Broidy pleaded guilty to agreeing to lobby Trump, the Justice Department, its attorney general and other top administration officials to drop a civil forfeiture case concerning the embezzlement of billions of dollars from 1Malaysia Development Berhad, a Malaysian government strategic investment fund and company better known as 1MDB.

Broidy was paid $9 million by the unnamed foreign national believed to be Malaysian financier Jho Low, and the Justice Department described Broidy's conspirator as "the alleged architect of the 1MDB scheme."

The Justice Department charged Low in 2018 on charges of conspiring with others to embezzle billions from 1MDB as well as conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by paying bribes to Malaysian and Abu Dhabi officials.

Broidy pleaded guilty to receiving $9 million for his illegal lobbying work between March 2017 and January 2018, of which he paid $2.4 million to his co-conspirator Nickie Lum Davis, who pleaded guilty on Aug. 31.

George Higginbotham, a former Justice Department employee, pleaded guilty for his involvement in November 2018.

Prosecutors said Broidy also admitted to pushing Trump to play golf with Prime Minister Najib Razak in order to allow the Malaysian dignitary to discuss the 1MDB investigation. A Malaysian court sentenced Razak to 12 years in prison in July on corruption and money laundering charges in connection to the 1MDB scandal.

Broidy also pleaded guilty to attempting to influence the Trump administration on behalf of a People's Republic of China minister to extradite a dissident living in the United States, the Justice Department said.

In the plea deal, Broidy said he attempted to arrange meetings between an unnamed Chinese minister and the heads of the Justice Department and Homeland security as well as other high-level administration officials while the foreign politician was visiting the United States in May 2017 concerning the extradition case.

The Justice Department said none of his illegal lobbying was successful. LOSER

"This case demonstrates how foreign governments and principals seek to advance their agendas in the United States by hiding behind politically influential proxies," Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt of the Justice Department's Criminal Division said in a statement. "Such conduct poses a serious threat to our national security and undermines the integrity of our democracy."

Judge Kollar-Kotelly said during the hearing that prosecutors declined to bring charges against Broidy over his attempts to influence U.S. policy concerning a Middle Eastern country.

U.S. again tops 60K new COVID-19 cases; surgeon general rejects 'herd immunity'

Pedestrians wear face masks in Times Square in New York City on Wednesday.

 Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 21 (UPI) -- U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams joined other top health experts Wednesday in opposing a dangerous "herd immunity" strategy, as the United States again added another 60,000 COVID-19 cases.

According to updated data from Johns Hopkins University, there were 60,300 new cases nationwide on Tuesday -- the third time in the past week that the level has topped 60,000.

Deaths in the United States also increased on Tuesday, the data showed, to more than 900. Since the start of the pandemic, there have been 8.28 million cases and about 221,100 deaths nationwide.

Wednesday, Adams joined Dr. Antony Fauci and other top health officials in opposing a herd immunity strategy, which is purportedly being considered by the Trump administration. Adams said pursuing such a strategy, which effectively allows the coronavirus to spread unchecked, would result in an unacceptable death toll.

Adams tweeted that there's no "example of a large-scale successful intentional infection-based herd immunity strategy" and warned that the course would "lead to many complications/deaths."

The strategy reasons that letting the virus spread would infect large populations, who would then develop a natural immunity to COVID-19 and thereby reduce the number of people who can be infected afterward. Eventually, the theory goes, the virus would run into a dead end.

"Large numbers of people would need to be infected to achieve herd immunity without a vaccine," Adams wrote, warning that such a path could "overwhelm" healthcare systems.

Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, rejected the idea of herd immunity last week, calling it "ridiculous" and "total nonsense."

Most scientists say there would be no feasible way to isolate and protect vulnerable Americans who face a greater risk of death from COVID-19 in such a scenario.

Researchers at the University of Washington say a herd immunity strategy would likely lead to tens of thousands of additional deaths by the start of 2021.

Child cases have increased by almost 15% -- 84,000 cases -- in the first two weeks of October, according to an update from the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children's Hospital Association.

Since the start of the crisis, about 740,000 children have tested positive in the United States -- almost 11% of total cases, it said. The overall infection rate is 986 per 100,000 children.

Though severe illness and deaths still appear to be rare among children, the groups urged authorities to "provide detailed reports on COVID-19 cases,

Nearly 8 in 10 report pandemic is causing mental health strain

A pedestrian wears a face mask to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on Wall Street in New York City on Oct. 15, as researchers report growing mental health issues linked to the pandemic. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

COVID-19, health care, the economy, systemic racism and the presidential election are a threat to the nation's mental health, according to an American Psychological Association poll.

Seventy-eight percent of adults polled said the pandemic is causing major stress and 60% called the array of issues facing the country overwhelming.

And younger adults are really struggling, the poll revealed. Respondents from Generation Z -- those born since 1996 -- pegged their stress level in the past month at a 6 on 10-point scale in which 1 represented "little to no stress" and 10 was "a great deal of stress." That compared with an average stress level of 5 among all adults.

Nineteen percent of adults said their mental health is worse than it was a year ago.

That included 34% of Gen Z adults, 19% of millennials, who were born between 1977 and 1995, 21% of Gen Xers, who were born between 1965 and 1976, 12% of baby boomers, who were born between 1946 and 1964, and 8% of those born before 1946.

Gen Z adults were the most likely to report common signs of depression. More than 7 in 10 said that in the last two weeks they were so tired that they sat around and did nothing, felt very restless, found it hard to think or concentrate, felt lonely, or felt miserable or unhappy.

"This survey confirms what many mental health experts have been saying since the start of the pandemic: Our mental health is suffering from the compounding stressors in our lives," said Arthur Evans Jr., chief executive officer of the APA. "This compounding stress will have serious health and social consequences if we don't act now to reduce it," he said in an association news release.

RELATED Alcohol consumption in U.S. rose 14% during pandemic, RAND finds

Evans noted that the youngest Americans are showing signs of serious mental health issues, including depression and anxiety.

The poll found that changes to school are a big stressor for Gen Zers. More than 8 of 10 teens said they have had negative impacts of school closures, and 51% said planning for the future seems impossible.

Among college students, 67% feel the same way about planning for the future. And 87% of Gen Z members in college said school is a significant source of stress.

RELATED Even exercise may not ease pandemic-linked stress



"Loneliness and uncertainly about the future are major stressors for adolescents and young adults, who are striving to find their places in the world, both socially, and in terms of education and work. The pandemic and its economic consequences are upending youths' social lives and their visions for their futures," said survey researcher Emma Adam, a professor of education and social policy at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill.

Adam said public policy must address this generation's need for social, emotional and mental health supports as well as financial assistance and educational and work opportunities. "Both comfort now and hope for the future are essential for the long-term well-being of this generation," she said.

But most Americans aren't getting the support they need. Among adults, 61% said they could use more emotional support than they've gotten over the last year, with more than 82% of Gen Z adults saying the same.

"As a society, we must galvanize our resources to support teens and young adults," Evans said. "We need to stand with them to fight systemic injustices, which can be a source of stress relief while supporting them in building their resilience. The pandemics of racism and COVID will not be overcome quickly. We all need to learn skills to help us manage our stress while we fight for a society that is more equitable, resilient and innovative."

The nationwide poll of more than 3,400 adults was conducted Aug. 4-26 in English and Spanish. It also included a sample of more than 1,000 13- to 17-year-olds.

More information

For more on stress, see the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health.

Copyright 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Poll: More than half of people in U.S. know someone with COVID-19


More than half of people in the United States know somebody who has, has had or has died from COVID-19, as people are seen wearing masks on Wall Street in New York City on Oct. 15 -- more than ten months after the pandemic started. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

More than half of all Americans have been personally affected by COVID-19 at this point in the pandemic, according to a new HealthDay-Harris Poll survey.

The national survey was conducted by The Harris Poll between Oct. 8 and 12. It found that 55% of U.S. adults now say they know someone in their immediate or extended network of family and acquaintances who's been infected, hospitalized or died from COVID-19.

About two in every five people said they'd had even more direct experience with COVID-19, with either themselves or someone very close to them falling ill, being hospitalized or dying.

"By now, we're all accustomed to regularly seeing the sobering figures for COVID infection and death rates, but these findings translate to something so much bigger in terms of the full and relentless impact of the virus on millions of Americans," said Robyn Bell Dickson, managing director of The Harris Poll.

These results come in the midst of a COVID-19 resurgence in the United States, with the nation averaging 59,000 new cases a day. There have been more than 8.3 million reported infections, and around 220,000 U.S. deaths caused by COVID-19.

The online poll of 2,021 U.S. adults also found that 39% reported a direct impact on their lives from the pandemic, including:

Having personally had COVID-19 (7%) or being hospitalized (4%) from their infection.
Residing in a household with someone who had COVID-19 (6%).

Having a close friend, family member or loved one who became infected with COVID-19 (34%), was hospitalized (19%), or passed away (13%).

Overall, more than one in 10 adults have a loved one who has passed away due to COVID-19, the survey found.

RELATED Effectiveness, politics impact public's willingness to take COVID-19 vaccine

Shifts in outlook

People who've been personally affected by COVID-19 tend to see the pandemic differently from those who've so far remained relatively untouched by the virus, the results showed.

Those who have direct experience with COVID-19, either personally or through a loved one, are more likely to be very concerned that they or a loved one will die from COVID-19. Nearly two-thirds -- 64% -- reported this high level of concern, versus 52% of those with no direct experience or whose only experience is through an acquaintance.

RELATED Fauci sees similarities between HIV, COVID-19 in public health response

Those without direct experience are also likely to be more optimistic that the pandemic will be under control by early 2021, 56% versus 49% of those with direct experience. Adults whose personal experience of COVID-19 was more severe, with either themselves or a loved one struggling for life in a hospital or dying, were also more likely to agree with these statements:
I wish more people took COVID-19 seriously -- 87%, versus 80%.
I am extremely worried about getting COVID-19 -- 78%, versus 59%.
I am very concerned that I or a loved one will die from COVID-19 -- 73%, versus 53%.

"It makes sense that people who have experience with the disease will carry a different outlook with them, given that at the beginning of 2020 no one knew much at all about the burgeoning threat of coronavirus," said Lynn Bufka, senior director of practice transformation and quality at the American Psychological Association.

"As people have more experience with COVID, they are finding the messages regarding the pandemic to be more consistent and mapped on to their own experience," Bufka said.

Anxiety and resilience

The growing number of people who have personal experience with COVID-19 is adding to the uncertainty that already disrupts the daily lives of all Americans, Bufka said.

"Collectively, we're all faced with this pandemic, not knowing when it will end. We have no way to put some predictions around it and feel comfortable with those predictions," she added.

"We're all sitting in a period of uncertainty with the pandemic, with the economic impact of it, and then you layer in other issues like grappling with systemic racism and the political discourse, there are just a lot of things that are elevating our levels of uncertainty," Bufka continued. "We know that uncertainty is connected to anxiety. It would not be surprising at minimum to see more individuals struggling with anxiety right now, because it's harder to feel safe, secure and in control when so much feels outside of your control."

People also are dealing every day with feelings of loss and grief, ranging from things as profound as illness and death down to the simple need for a regular routine, Bufka said.

"Routines help us in so many ways because they make our lives predictable. They make things less uncertain. They also free up our mental space for tackling the things that are novel," Bufka said.

"If your schedule changes dramatically or if the kinds of decisions you're having to make vary day to day, that takes mental energy, which is harder to deal with," she explained. "So we see people struggling with decision making, with handling novel problems, all of that because mentally, cognitively, their attention is taken with what they're dealing with in the pandemic."

It's also becoming harder to expect help from those around you, she suggested.

"People are remarkably resilient and can adapt to all kinds of things, but when it feels like everybody's in the same situation at the same time, you may not have the social support you need," Bufka said. "It's not like you can rely on your best friend who's doing OK. He or she might also be struggling."

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about COVID-19.

Copyright 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Stay-at-home orders reduced COVID-19 cases, deaths, study finds


States issuing stay-at-home orders saw decreased COVID-19 case and death totals, a new analysis has found. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 22 (UPI) -- Areas of that country that instituted stay-at-home orders to limit the spread of COVID-19 reduced case counts by up to 200%, according to a study published Friday by JAMA Network Open.

These measures also likely reduced deaths from the virus by more than 20%, the data showed.

"In the early days of COVID-19 in U.S., the stay-at-home orders that were put in place by many states likely helped prevent cases, infections and subsequent fatalities," study co-author Bisakha Sen told UPI.

"Public health experts who recommended stay-at-home orders, and political leaders who implemented them, seem to have gotten it right," said Sen, chair of the division of health economics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health.

RELATED WHO: Herd immunity through COVID-19 exposure will cause suffering, death

Following public health guidelines for pandemic infections from the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others, many states across the country instituted stay-at-home orders when COVID-19 case numbers began to rise in March.

The measures were met with some resistance, given the economic consequences resulting from closed businesses and schools.

However, a modeling analysis using data from 131 countries published Thursday by The Lancet Infectious Diseases found the "least comprehensive" measures -- bans on public events and gatherings of more than 10 people -- cut disease transmission by nearly 30%, while more comprehensive, full-lockdown approaches led to a 52% reduction.

RELATED CDC: Arizona mask mandates, business closures slowed spread of COVID-19

For their analysis, Sen and her colleagues analyzed daily, state data on COVID-19 cases, tests and fatalities between March 1 and May 4 from the COVID Tracking Project.

States opting to not implement stay-at-home orders had 219% more cases and 22% more virus-related fatalities than those that did, the data showed.

In addition, states with higher Black American populations had more COVID-19 cases, whether or not they issued stay-at-home orders, the researchers said.

For every 1% of the overall population made up by Black people, a state could expect that total cumulative cases would be 5% higher and total deaths would be 7% higher, the data showed.

"We cannot say based on our findings what the impact of stay-at-home orders would be compared to a scenario of no orders, but everyone following ... recommendations on wearing masks, social distancing, avoiding crowds etc." Sen said.

"Stay-at-home orders come with real and painful economic costs, so I think it should only be considered in a worst-case scenario where the population is simply not adhering to the other safety measures and cases are climbing steeply," she said.

More than 90% of people in U.S. using masks, poll finds

COVIDIOTS ARE A TEENY TINY MINORITY OF TRUMPERS

A new poll found more than 90% of people in the United States are wearing masks to prevent spread of COVID-19, like the people pictured on a Madison Avenue Sidewalk in New York City September. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

Here's good news for public health officials who've been hammering home the need to wear face masks: Your messages have been getting through.

A new HealthDay/Harris Poll shows that more Americans than ever are donning face masks to protect against COVID-19 infection.

More than nine in 10 U.S. adults (93%) said they sometimes, often or always wear a mask or face covering when they leave their home and are unable to socially distance, including more than seven in 10 -- 72% -- who said they always do so, the poll revealed.

"Compared to when we first asked this question in late August, our latest survey with HealthDay finds that more Americans are now consistently wearing a mask or face covering outside the home," said Kathy Steinberg, vice president of research for public release at The Harris Poll.

RELATED CDC updates definition of 'close contact' to individuals with COVID-19

Back in August, just 61% of U.S. adults said they always wear a mask, while 90% said they sometimes, often or always wear one.

"While differences in usage do persist -- for example, women, older adults and Democrats are more likely than their respective counterparts to wear a mask more frequently -- it's promising to see that the proportion who said they 'always' wear a mask has increased since August across the board," Steinberg said.

For example, Democrats are most likely to always wear a mask, with 82% reporting that level of use in October compared to 66% of Republicans and 69% of Independents.

RELATED Study: Masks can block 99.9% of droplets from speech, coughs

But the percentage who reported always wearing a mask in October has increased for all political persuasions since August: Democrat (82% versus 69%), Republican (66% versus 53%) and Independent (69% versus 64%).

Women (77%) are more likely than men (67%) to say "always," while men are more likely to say "often" (16% versus 10%) or "sometimes" (10% versus 6%), the survey found.

But again, more men and women now wear a mask always than in August -- 67% versus 55% for men, and 77% versus 67% for women.

RELATED Masks safe for most people with lung diseases, experts say

The percentage of folks who report always wearing a mask increases with age:
61% of 18- to 34-year-olds now say they always wear a mask, versus 50% in August.
83% of people aged 65 and older always don a mask, versus 73% in August.

The increased embrace of masking comes in the midst of a resurgence of the new coronavirus in the United States, with the nation averaging 59,000 new cases a day. There have been more than 8.3 million reported infections, and more than 220,000 U.S. deaths caused by COVID-19.

This acceptance of mask wearing probably has been fueled by studies showing that masks can prevent COVID-19 infection, as well as constant messages from trusted health officials, said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, in Baltimore.

"I think more and more evidence that wasn't present at the beginning of the pandemic has amounted in favor of mask and face covering use by the general public," Adalja said. "It is becoming a societal norm and perhaps increasingly viewed as one way to more safely go about one's daily activities."

The online poll of 2,021 U.S. adults was conducted by The Harris Poll between Oct. 8 and 12.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about COVID-19.

Copyright 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Saudi Arabia joins Trump-led coalition claiming women have ‘no international right to abortion’

October 22, 2020 By Julia Conley, Common Dreams

Filming of The Handmaid's Tale at the Lincoln Memorial (Victoria Pickering via Flickr and a CC )


Further distancing itself from longtime U.S. allies regarding reproductive rights, the Trump administration on Thursday joined 32 countries in signing a declaration claiming that pregnant people have “no international right to abortion.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the virtual signing ceremony for the so-called “Geneva Consensus Declaration” after the administration formed an international coalition comprised of countries where abortion care is banned or severely restricted, to counter the United Nations’ support for reproductive rights.

“It carries no legitimacy within the U.N. system―but the sentiments it represents are dangerous nonetheless. In contrast to what this declaration states, there is broad international consensus on the critical need for access to sexual and reproductive healthcare, including abortion.”

—Jenny Vanyur, Planned Parenthood Federation of America

The Trump administration has opposed the inclusion of language affirming that people around the world have inalienable “sexual and reproductive rights” in documents including the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The declaration introduced Thursday is aimed at “strengthening the family” and states that there is no “international obligation on the part of states to finance or facilitate abortion.” At the ceremony, Pompeo said the document “defends the unborn and reiterates the vital importance of the family,” while Planned Parenthood derided the declaration as a “farce” whose signatories are out of touch with public opinion regarding the right to abortion care.



“It carries no legitimacy within the U.N. system―but the sentiments it represents are dangerous nonetheless,” Jenny Vanyur, associate director of global advocacy for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told HuffPost. “In contrast to what this declaration states, there is broad international consensus on the critical need for access to sexual and reproductive healthcare, including abortion.”

According to Pew Research, 61% of Americans believe abortion care should be legal in all or most cases. Internationally, support is even greater, with Ipsos reporting last month that 70% of 17,500 adults surveyed in 25 countries support the right to abortion care.

Abortions have been recognized as a constitutional right in the U.S. since 1973, while the five countries that joined the U.S. as co-sponsors of the declaration—Egypt, Uganda, Indonesia, Brazil, and Hungary—impose severe restrictions on abortion access.

Other countries joining the U.S.-led coalition include Saudi Arabia, Belarus, and Poland, which on Thursday imposed a near-total ban on abortion, while longtime U.S. allies including France and the U.K. are steadfast supporters of the U.N.’s declarations affirming the right to abortion care.

As a constitutional tribunal in Poland handed down its ruling amid protests and the Trump administration celebrated the signing of the Geneva Consensus Declaration, Amnesty International issued a reminder on social media that outlawing abortion care does not stop women from obtaining abortions, but rather makes the procedure far less safe.

Abortion is a human right
It’s that simple. Everyone has the right to decide what happens to their body. Criminalizing abortion doesn’t stop abortion, it just makes it less safe.
— Amnesty International (@amnesty) October 22, 2020

Other critics in the U.S. condemned the Trump administration for leading the international effort to undermine women’s reproductive rights.

This is a cruel attempt to spread an anti-abortion, anti-women, & ultimately anti-health care agenda across the globe amid a pandemic. This "consensus declaration" contradicts broad international law regarding the health & rights of women & girls. https://t.co/FuqO1wgEgn
— Senator Patty Murray (@PattyMurray) October 22, 2020

Another day, another shameful move by the State Department and HHS to dismantle long-standing international human rights agreements and frameworks. https://t.co/l5jgH9rMN2
— Planned Parenthood Global (@ppglobe) October 22, 2020

The declaration was signed a month after the State Department proposed an expansion of the global gag rule, which would further strip healthcare funding from global organizations which provide abortion care or counseling, and as the Republican-led Senate moved toward confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. The judge has publicly supported a Christian fundamentalist group which espouses extreme anti-choice views and has suggested the Supreme Court will restrict abortion access.

“This administration doesn’t seem content to stop until it has fully trampled on the rights, autonomy, and dignity of women and girls everywhere,” said Tarah Demant, director of the Gender, Sexuality, and Identity program at Amnesty International USA. “Every person has a right to their individual personal and bodily autonomy, despite this administration wanting to prescribe otherwise.”

U.S. signs international anti-abortion declaration



Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Thursday that "there is no international right to an abortion." Photo by Greg Nash/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 22 (UPI) -- The United States on Thursday joined Brazil, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia and Uganda as co-sponsors of an international anti-abortion declaration that was signed by some 30 United Nations members, most of which are widely seen as authoritarian, illiberal or both.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar participated in the virtual signing ceremony of the Geneva Consensus Declaration that calls on the signatories to protect women's health, preserve life, strengthen the family unit and protect every nation's national sovereignty in global politics, especially concerning their right to make laws concerning abortion.


The declaration states the signing countries "emphasize that 'in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning" and that "the child ... needs special safeguards and care ... before as well as after birth." It also says states have no obligation to finance or facilitate abortion.

Pompeo called it a "historic" signing as it was the first multilateral coalition built around the issue of "defending life."

"There is no international right to an abortion," Pompeo said in a press briefing.

Among the signatories are countries that have voiced to LGBTQ and reproductive rights, with many of the 32 signatories including Pakistan, South Sudan, Iraq, Democratic Republic of Congo ranked the worst countries for women by a study from Georgetown University's Institute for Women, Peace and Security.

The coalition stands opposed to the United Nations stance on abortion as a human right, and Azar described the Geneva Consensus Declaration as a "tool" for countries to defend their principles against multilateral organizations.

"We will denounce these organizations when they overstep their mandates by promoting positions that can never gain consensus," he said. "We will unequivocally declare that there is no international right to abortion. We will proudly put women's health first at every stage of life."

Amnesty International called the declaration a "giant step backwards" for the United States as it joins a list of countries that put the lives and health of people at risk.

"The United States' stance flies in the face of human rights and decades of health research," Tarah Demant, direct of the Gender, Sexuality and Identity Program at Amnesty International USA, said in a statement. "This is about people living full lives that are their own -- not the lives that the government has prescribed for them."

The non-binding declaration is a continuation of the Trump administration's stance against international organizations prescribing abortion as a human right.



In May, the U.S. Agency for International Development criticized the United Nations in a letter for using the coronavirus for "promoting abortion" when it included sexual and reproduction health services within its Global Humanitarian Response Plan to COVID-19 guidelines.

In July, Pompeo was criticized over a controversial report unveiled by the State Department on human rights for listing abortion along with affirmative action and same-sex marriage as "divisive social and political controversies" where proponents commonly "couch. their claims in terms of basic rights."

On Thursday, the United States' top diplomat said the Trump administration has "defended the right to human dignity like no other administration in history."

"He had done it like no other president in history," he said. "We have mounted an unprecedented defense of the unborn abroad."

The Global Justice Center lambasted the Trump administration Thursday saying despite its rhetoric it has never put the health of women first.

"This administration has consistently [put] both women's bodies, here at home and abroad, last," Akila Radhakrishnan, president of Global Justice Center, said in a statement.

"Just because these regressive governments keep asserting that abortion is not a human right, doesn't make it true; the international human rights framework is clear on this issue," Radhakrishnan said. "There is a reason why none of the U.S.' traditional allies, nor countries with strong records on human rights, joined this declaration -- if flies in the face of decades of hard-fought victories for the rights for women."

Intervention is needed now more than ever as Trump puts America on the path to bloodshed and catastrophe

Published on October 22, 2020

By Madeline Taylor and Bandy X. Lee - Commentary

Trump supporters waiting for the arrival of President Donald J. Trump on Thursday 01/30/2020 at his Keep America Great Again rally in Des Moines, Iowa. (Shutterstock.com)

What is the role of media when the president of the United States promulgates falsehoods, sows division among the populace, demonizes duly-elected officials who disagree with him, gives a wink and a nod to armed White supremacists by telling them to “stand back and stand by,” but orders heavily-armed police to use tear-gas on non-violent Black Lives Matter demonstrators, marching to put an end to police brutality? How do media outlets cover a president who denigrates and dehumanizes whole sectors of the American public every time he speaks? That is, Muslims, Mexicans, women, immigrants, Democrats, “blue” states, Obama, Hillary, Kamala, and Biden…. We must not negate the psychological consequences.

In 1994, there was a terrible slaughter of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda. Hutus were given machetes and encouraged to rise up and murder their Tutsi neighbors because it was rumored that a member of the Tutsi tribe had caused the death of the country’s leader. This false allegation was purposely spread by a Hutu-favoring radio station. The massacre of Tutsis and moderate Hutus went on for three months with lasting physical and emotional trauma to the entire population.

That can’t happen here, we say, and we hope we’re right. But the elements that were present in Rwanda prior to the massacre exist here, right now:

A division in the population based on race, culture, or ideology that someone’s need for power has amplified and exploited;

A culture of machismo that encourages violence and intimidation as legitimate behavior;
The purposeful accumulation of weapons by one group; and
A biased communications outlet open to polarizing the country and broadcasting false accusations.

All that are needed now are the denigration and dehumanization of the “other” group, which has begun, and a precipitating event or rumor that is to be used as a rationale for attack.

It can already be argued that U.S. media played a role in the election of Donald Trump. In the run-up to the election on November 8, 2016, the major television networks afforded the candidate more than 2 billion dollars’ worth of free airtime. The CEO of CBS at the time, Les Moonves, said of Donald Trump’s candidacy: “It may not be good for America but it’s damn good for CBS…. The money’s rolling in.”

Four years later, we have a president who has told his followers: “the only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.” When asked about the peaceful transition of power should his opponent win the election he stated: “There won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation.”

Donald Trump lives in a mental world where getting what he wants is all that matters, all that should and will matter, according to him. He cannot tolerate anything other than a world where he “wins”, and hence he will make that happen if it does not exist. He indirectly communicates this to his followers, the implication being that they must mobilize if the official decision conflicts with his world view. He binds, tests, and conditions them to an absolute loyalty, so that they would not accept any other result, even if that means giving their lives to it. This is what is happening when they pack into his rallies without masks or social distancing and accept that the election will be rigged, the news is fake, and they should be “tired of hearing Fauci and all these idiots” but “not be afraid of Covid.”

So far, Donald Trump has been careful not to give direct orders to his followers, but from his position of power he does not have to. Henry II did not have to lift a finger to have his followers assassinate the Archbishop of Canterbury. All he said was: “What miserable … traitors have I nourished and promoted in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born clerk!” The interrupted plots to kidnap and kill the governors of Michigan and Virginia, as well as the mayor of Wichita, are the exact effects we would expect he would have when he tweets, “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” or shouts, “Get your governor to open up your state…. And get your schools open… Lock ’em all up.” He has also given his tacit approval of vigilante violence.

So what is the role of media in a society where the chief executive is sowing division and inciting violence by denigrating and dehumanizing whole swaths of American citizens, labeling them “enemies,” and protecting Second-Amendment rights to bear arms but not protecting Constitutional rights of peaceful assembly to redress grievances? How can the public remain safe, when peaceful protestors are called “terrorists” by a media outlet that has been set up to promote the values of the White, mostly male corporate ruling class? What can the public do to counter the rising violence and chaos?

The time between November 3, 2020 and January 20, 2021, may be the most dangerous for America. At what point should Twitter disable Trump’s account? When do more responsible media organizations refuse to air his comments or alert their audiences in real time that what they are hearing is false? When do the owners of large venues refuse to give the president access because his rallies spawn violence?

When should the radio station have been shut down in Rwanda, and who should have shut it down?

In America, the people own the airwaves. They are part of “the commons” as stipulated by Congressional legislation in the last century. With the Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), speech “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” may not fall under the protection of free speech. We now have much better research on how rhetoric from an influential position directly leads to widespread epidemics of violence. This is why the World Mental Health Coalition issued its “Prescription for Survival” earlier this year. We do not have to give our airwaves to someone who means us harm. We can shut him down.


Madeline Taylor, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist in Los Angeles and a member of the World Mental Health Coalition, of which Lee is president. They will be holding a special online conference, “Donald Trump’s Great Harm to America and the World,” on Saturday, October 24, 2020.