Doctors without Borders is warning that El Salvador's medical system is failing under the pressure of the coronavirus pandemic.

“We are seeing an increase in the number of people dying in their homes before our ambulance services arrive,” Luis Romero Pineda, the organization's project coordinator in El Salvador, said in a statement. “Admitting patients to hospitals has also become more difficult. Worryingly, community leaders are reporting deaths in their communities, some of them related to the suspension of primary health care.”

In March, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele enforced harsh pandemic restrictions on the Central American country, forcing people to remain in their homes and stopping primary health care services in hospitals and health units.

ADVERTISEMENT

Phase two of his economic reopening plan was supposed to go into effect on Tuesday, but Bukele postponed it until late July, citing significant increases in COVID-19 cases as well as deaths.

“Faced with these critical situations, we see an unfavorable outlook for proceeding with Phase Two of the Economic Reopening Plan,” Bukele's office said in a statement, per Reuters.

More than 8,800 people in the country have tested positive for the virus and 243 people have died, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.

Doctors Without Borders reports that it has seen an increase in cases where patients die before doctors are able to reach them.

“In 2019, this happened to [our teams] 11 times from January to June," Angel Sermeño, the organization's medical activity manager in El Salvador, explained. “In the same period this year, it has happened 37 times—18 times in June alone.”

• Michigan governor: Businesses must deny service without a mask

An increased number of patients have also died waiting to be transferred to a hospital, and even when patients are able to make it to hospitals, they are turned away.

Additionally, the group has seen an uptick in patients with respiratory and heart problems, both of which can be induced by COVID-19.

“It is vital to improve coordination, increase the number of available beds [in health facilities] and ensure protective measures in hospitals to guarantee the safety of staff and patients ... [and] increase the response capacity of the emergency transfer services in critical cases,” Pineda said. “It is also essential to guarantee access to primary health care and improve case detection and follow-up to prevent cases from becoming serious, whether they are COVID-19 or not.”

UPDATED 

US Supreme Court rules half of Oklahoma is Native American land

• 10 July 2020

• Share this with Messenger
• Share this with TwitterShare this w

THE OTHER HALF IS OWNED BY THE SWEAT OF THEIR BROW, AND THE INJUSTICE OF THE GREAT TULSA MASSACRE 1921,IN REPARATIONS 
TO BLACK AMERICANS.

Image copyrightSHUTTERSTOCK

Image captionA representative of the Choctaw nation - one of the Five Tribes of Oklahoma central to the court ruling, who have welcomed the ruling

The US Supreme Court has ruled about half of Oklahoma belongs to Native Americans, in a landmark case that also quashed a child rape conviction.

The justices decided 5-4 that an eastern chunk of the state, including its second-biggest city, Tulsa, should be recognised as part of a reservation.

Jimcy McGirt, who was convicted in 1997 of raping a girl, brought the case.

He cited the historical claim of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation to the land where the assault occurred.

What does the ruling mean?

Thursday's decision in McGirt v Oklahoma is seen as one of the most far-reaching cases for Native Americans before the highest US court in decades.

The ruling means some tribe members found guilty in state courts for offences committed on the land at issue can now challenge their convictions.

Only federal prosecutors will have the power to criminally prosecute Native Americans accused of crimes in the area.

Tribe members who live within the boundaries may also be exempt from state taxes, according to Reuters news agency.

Some 1.8 million people - of whom about 15% are Native American - live on the land, which spans three million acres.

What did the justices say?

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative appointed by US President Donald Trump, sided with the court's four liberals and also wrote the opinion.

He referred to the Trail of Tears, the forcible 19th Century relocation of Native Americans, including the Creek Nation, to Oklahoma.

ALL VIDEOS ARE AT THE END

Media captionA photo album that took 25 years to make

The US government said at the time that the new land would belong to the tribes in perpetuity.

Justice Gorsuch wrote: "Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law.

"Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word."

What about the rape case?

The ruling overturned McGirt's prison sentence. He could still, however, be tried in federal court.

McGirt, now 71, was convicted in 1997 in Wagoner County of raping a four-year-old girl.

Media captionWhat happened to Olivia Lone Bear?

He did not dispute his guilt before the Supreme Court, but argued that only federal authorities should have been entitled to prosecute him.

McGirt is a member of the Seminole Nation.

His lawyer, Ian Heath Gershengorn, told CNBC: "The Supreme Court reaffirmed today that when the United States makes promises, the courts will keep those promises."

How might Oklahoma's criminal justice system be affected?

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said the decision would destabilise the state's courts.

He wrote: "The State's ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out.

"The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State's continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs, ranging from zoning and taxation to family and environmental law."

An analysis by The Atlantic magazine of Oklahoma Department of Corrections records found that 1,887 Native Americans were in prison as of the end of last year for offences committed within the boundaries of the tribal territory.

But fewer than one in 10 of those cases would qualify for a new federal trial, according to the research.

Media captionCan indigenous wellness help heal historical trauma?

Jonodev Chaudhuri, a former chief justice of the Muscogee Nation's Supreme Court, dismissed talk of legal mayhem.

He told the Tulsa World newspaper: "All the sky-is-falling narratives were dubious at best.

"This would only apply to a small subset of Native Americans committing crimes within the boundaries."

How did other tribal leaders react?

In a joint statement, the Five Tribes of Oklahoma - Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole and Muscogee Nation - welcomed the ruling.

They pledged to work with federal and state authorities to agree shared jurisdiction over the land.

"The Nations and the state are committed to implementing a framework of shared jurisdiction that will preserve sovereign interests and rights to self-government while affirming jurisdictional understandings, procedures, laws and regulations that support public safety, our economy and private property rights," the statement said.

SCOTUS Refuses to Sanction the Robbery of Tribal Lands

In a new ruling, the high court affirmed tribal sovereignty.

by Nancy LeTourneau

July 10, 2020

The big news on Thursday was the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the release of Trump’s financial records, which Martin Longman has already covered. But the court also released a ruling in the case of McGirt v. Oklahoma, which has major implications for Native American tribal sovereignty.

McGirt, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, was convicted of sex crimes against a child by state authorities in the Nation’s historical boundaries. He wasn’t asking the court to revisit the case made by the state of Oklahoma, but was instead challenging their jurisdiction. The case is similar to one I wrote about over a year ago, Carpenter v, Murphy, in which Patrick Murphy was convicted of murder. That case ended in a deadlocked tie at the Supreme Court when Justice Gorsuch recused himself. So this ruling covers both cases.

The challenge to the state’s jurisdiction stems from the Major Crimes Act, which placed certain crimes under federal jurisdiction if they are committed by a Native American in Native territory. The issue at stake for McGirk and Murphy came down to whether or not the crimes were committed on land that is still part of the Creek reservation. If so, the state of Oklahoma had no jurisdiction to prosecute them.

To understand the importance of that question, it is helpful to know some of the history.

The backdrop of the case is one of the central incidents of the process by which Native Americans were removed from the Southeastern states in the early decades of the 19th century. The Creek Nation was one of the so-called “Five Civilized Tribes” forcibly relocated in the 1830s from Georgia, Alabama and Florida to a large Indian Territory that included what is now the eastern half of Oklahoma. At the time, Congress promised that the tribes would own their land “in fee simple,” meaning permanently and absolutely, that they never would be subjected to the laws of a state, and that their lands never would be made part of any state. But that of course is not how things turned out. In a series of statutes passed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Congress disestablished the tribal governments, transferred much of the land to federal control (for distribution to settlers — perhaps you recall learning about the Sooner land rush), and finally in 1907 incorporated all of the Indian Territory into the state of Oklahoma.

The case made by McGirk and Murphy was that, even though the land that was promised in return for resettlement in Oklahoma was illegally grabbed and eventually distributed to “settlers,” an act of Congress is required to disestablish a reservation, something that never happened. In response, the state of Oklahoma made a rather twisted argument.

Oklahoma’s position is that no such statement [by Congress to dissolve the reservations] is needed because the sheer and devastating totality of “everything [that] was taken away from tribes,” as the state’s lawyer argued, is indication enough that Congress intended to leave them with nothing, much less a reservation, and “not one single absolute smidgen” of sovereignty over their land.

In other words, they argued that the federal government made their “intentions” known when they ignored the treaty signed in 1939 and proceeded to steal land from the tribes via allotment. Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in the McGirk case, was having none of that (emphasis mine).

The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation. As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.

The report in the New York Times on this ruling is headlined, “Supreme Court Rules Nearly Half of Oklahoma Is Indian Reservation,” while the one at CNN reads: “Supreme Court rules broad swath of Oklahoma is Native American land for purposes of federal criminal law.” Those are terribly misleading because what the Supreme Court actually did on Thursday was to affirm that a “broad swath of Oklahoma is Native American land.” That is based on a treaty the U.S. signed with the Creek Nation back in 1839. As Nick Martin wrote, “Neil Gorsuch, nor any of the justices, ‘gave’ or ‘granted’ the Muscogee (Creek) Nation their land. They just did their jobs.”

Related Posts Nancy LeTourneau

Nancy LeTourneau is a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly. Follow her on Twitter @Smartypants60.

The Supreme Court’s landmark new Native American rights decision, explained

No, they didn’t give away half of Oklahoma — but it is a big deal.

By Ian Millhiser Jul 10, 2020,  VOX

Supreme Court Associate Justices (L-R) Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch attend the swearing in ceremony for newly confirmed Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the East Room of the White House on October 8, 2018, in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma received less attention than two other decisions handed down the same day, which concerned whether President Trump is immune from congressional or state criminal investigation. But McGirt is a tremendously significant decision, especially for Native Americans and, ultimately, for anyone concerned with whether the United States must honor its past obligations.

McGirt asks whether a significant swath of land covering the eastern half of the state of Oklahoma is part of what federal law anachronistically refers to as “Indian country” — that is, Native American reservations where tribal governments retain considerable sovereign authority. The holding of McGirt is that this land, which has 1.8 million residents, most of whom are not Native American, is reserved land. Oklahoma must honor a treaty from nearly two centuries ago setting aside this land for Native peoples.

(Many federal statutes and other legal documents refer to Native Americans as “Indians,” and the opinions in McGirt are peppered with references to “Indians” and “Indian country.” Accordingly, many quotes in this article will also use those terms.)

The Court’s decision in McGirt, which was written by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by his four liberal colleagues, has already produced its share of hyperbolic conclusions — some of them suggesting that the Supreme Court just ceded control of a good-size chunk of the United States.

Neil Gorsuch & the four liberal Justices just gave away half of Oklahoma, literally.
Manhattan is next. https://t.co/Ic9gqqznJp— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) July 9, 2020

The reality is much more nuanced. The primary impact of McGirt is that Oklahoma loses much of its power to enforce certain laws against members of Native American tribes within the borders of tribal lands. But the decision will have far less impact on non-Native Americans.

The case concerns Jimcy McGirt, a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma who was convicted of rape in state court. McGirt’s crime took place within land that, according to Gorsuch’s majority opinion, is part of the Creek Reservation.

The fact that McGirt is a member of a tribe, and that his crime took place on a reservation, matter because of the federal Major Crimes Act (MCA). That law provides that “any Indian who commits” certain offenses “against the person or property of another Indian or any other person” is subject to “the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States” if that crime was committed “within the Indian country.”

Thus, Oklahoma lacks authority to try McGirt for raping someone on a Native American reservation. Only the federal courts may try such a crime.

On the surface, in other words, McGirt seems to involve a fairly minor issue. No one questions that McGirt may be convicted of rape. And no one questions that he can face a stiff penalty for such a conviction. The question is which court may try the case against him.

But in order to answer this question, the Supreme Court must determine whether McGirt’s crime did, indeed, occur on a reservation. And the answer to that question turns out to have significant implications.

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation had a great deal at stake in this case. As the Creek Nation noted in a brief to the Supreme Court, it “had no role in the genesis of this litigation, but now finds its Reservation under direct attack.” It elects its own government and operates its own court system. As Gorsuch’s opinion notes, it “operates a police force and three hospitals; commands an annual budget of more than $350 million; and employs over 2,000 people.”

McGirt, according to Riyaz Kanji, one of the authors of the Creek Nation’s brief, “will if anything enhance the Nation’s ability to offer robust governmental programs and services throughout the Reservation (both for Nation citizens and non-citizens).” By contrast, if McGirt had gone the other way, much of these services could have potentially been endangered.
McGirt is a case about whether the federal government must honor its obligations to Native Americans — but only up to a point

Gorsuch begins his opinion by referencing the Trail of Tears, an atrocity in 1838 during which the US government forced thousands of Native Americans out of their homes and ordered them to march more than 1,000 miles to relocate to Oklahoma. More than 4,000 victims of this act of barbarism died along the way.

Yet the federal government also sought to give this forced march a patina of legitimacy by entering into treaties with the displaced people. Under the terms of the United States’ treaty with the Creek Nation, that nation ceded, in an 1832 treaty’s words, “all their land, East of the Mississippi river” in return for a promise that “the Creek country west of the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek Indians.”

A subsequent 1833 treaty established the borders of Creek country, which it described as a “permanent home to the whole Creek nation.” The borders of Creek country were later reduced by a 1866 treaty.

As it turns out, the federal government’s promise to respect these new lands wasn’t worth very much. Congress made several incursions on the Creek people’s sovereign rights, many of which are detailed in Gorsuch’s opinion. Beginning in 1893, for example, the federal government started pressuring tribes to divide their land up into small, privately owned portions. Due to this pressure, the Creek people eventually agreed to allot the land into “160-acre parcels to individual Tribe members who could not sell, transfer, or otherwise encumber their allotments for a number of years.”

Much of this land has since been sold to people who are not Native American.

Moreover, in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903), the Supreme Court held that, in Gorsuch’s words, Congress “wields significant constitutional authority when it comes to tribal relations, possessing even the authority to breach its own promises and treaties.” The upshot of Lone Wolf is that Congress may wipe away its treaties with Indigenous peoples at any time, and it may dissolve a Native American reservation on a whim.

But despite its many incursions on the Creek people’s tribal sovereignty, McGirt concludes that Congress has never taken the ultimate step of dissolving its original treaty with the Creek people. That means that Creek lands remain a reservation — including the place where McGirt committed his crime.

And that means that McGirt must be tried in federal court.
So what does this mean for Oklahoma?

Kanji, the lawyer for the Creek Nation, told me that McGirt is unlikely to disrupt the lives of non-Native Americans. “Given the constraints that exist on the exercise of tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians on non-Indian land (even within Reservations),” Kanji predicted, McGirt “will not lead to a sea change in taxing or regulatory authority on the Reservation.”

Nevertheless, in its own brief, Oklahoma claimed that the state could face terrible consequences if the Supreme Court determines that half of its land is part of a reservation. “The State generally lacks the authority to tax Indians in Indian country,” that brief claims, “so turning half the State into Indian country would decimate state and local budgets.” Additionally, “all adoptions and custody disputes involving Indian children residing or domiciled within the 1866 boundaries would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of tribal courts, even over both parents’ objections.”

In response to these fears, Gorsuch effectively replies that it doesn’t matter, because the law says what it says. “Dire warnings are just that,” he writes, “and not a license for us to disregard the law.”

In this sense, McGirt also resembles Gorsuch’s recent decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that an existing ban on “sex” discrimination in employment extends to discrimination against LGBTQ workers.

At oral argument in Bostock, the conservative Gorsuch expressed concerns that, while he was sympathetic to the argument that the text of federal civil rights law points in a pro-LGBTQ direction, a federal ban on such discrimination could lead to “massive social upheaval.” Ultimately, however, Gorsuch ruled that the text of the law must control in Bostock. And so he ruled as well in McGirt.

It’s also far from clear that the state won’t be able to work out a deal with the Creek people and the other tribes that will benefit from the McGirt decision. In a joint statement released shortly after the decision was handed down, Oklahoma and the Native American nations said that they “are committed to implementing a framework of shared jurisdiction that will preserve sovereign interests and rights to self-government while affirming jurisdictional understandings, procedures, laws, and regulations that support public safety, our economy, and private property rights.”

So, while McGirt gives these tribes far more bargaining power in their effort to reach an agreement with the state, it is unlikely to throw half of Oklahoma in chaos. And it certainly does not mean that the Supreme Court “just gave away” half of a state, as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggested.

But it does reveal a great deal about Gorsuch, who has made very clear that he cares little about the consequences of his decisions once he’s decided what the text of the law requires. On occasion, that leads him to form alliances with the Court’s liberal wing, as he did in Bostock and McGirt, even though his voting record remains quite conservative.

Hagia Sophia: Turkey turns iconic Istanbul museum into mosque 

GETTY IMAGES

A woman wrapped in a Turkish national flag gestures outside the Hagia Sophia museum

The world-famous Hagia Sophia museum in Istanbul - originally founded as a cathedral - has been turned back into a mosque.

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced the decision after a court annulled the site's museum status.

Built 1,500 years ago as an Orthodox Christian cathedral, Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque after the Ottoman conquest in 1453.

In 1934 it became a museum and is now a Unesco World Heritage site.

Islamists in Turkey long called for it to be converted to a mosque but secular opposition members opposed the move. The proposal prompted criticism from religious and political leaders worldwide.

Defending the decision, President Erdogan stressed that the country had exercised its sovereign right in converting it back to a mosque.

He told a press conference the first Muslim prayers would be held inside the building on 24 July.

"Like all our mosques, the doors of Hagia Sophia will be wide open to locals and foreigners, Muslims and non-Muslims," he added.

Shortly after the announcement, the first call to prayer was recited at Hagia Sophia and was broadcast on all of Turkey's main news channels. The cultural site's social media channels have now been taken down.
What has the reaction been?

Unesco has said it "deeply regrets" the decision to turn the museum into a mosque and called on the Turkish authorities to "open a dialogue without delay."

The organisation had urged Turkey not to change its status without discussion.Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionThe Hagia Sophia has huge significance as a religious and political symbol

The head of the Eastern Orthodox Church has condemned the move, as has Greece - home to many millions of Orthodox followers.

Culture Minister Lina Mendoni said it was an "open provocation to the civilised world".

"The nationalism displayed by President Erdogan... takes his country back six centuries," she said in a statement.

The court ruling "absolutely confirms that there is no independent justice" in Turkey, she added.
Erdogan: Turkey's pugnacious president
Is pandemic being used for power grab in Europe?
BBC - Travel - An insider’s tour of Hagia SophiaImage copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionThe site is now one of Turkey's most visited tourist attractions

But the Council of State, Turkey's top administrative court, said in its ruling on Friday: "It was concluded that the settlement deed allocated it as a mosque and its use outside this character is not possible legally."

"The cabinet decision in 1934 that ended its use as a mosque and defined it as a museum did not comply with laws," it said.

The Church in Russia, home to the world's largest Orthodox Christian community, immediately expressed regret that the Turkish court had not taken its concerns into account when ruling on Hagia Sophia.

It said the decision could lead to even greater divisions.

While the move is popular with conservative religious supporters of President Erdogan, Turkey's most famous author, Orhan Pamuk said the decision would take away the "pride" some Turks had in being a secular Muslim nation.

"There are millions of secular Turks like me who are crying against this but their voices are not heard," he told the BBC.          History of a global icon

• Hagia Sophia's complex history began in the year 537 when Byzantine emperor Justinian built the huge church overlooking the Golden Horn harbour
• With its huge dome, it was believed to be the world's largest church and building
• It remained in Byzantine hands for centuries apart from a brief moment in 1204 when Crusaders raided the city
• In 1453, in a devastating blow to the Byzantines, Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II captured Istanbul (formerly known as Constantinople) and the victorious conqueror performed Friday prayers inside Hagia Sophia
• The Ottomans soon converted the building into a mosque, adding four minarets to the exterior and covering ornate Christian icons and gold mosaics with panels of Arabic religious calligraphy
• After centuries at the heart of the Muslim Ottoman empire, it was turned into a museum in 1934 in a drive to make Turkey more secular
• Today Hagia Sophia is Turkey's most popular tourist site, attracting more than 3.7 million visitors a year

BEFORE THAT IT WAS THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF EMPEROR JUSTINIAN, BECAUSE ISTANBUL WAS CONSTANTINOPLE BACK THEN 

BOY MAKE A CHURCH INTO A MUSEUM IN SOVIET RUSSIA AND ITS LIKE THE END OF THE WORLD 

BUT SAME YEAR AS STALIN DID IT SO DOES THE 

AUTARK OF TURKEY AND IT'S MEH

Sanders-Biden climate task force calls for carbon-free power by 2035

BY RACHEL FRAZIN - 07/08/20


© Getty Images

A unity task force made up of supporters of both Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Vice President Joe Biden has come up with a series of broad environmental recommendations for Biden as he prepares to become the official Democratic presidential nominee.

The task force’s broad plan includes a goal of eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035, achieving net-zero emissions for all new buildings by 2030, and making energy-saving upgrades to as many as 4 million buildings and 2 million households within five years.

Some of the recommendations released Wednesday set more specific targets than the former vice president’s current climate plan, which calls for a shift away from coal-fired electricity, halving the carbon footprint of buildings by 2035 and starting a national program aimed at affordable energy efficiency retrofits in homes.

The group is one of several “unity task forces” made up of supporters of Sanders and Biden that is making platform recommendations as Biden courts favor from the progressive faction of the party.

Sanders, who sought to challenge the former Delaware senator from the left, came in second place in the 2020 Democratic primary, repeating his result from 2016, when he lost the presidential nomination to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

The climate panel is co-chaired by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a leading proponent of the Green New Deal, and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

“The Unity Task Force urges that we treat climate change like the emergency that it is and answer the crisis with an ambitious, unprecedented, economy-wide mobilization to decarbonize the economy and build a resilient, stronger foundation for the American people,” the document says.

The plan also calls for a significant investment in renewable energy, including installing 500 million solar panels and manufacturing 60,000 wind turbines.

In the transportation sector, the group recommends the adoption of “strong standards” for clean cars and trucks and the transition of all school buses to American-made, zero-emission alternatives within five years.


The New York Times first reported on some of the recommendations earlier this week.

OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Sanders-Biden climate task force calls for carbon-...

Biden-Sanders 'unity task force' rolls out platform recommendations

A spokesperson for the Biden campaign did not immediately respond to questions from The Hill about whether the campaign would adopt any or all of the climate recommendations, though the former vice president praised the task forces in general for “their service and helping build a bold, transformative platform for our party and for our country.”

Task force member Rep. A. Donald McEachin (D-Va.) who has endorsed Biden, expressed support for a strong climate platform in a statement to The Hill.

“The Trump administration and its acolytes have sought to prevent the bold climate action this moment of crisis demands at every turn, but today’s recommendations released by the Biden/Sanders Unity Taskforce represent a new and necessary sense of urgency on environmental justice and climate change for the United States under a Biden administration,” McEachin said. “It is up to all of us to translate this enthusiasm into action under the diverse coalition we need to mobilize behind Vice President Biden in November.”