IMPERIALIST GEMOLOGY

South Africans Want The Return Of ‘World’s Largest Diamond’ on Queen Elizabeth’s Sceptre

Brunno Braga

Mon, September 19, 2022

Queen Elizabeth II’s death gathered a mix of feelings around the world. The historic role of the British monarchy and its relations with its former colonies is one of them. In South Africa, people are debating about the return of the world’s largest diamond, owned by the Queen.

Known as ‘The Great Star of Africa’, the gem has 530 carats, mined in South Africa in 1905. It has an estimated worth of $400 million.

The Great Star Of Africa | Source: Wikimedia Commons

Reaction

“The Cullinan Diamond must be returned to South Africa with immediate effect,” activist Thanduxolo Sabelo told local media, adding that: “The minerals of our country and other countries continue to benefit Britain at the expense of our people.”

According to CNN, more than 6,000 people have signed a petition asking for the return of the gem. After sending condolences to all members of the Royal Family on Twitter, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa’s message received many posts from South Africans, claiming the return of the Great Star diamond.

According to the Royal Collection Trust, the Cullinan diamond was a gift to King Edward VII in 1907. It was two years after its discovery in a private mine in South Africa’s old Transvaal province. The Royal Collection Trust oversees the royal collection of the British royal family.

A University of South Africa professor of African politics, Everisto Benyera, rejects the narrative. He told CNN those colonial transactions were illegitimate and immoral. “Our narrative is that the whole Transvaal and Union of South Africa governments and the concomitant mining syndicates were illegal,” Benyera said.

“Receiving a stolen diamond does not exonerate the receiver. The Great Star is a blood diamond. The private (mining) company, the Transvaal government, and the British Empire were part of a larger network of coloniality.”

Leigh-Ann Mathys, a national spokeswoman for the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), a South African opposition political party, joined the claim. “We don’t call for its return, as this implies that there was a valid agreement in terms of which the British royal family was borrowed the diamond. It is in their possession purely as a result of colonial tenacities that suffocated natives in this country and elsewhere,” Mathys told CNN.

Canadians Deserve to Vote on Breaking With the Monarchy

New polling suggests that a majority of Canadians want a vote on maintaining their country’s link to the British Crown. Imagine that: a long-overdue, democratic debate on cutting ties with a wildly undemocratic institution.

Charles III waves goodbye before departing Yellowknife, Canada, after a Platinum Jubilee Royal Tour of Canada on May 19, 2022. (Chris Jackson / Getty Images)

BYLUKE SAVAGE

The Canadian response in the days following the death of Queen Elizabeth II might best be characterized as one of ambivalence. Which is to say: as political elites have engaged in a rather strained, week-long official mourning, average citizens have mostly responded with something resembling a collective shrug. Unlike Australia, which in 1999 held a referendum that only narrowly voted to maintain ties with the monarchy, Canada has never had a strong republican movement. On the other hand, aside from a few particularly embarrassing characters on social media and a weird monarchist strain running through the Conservative Party, the opposing position isn’t passionately held either — the result being that the issue has rarely been discussed or debated.

That debate, to put it mildly, is long overdue. And, as newly published polling would seem to suggest, Canadians’ general ambivalence may in fact be crystallizing into something a bit more clearly defined. Like most public opinion polls, the data freshly released by Ipsos has its share of ambiguity. Eight in ten respondents, for example, believe that Queen Elizabeth II “did a good job in her role as monarch” while a much narrower majority of 56 percent expressed their confidence that “King Charles III will do a good job in his role as monarch.” The study’s top-line finding, however, is still striking:

Roughly half (54%) agree (20% strongly/33% somewhat) that now that Queen Elizabeth II’s reign has ended, Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy. This sentiment is down 5 points from 2021, but up from 44% in 2011.

Moreover, nearly 60 percent of those surveyed want a referendum on the future of the monarchy in Canada — up five points since the Queen’s death earlier this month.

For many political elites, the issue will be considered a nonstarter regardless of what the polling says. In an interview set to air this Sunday, for example, Justin Trudeau will reportedly dismiss the idea of a referendum and declare it a low priority. Constitutionally speaking, there’s little doubt that the actual business of abolishing the monarchy would be incredibly complicated. At the best of times, Canadian federalism is impossibly intricate, and constitutional change is a difficult feat to pull off (any change would also need to take into account important realities like existing treaties between the Crown and Indigenous peoples). Still, a referendum — in the form of a single question or possibly in several stages — could give such a process a democratic mandate and, if nothing else, would represent an occasion to seriously debate the issue.

For what it’s worth, the republican side of such a debate would have plenty of persuasive arguments at its disposal and, aside from bland appeals to tradition or “continuity,” it’s uncertain what monarchists could really offer in reply. Republicans, on the other hand, could make the case that breaking ties with the British Crown is the natural next stage of Canada’s development into a modern multicultural democracy.

Trudeau, for what it’s worth, has offered a basically small-c conservative defense of forgoing a referendum (“We are able to have all the strength of debates that we need to have in Canada without worrying about the overarching stability of institutions because they are embodied by structures that have been in place for hundreds of years.”) If anything, the authentically small-c conservative case in the tradition of Michael Oakeshott or even Edmund Burke is one tending toward severing ties rather than maintaining them: for all intents and purposes, Canada is already a pluralist democracy and, insofar as there was ever an argument for constitutional monarchy, it’s long been an anachronistic one.

As for the fine institutional details of how a prospective Canadian republic might be fashioned, those would require a still more complicated, and likely far more protracted, debate. Australia’s referendum question of 1999, for what it’s worth, straightforwardly proposed replacing the Queen and governor-general with a president appointed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament — which is certainly not a bad place to start. Regardless, now more than ever Canadians deserve a real debate about the future of constitutional monarchy. And, in the wake of Queen Elizabeth II’s death, it seems probable that the desire for one will only continue to grow.

CONTRIBUTORS
Luke Savage is a staff writer at Jacobin.

 

Israeli Forces Deliberately Killed Palestinian American Journalist, Report Shows

Alice Speri | The Intercept | September 20

Over the past few months, report after report has come out proving that an Israeli army sniper killed Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. Yesterday, one more report was released, and as the head researcher notes, it “is literally the last nail in the coffin of what the army is arguing.” This report proves that the sniper intentionally targeted Abu Akleh, had a clear line of sight to notice that she was a member of the press and continued firing at anyone that tried to help her. In short, this report proves that the killing wasn’t an accident: it was effectively an assasination. The Intercept has put together a good summary of the report. Alice Speri writes, “The new report, which includes a detailed digital reconstruction of the incident based on previously unseen footage recorded by Al Jazeera staff at the scene, in addition to witness testimony, open-source video, and a drone survey of the area, offers the most conclusive account yet of what transpired that day. [...] the new reconstruction clearly shows that there were neither armed gunmen nor shots fired in the minutes leading up to Abu Akleh’s killing. Instead, the reconstruction shows that Abu Akleh’s and her colleagues’ ‘PRESS’ insignia was clearly visible from the position of the IDF shooter; that the shooter had a ‘clear line of fire,’ indicating ‘precise aim.’” The groups behind the investigation have also put out a video including some of this reconstruction, footage that hasn’t been seen before and new interviews. You can watch it on YouTube. It’s essential viewing if you’d like to see exactly how things happened. (5 minute read) Written by Davide Mastracci - September 21, 2022

Religion and the founding documents: Christian nationalism is not Christian or American

Bill Gindlesperger
Wed, September 21, 2022 

Some members of the Republican party, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and those within the Donald Trump cult, are now wrapping themselves in T-shirts proclaiming to be “proud Christian Nationalists.” This is an insult to those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In case you have forgotten, true Christians put faith and trust, not in how big and mean and strong they are, but in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, his torture and death on the cross and subsequent resurrection. Christian behavior reflects Jesus Christ by being gracious and merciful to others, forgiving, loving and praying for enemies, welcoming and serving the marginalized among us, caring for the sick, needy, underprivileged, widowed, orphaned, poor, abused and vulnerable, and by striving for justice. This is what is meant by being a follower and disciple of Jesus Christ.

II Corinthians 5:17 cuts to the chase. "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" This means that selfish and worldly pursuits are exchanged for desire to honor God.

Christian people see the world through the lens of "others first." Christians are called to love the orphan and widow and care for those less fortunate. James 1:27 makes it clear. "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

John 13:34-35 quotes Jesus, "Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

How soon we forget. How easy it is for those who wave power and self-interest in front of us to override our deepest-held beliefs.

Take Greene, for example. She says that the Republican Party needs “to be the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.” In fact, she hawks T-shirts emblazoned with the words “Proud Christian Nationalist.” That would not be so bad if people were not buying them.

The idea is that Christian nationalists must stand against those who are out to destroy America and to cut ties with God. You know, those ugly Americans who are lefties, non-white, non-Christian, and godless immigrants. While Christian nationalists are on team Jesus, everyone else is on team Satan.

Christian nationalists hide their hatred for others who are unlike themselves behind their false beliefs about the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The fact is that religious liberty is enshrined in the Constitution. Believing America is a Christian country founded by and for Christians is a deeply misguided, wrong and dangerous view.

The Declaration of Independence says, “That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The First Amendment to the Constitution goes further and establishes the right of religious freedom, ensuring that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .”

Greene, Boebert, Trump and those aligned with them choose to ignore the very documents that are the basis of our great country. They drive toward Christian nationalism. Yet Christian nationalism is an oxymoron. It is neither Christian nor patriotic.

Jesus Christ had something to say about this. In Matthew 22:21, Jesus is recorded as saying, “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” This points out a clear division between the religious establishment and the government.

Yet Green claims that democracy does not matter, because America is a place where only conservative Christian nationalists count as true Americans.

Cutting to the bottom line, wrapping hateful words on a T-shirt is not unlike a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Appearing righteous, carrying a cross and wrapping up in a flag, is a clear sign of hypocrisy. Spewing hate-filled ideology, dividing families and undermining democracy is not Christianity.

Jesus Christ warned us in Matthew 7:15-20: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”

Listening to Green, Boebert, Trump and their ilk, it sounds like Democrats and liberal leaning voters hate God and America. Honestly, liberal people neither hate God nor their country. There is no “Team Satan.” And there is no “Godless left.” Liberals are just like anyone else. They have their own views on the government and how best we govern ourselves.

White Christian nationalists make up only a small percent of the total population, but are noisy and make up a goodly number of the ultra-right base. They are likely to believe that the election was stolen from Trump, the lies told among QAnon followers, and a coming violence to rescue our country.

I believe it’s time for people of good will to speak up and support the values of love, caring, equity, equality, responsible freedom, and justice. All of us need to speak out against Greene, Boebert, and those within the Trump cult, who are working overtime to hijack Christianity and to ignore the teachings of Jesus Christ for their own self-serving purposes.

Bill Gindlesperger is a central Pennsylvanian, Dickinson College graduate, Pennsylvania System Of Higher Education (PASSHE) Governor, Shippensburg University Trustee, and Chairman of eLynxx Solutions. eLynxx software coordinates and drives communication, specifying, approval, procurement or production, reporting and activities necessary to obtaining direct mail, marketing materials, promo and all other printing. He is a board member, campaign advisor, successful entrepreneur, published author and commentator. He can be reached at Bill.Gindlesperger@eLynxx.com

This article originally appeared on Chambersburg Public Opinion: Greene, Boebert and Trump's cult are wolves in sheep's clothing

ABOLISHING THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Most Republicans Support Declaring the United States a Christian Nation



Stella Rouse and Shibley Telhami
Wed, September 21, 2022

Christian nationalism, a belief that the United States was founded as a white, Christian nation and that there is no separation between church and state, is gaining steam on the right.

Prominent Republican politicians have made the themes critical to their message to voters in the run up to the 2022 midterm elections. Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, has argued that America is a Christian nation and that the separation of church and state is a “myth.” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia hard-liner, declared: “We need to be the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian Nationalists.” Amid a backlash, she doubled down and announced she would start selling “Christian Nationalist” shirts. Now Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis seems to be flirting with Christian nationalist rhetoric, as well.

Appeals to Christian nationalism have a long tradition in American history, though they have usually operated on the fringes. But the increasingly mainstream appearance of this belief in GOP circles makes sense if you look at new public opinion surveys. Our new University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll suggests that declaring the United States a Christian nation is a message that could be broadly embraced by Republicans in the midterms and 2024 presidential race. But our findings also see limits to its appeal — and over the long-term, Christian nationalism could be a political loser.

Most Republicans Say Christian Nationalism Is Unconstitutional — But Still Support It

Our national poll included 2,091 participants, carried out May 6-16, 2022, with a margin of error of +/- 2.14 percent.

We started by asking participants if they believed the Constitution would even allow the United States government to declare the U.S. a “Christian Nation.” We found that 70 percent of Americans — including 57 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Democrats — said that the Constitution would not allow such a declaration. (Indeed, the First Amendment says Congress can neither establish nor prohibit the practice of a religion.)

We followed up by asking: “Would You Favor or Oppose the United States Officially Declaring the United States to be a Christian Nation?” The findings were striking.

Overall, 62 percent of respondents said they opposed such a declaration, including 83 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of Republicans. Fully 61 percent of Republicans supported declaring the United States a Christian nation. In other words, even though over half of Republicans previously said such a move would be unconstitutional, a majority of GOP voters would still support this declaration.

Not surprisingly, much of the support for declaring the U.S. a Christian nation comes from Republicans who identify themselves as Evangelical or born-again Christians: Seventy-eight percent of this group support the move compared to 48 percent of other Republicans. Among Democrats, a slight majority of those identifying themselves as Evangelical or born-again Christians also backed such a declaration (52 percent), compared to just 8 percent of other Democrats.
Younger Generations, Including Younger Republicans, Are Less Supportive of Christian Nationalism

Previous research has shown that the youngest generations — millennials (those born between 1981 and 1996) and Generation Z (those born between 1997 and 2012) — are less likely to be religiously affiliated and to trust religious institutions. That’s also consistent with the results from our Critical Issues Poll.

We found that members of younger generations are less likely than those of older generations to support declaring the U.S. a Christian nation. Only about a quarter of Millennial respondents (25 percent) and a third of Generation Z respondents (34 percent) favor this declaration. By contrast, a majority of respondents from the two oldest generations — Silent Generation (those born between 1928 and 1945) and baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) support the U.S. being declared a Christian nation (54 percent and 50 percent, respectively).

Within the generations, partisanship also plays a role in shaping attitudes about Christian nationalism.

Most Republicans in every age group favor designating the U.S. a Christian nation, but even more so in older generations. Fully 71 percent of Silent Generation Republicans and 72 percent of Republican baby boomers would like to see the U.S. officially declared a Christian nation, compared to 33 percent of Silent Generation Democrats and 20 percent of Democratic baby boomers. Among the youngest generations, we see that 51 percent of Millennial Republicans and 51 percent of Generation Z Republicans want the U.S. to be declared a Christian nation, compared to 10 percent of Millennial Democrats and 7 percent of Generation Z Democrats.

Along with age, race can also play a factor when it comes to sympathizing with Christian nationalism.

Our polling found that white grievance is highly correlated with support for a Christian nation. White respondents who say that members of their race have faced more discrimination than others are most likely to embrace a Christian America. Roughly 59 percent of all Americans who say white people have been discriminated against a lot more in the past five years favor declaring the U.S. a Christian nation, compared to 38 percent of all Americans. White Republicans who said white people have been more discriminated against also favored a Christian nation (65 percent) by a slightly larger percentage than all Republicans (63 percent).

The rising threat to American democracy was made quite clear during the Jan. 6 insurrection, which featured, not incidentally, significant Christian nationalist imagery. Indeed, as our polling shows, a non-trivial number of Americans want to see the U.S. become a Christian nation— even if they acknowledge that the Constitution prohibits such a designation. Prominent Republican politicians have seized on this sentiment and are openly campaigning on a message of Christian nationalism.

Our poll results demonstrate why this message may be resonating, at least among the most ardent, religious and older base of the Republican Party. However, this strategy may be short-sighted. As our findings demonstrate, there is strong opposition to declaring the U.S. a Christian nation among younger Americans, and even younger Republicans. For that reason, the GOP may want to tread carefully or risk alienating rising generations.

'Can’t work at a desk': What it's like to be out of work with Long COVID

Adriana Belmonte
·Senior Editor
Mon, September 19, 2022

Two-and-a-half years into the pandemic, millions of Americans are still suffering from long-term effects of COVID-19, otherwise known as Long COVID. The health impacts are clear. What's not clear is the impact on the economy and the workplace.

“I’m desperate to get back to work, but I still can’t work at a desk or talk for more than 20-30 minutes without needing to rest for hours at a time,” Charlie McCone, a 32-year-old based out of San Francisco, told Yahoo Finance. “I feel like people read things like that from Long COVID patients and think it’s an exaggeration, but I wish it were."

That collective suffering — symptoms include fatigue, "brain fog," heart palpitations, and autoimmune conditions — is affecting the economy: As many as 4 million individuals with Long COVID may be out of the workforce because of their symptoms, according to a new Brookings Institution report, suggesting that more than 2% of the U.S. labor force could be sidelined by Long Covid.

According to the Brookings report, “using the average U.S. wage of $1,106 per week, the estimated 3 million people out of work due to Long COVID translates to $168 billion a year in lost earnings. This is nearly 1% of the total U.S. gross domestic product. If the true number of people out of work is closer to 4 million, that is a $230 billion cost.”


Dr. Svetlana Blitshteyn, director of the Dysautonomia Clinic in Buffalo, New York, and a clinical associate professor of neurology at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine, has seen the workplace impact first-hand. She's been studying Long COVID patients since 2020.

“My first patient was a medical resident who couldn’t return to his hospital duties after COVID-19,” Blitshteyn told Yahoo Finance. “He told me that several of his co-workers, including a cardiologist attending, were experiencing the same symptoms."

By December 2020, Blitshteyn’s research led her to publish a case series of 20 patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a condition that affects blood flow in the body, and other autonomic disorders post-COVID. Among those patients, an astounding 60% were unable to return to work. At her practice, most of her Long COVID patients have the same issue or require special accommodations like a part-time schedule or working from home in order to maintain employment.

“Obviously, by the nature of my practice, I end up seeing sicker patients, but I think Long COVID is one of the main reasons why there are shortages of workers in health care and other industries today,” she said.


Indeed, that may be partly why the August jobs report showed labor participation rate at 62.4%, below pre-pandemic levels despite more than 11.2 million open jobs as of July 29.

To better understand the impact of Long COVID, Yahoo Finance spoke with several individuals out of the workforce as they continue struggling with their illness.
'Groundhog Day for the worst hangover you’ve had'

Charlie McCone first developed symptoms in March 2020, when he went to bed one night with chest pain and woke up the next day with a fever, fatigue, and shortness of breath.

“I was laid out for the next two weeks,” McCone said. “I went back to [remote] work on week three because I felt I had been out so long — I had never been out sick for more than 1-2 days. By week four, I thought I was shaking off the last of it so I went on a bike ride and when I got back, the symptoms came rushing back and I was laid out again for the next week. That was my first relapse.”

It’s been two-and-a-half years since McCone first got sick, and he is still battling shortness of breath. “Before I was sick, I was 30 years old with no prior health issues,” McCone said, adding that he would bike 10 miles a day and was also an active tennis player. “I’m now 32, and I’ve spent my entire 30s disabled and housebound with Long COVID.”

McCone initially worked through the illness remotely at his marketing and communications job for the first 18 months until he “essentially collapsed.” For the past year, he’s been on disability as he tries to navigate his next steps.

Tiffany Patino, who has struggled with Long COVID symptoms for a year, rests in bed with most of the lights off at her home in Rockville, MD on December 2, 2021. 

(Photo by Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

But the physical issues aren't the only problem for folks like McCone, experts contend. Studies show that those battling with Long COVID are at increased risk of developing mental health issues. A British study published in BMJ found that COVID survivors are nearly twice as likely to report suicidal ideation than those who haven’t had the virus. An April 2022 BMC Psychiatry study of those with Long COVID in both Japan and Sweden found that they were also twice as likely to report depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder.

“I really miss the simple things — going to the park, being able to breathe normally, chatting with friends, listening to music, having coffee,” McCone added. “Give me that back, and I would honestly be OK living my life half of what it used to be.”

As of July 2021, Long COVID is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). McCone has exhausted his short-term disability and isn’t yet prepared to go back to work, which has caused him “major stress.”

“Long-term disability is not set up to deal with cases like ours,” he said. “A social worker just told me ‘don’t even bother applying.’ Right now, I’m just praying I get better before I go broke. This is the only option I’m really left with at this point: ‘Thoughts and prayers.’”

Photos of Sherene Magana Cruz before she got COVID, while in a coma in the hospital with COVID, and portraits of her taken dealing with Long COVID at her home in Australia on August 18, 2022. 

(Photo by Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

'The fatigue was so intense'

Pamela Bishop is another Long COVID patient who had to leave the workforce due to her ongoing symptoms. Prior to developing COVID, she was a research professor and research institute director at the National Institute for STEAM Evaluation and Research at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

For her, it all began in December 2020 when she noticed one morning that she had lost her taste. Soon, her symptoms intensified and she experienced pain in her legs, derealization, hallucinations, heart palpitations, anxiety, shortness of breath, and chest pain.

“I thought I would die every day for three weeks,” Bishop said. By Christmas, she began feeling better and returned to remote work in January. But, the symptoms returned. “The fatigue was so intense I would have to lie down between Zoom meetings,” Bishop said. “My work day stretched out 12-14 hours because I was resting so much between tasks.”

A patient suffering from Long COVID is examined in the post-coronavirus disease (COVID-19) clinic of Ichilov Hospital in Tel Aviv, Israel, February 21, 2022.

 Picture taken February 21, 2022. REUTERS/Amir Cohen

She was eventually forced to go on leave, applying for the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The FMLA allows eligible individuals to take unpaid but job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of their group health insurance coverage.

Fortunately, Bishop’s university had a sick leave bank that she had bought into years prior. When it became clear she wasn’t getting better, she applied to use it when her FMLA time ran out and was approved for 90 days. She was granted it three times, the maximum amount, and her colleagues also donated some of their leave to her until she realized she wasn’t improving and decided to resign from her role.

“I would love nothing more than to return to work as my career was a huge part of my identity,” Bishop said. “I spent decades getting my education, obtaining my PhD, and then building my career in academia. My career was really taking off at the time I became ill. Unfortunately, there’s no end in sight to this illness currently, and I have no idea if I will ever be able to return to the workforce.”

What lies ahead

Katie Bach, nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of the Brookings report, said that there are three key ways to try to help these individuals and possibly even get them back in the workforce.

"Number one has to be treatment," Bach told Yahoo Finance, adding: "We need to know what treatments work, which means more investment in research funding."

The second is paid sick leave, a luxury not afforded to every American. When some individuals don't have access to paid leave, they often come to work sick rather than risk losing pay by staying home.

The third bucket: employer accommodation and understanding that Long COVID looks different in everyone.

"This administration's been very good at saying that Long COVID can be a disability that is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act," she said. "I think we need more patience, and ... I believe we need to get guidance to employers on how to accommodate people."

—

Adriana Belmonte is a reporter and editor covering politics and health care policy for Yahoo Finance. You can follow her on Twitter @adrianambells and reach her at adriana@yahoofinance.com.

Antifa on trial: How one criminal case could redefine the murky left-wing movement


Will Carless, USA TODAY
Wed, September 21, 2022 

LONG READ

A pedestrian jogs past counter-protesters, some carrying Antifa flags, as they wait to confront a "Patriot March" demonstration in support of Donald Trump near the Crystal Pier on Jan. 9, 2021 in the Pacific Beach neighborhood of San Diego, California.

On Jan. 9, 2021, three days after the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, a mob of white supremacists, Proud Boys and other supporters of President Donald Trump descended on the neighborhood of Pacific Beach in San Diego.

Wearing body armor and carrying wooden sticks and flagpoles, the group marched through town holding up Nazi salutes, snarling at locals in the beachfront bars, and shouting the same chant that had been used on the streets of the capital days before: “F--- Antifa!”

Waiting to meet the mob was a horde of black-clad self-proclaimed anti-fascists or Antifa, who had organized to “protect” Pacific Beach from these outside provocateurs. As the two groups clashed, despite the efforts of dozens of police officers, brawls broke out. Supporters on both sides plus bystanders of all stripes had their phones up, ready to record the action on video.

Anti-fascists, dressed head-to-toe in black, pepper sprayed Trump supporters in the face, gleefully shouting “Proud Boy killa!” Another group of counterprotesters confronted and attacked a Trump supporter who then drew a knife on them. In an alleyway, away from the main crowd, a group of assorted right-wing extremists surrounded a young man in a George Floyd T-shirt, sucker-punching him and smashing his nose.

In the months that followed, video was reviewed, warrants were issued and homes were searched. And almost a year later, a criminal case emerged, one that now stands to have an impact far beyond San Diego. Experts say it could be a landmark prosecution that changes how American law enforcement tackles the much-misunderstood movement known as Antifa.

San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan announced a raft of felony charges for the activities on Jan. 9, after an investigation of “multiple allegations of violent criminal conduct,” “video evidence analysis” and searches and arrests across two counties.

And every person charged was from the Antifa side. No Trump supporter had been charged, or even arrested.

Since then, prosecutors have added charges against more people identified by prosecutors as Antifa, for a total of 11 defendants.

Stephan’s office claims the Antifa side was “overwhelmingly” responsible for the violence. But experts familiar with the case say it was an extraordinary decision to not charge anyone in the far-right group that actually targeted the community, especially given the videos that exist showing them engaging in violence. The question is less about whether the Antifa charges are warranted and more about whether this is a case of selective prosecution, they said.

Counter-protesters, some carrying ANTIFA flags, stand beneath palm trees on the beach awaiting to confront demonstrators for a "Patriot March" demonstration in support of US President Donald Trump on Jan. 9, 2021, in the Pacific Beach neighborhood of San Diego, California.

Only prosecuting one side of a melee raises serious questions about Stephan’s political motives, said Patrick Cotter, a former Chicago federal prosecutor who has practiced criminal law for 40 years.

“When you've got a situation where there's two organized groups who both decided to fight each other, and only one side gets charged and the other side gets to walk, it's idiotic,” Cotter said. “It's an insult to the public's intelligence to suggest that that's a legitimate prosecution. It's not. It's selective prosecution.”

A USA TODAY investigation revealed the victims in the DA's case include people identified by activists as white supremacist agitators notorious for spurring fights in neighborhoods where they're not welcome. At least one has a criminal record and has long been involved with neo-Nazi groups.

The victims also include other Trump supporters, some of whom remain unidentified by the district attorney. Local anti-fascist activists say they have identified several other white supremacists who were present at the rally.

But the first-of-its kind Antifa prosecution could also have implications far beyond the parties to the case.

Influential far-right commentators and conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson and conservative politicians all the way up to former President Donald Trump have long claimed Antifa is not just a disparate social movement but an organized, shadowy army hell-bent on destroying America.

That’s a caricature of Antifa that Stephan herself has previously embraced. She sparked controversy during her election campaign in 2018 when she paid for a website strewn with images of black-clad protesters that shared far-right antisemitic extremist conspiracy theories about billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

If the case against the San Diego 11 succeeds, it could open the doors to conservative prosecutors around the country to target a progressive social movement that has been ill-defined and misunderstood for years, experts said.

“It could be used as ammunition by people who are opposed to Antifa, or what they think of as Antifa,” said Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. “And it might also inspire other conservative prosecutors in different places to try similar prosecutions, thinking ‘We might be able to replicate that success.’”

More: Extremist Boogaloo Bois back on Facebook since Mar-a-Lago raid as anger toward feds mounts
'Making a presence and inciting some kind of retaliation'

When San Diego Deputy District Attorney William Hopkins set the scene for the 19 grand jurors gathered to hear the Antifa case in a downtown San Diego court building in May, he described the planned Pacific Beach event as “A conservative demonstration. A flag waving. A patriot march,” according to court records.

People bicycle past counter-protesters, some holding Antifa flags, awaiting demonstrators for a "Patriot March" demonstration in support of US President Donald Trump on Jan. 9, 2021 in the Pacific Beach neighborhood of San Diego, California.

But Mike Brown, who has lived in the Pacific Beach area for 30 years, said he didn’t see much patriotism on display on Jan. 9, 2021.

A history teacher and surfer, Brown said he was riding his bike in Pacific Beach when he was shocked to see the crowds of far-right and far-left protesters in the largely peaceful neighborhood. The pro-Trump group were not your average political crowd, Brown said.

“These guys weren't just Trump supporters, a lot of them were Proud Boys – you know, wearing the black and the yellow,” Brown said. Those outfits can be seen in some of the videos. “I don't know where they were from, but what pissed me off about it all was that they came into our community and disrupted business, took over the streets, created a lot of tension for a whole afternoon and it wasn't even a local grassroots movement.”

What Pacific Beach witnessed that day was a typical incursion into a mostly liberal neighborhood by far-right agitators who wanted to cause trouble, said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino.

Far-right extremists have long used the same tactics, Levin said: Arranging a hostile display of force in a neighborhood that they know is likely to oppose them, then stirring up violence from anyone who confronts them.

“The history of these paramilitary groups on the far-right is really about two things: making a presence and inciting some kind of retaliation, and then using that as an excuse to significantly escalate violence,” Levin said.

San Diego Police Department logs from the day describe the same chaos seen in the videos. The logs describe people in "Antifa gear" chasing and fighting with others wearing "Trump gear." At 4:31 p.m. the police log reads, "Protest being hijacked by Proud Boys. Very anti-police and refusing to comply."

A pepper ball (L), exits the barrel of a San Diego Police Department (SDPD) officer's Tippmann FT-12 paintball gun while firing pepper balls towards counter-protesters at a "Patriot March" demonstration, Jan. 9, 2021 in the Pacific Beach neighborhood of San Diego, California.

The indictment against the Antifa defendants lists 11 incidents in which prosecutors allege they committed crimes ranging from illegal use of pepper spray to punching, kicking and striking their opponents with a baseball bat.

Antifa activists, holding a banner reading “Antifascist Action” and chanting “racists go home” can also be seen in videos on YouTube attacking people marching on the pro-Trump side. In numerous altercations, black-clad counterprotesters chase people down the street, hit them with flagpoles and skateboards and spray pepper spray in their faces. Antifa activists also faced off against San Diego Police officers, who used less-than-lethal force against them.

But apparent assaults committed by the other side were also caught on camera.

Brown said he witnessed the attack by far-right extremists on the man and his female companion in an alley. He said a group had broken off from the main protest and assaulted the man, who was wearing a shirt with George Floyd’s image on it and the slogan “No Justice, No Peace,” on the back. The attack was unprovoked, Brown said.

“One guy comes up and just totally sucker punches him and takes him to the ground and then they move on,” he said.

Brown’s account is backed up by a video taken by Amie Zamudio, a local homeless activist, who can be heard pleading with the aggressors to leave their victims alone. Zamudio told USA TODAY she was concerned the man might be homeless because he was walking barefoot, and when she approached him, she saw the pro-Trump aggressors attack him without any provocation.

Brown and Zamudio both said they have never been contacted or interviewed by the District Attorney’s office or investigators with the San Diego Police Department. The man seen in that attack has not been publicly identified, and it's unclear if anyone has filed a police report about the incident.

In another incident, a group of black-clad activists chase three men down the street. One of the men turns and advances before them holding a knife in his right hand.

And another video shows one of the Trump supporters picking up a smoke canister and throwing it towards the anti-fascists as at least a dozen San Diego police officers look on.

Levin and others familiar with the case said given the wide array of violence from both groups, it’s hard to understand why only one side of the altercation is facing charges.

“I am not excusing, in any way, possible criminal conduct on the left,” he said. “But when we look at the array of antagonists that showed up, and their record of criminality and violence, it causes a particular question in the public's mind: What kind of fair-handed investigation was done by authorities and what evidence was reviewed?”

Cotter, the former federal prosecutor, said there’s a simple answer to those questions: politics.

“This is about votes,” he said. “It's about politics. It's about some prosecutor trying to burnish their brand, looking at voters, and saying ‘Who can I prosecute that will give me the most votes?’ and, “If I prosecuted these other guys, would that give me votes or cost me votes?”

The San Diego District Attorney’s Office did not agree to an interview with USA TODAY, but provided a statement including:

“When evidence and facts support criminal charges, we will file them, as we did in July 2020 with a white supremacy group that attacked Black Lives Matter peaceful protesters and when we charged a white supremacist with murder and a hate crimes allegation for killing an innocent Jewish woman at the Chabad of Poway synagogue in April 2019. We obtained convictions in both cases.”

More: FBI agents monitor social media. But who are they watching?
Prosecutors want victims' names hidden

In an unusual legal twist, the prosecutors of the San Diego case asked the superior court judge overseeing it to grant a protective order forbidding the defense attorneys from copying or sharing any documents that identify the alleged victims of the attacks by Antifa with anyone outside the legal team.

That means even if they’re asked, the defense attorneys can’t provide documents identifying who the alleged victims are, even to their clients.

The move, usually reserved for cases involving organized crime like the mafia or gang cases, is designed to protect witnesses and victims from being further targeted by their aggressors. In this case, the prosecutors argued, the victim’s names needed to be kept secret because they might be targeted by Antifa’s network of online sleuths, who might “doxx” them – a slang term for publishing personal information about someone on the internet, for the purpose of intimidating or encouraging others to target them.

The timing of the protective order was unusual, too.

The names of several of the victims have already been shared by Antifa-affiliated social media accounts multiple times. Indeed, in making their case to the judge that the names should be kept secret, prosecutors presented a screenshot of a local anti-fascist Twitter account sharing the names of several people USA TODAY confirmed are among the victims attacked by Antifa. That screenshot remains in publicly available court records.

A USA TODAY investigation found that people named in that tweet have histories of associating with white supremacist organizations and local racist groups in the San Diego area. They include two people from San Diego who have been identified by activists marching in several pro-Trump rallies wearing shirts emblazoned with the logo of American Guard, which the ADL describes as “Hard core white supremacists” and which grew out of two other racist organizations.

Almost all of the victims referred to in court documents only by their initials have long been well-known to local anti-fascists. Indeed, that’s why they were targeted with violence in the first place, three local anti-fascist sources told USA TODAY.

USA TODAY confirmed the names publicly announced by the Antifa Twitter account @SDAgainstFash with one of the defense attorneys on the case.
Antifa both 'a real thing' and a boogeyman

Perhaps more than any other extremist group in America, Antifa has been hard for academics and experts to pin down.

Unlike the Ku Klux Klan, which has a defined leadership structure, or the Proud Boys, which has a clear membership process, Antifa typically eschews any sort of organizational architecture. There’s no central leadership, no set membership process, and no real prerequisites for being an anti-fascist other than simply acting like one.

Plus, anti-fascist activists constantly engage in a semantic dance, employing the rejoinder “If you’re not anti-fascist, then you’re a fascist,” defying easy answers about whether anyone is a member of the movement.

This vagueness has led to a concerted effort by far-right-wing commentators, conspiracy theorists and pundits to discredit Antifa whenever possible. In the absence of a clear definition of the group, Antifa is often portrayed, even on mainstream channels like Fox News, as a highly organized, malevolent force with massive numbers and a clearly defined goal: To sow chaos and disorder on America’s streets.

Anti-fascists certainly do communicate with each other, said Mark Bray, a lecturer in history at Rutgers University and author of "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook." Anti-fascists in certain regions occasionally hold meetings, but the movement is still far from the regulated force that has been depicted.

“As it's become something more well known, it's become a real thing, but it's also become a boogeyman,” Bray said. "A very common phrase in right-wing circles is ‘BLM-slash-Antifa, which is, I think, essentially, their way of saying violent black leftists and violent white leftists.”

Stephan’s 2018 campaign website appeared to endorse this perception of Antifa. The website, which disappeared after negative media attention, claimed that left-wing philanthropist George Soros funded “anti-law enforcement candidates over experienced prosecutors, trying to tip the balance to the criminals.”

In 2020, Stephan again made headlines after her office charged Black Lives Matter activist Denzel Draughn with eight felonies after Draughn pepper-sprayed SDPD officers he said were attacking a fellow protester. Draughn was acquitted of all the charges at trial.

Dawn Perlmutter, the main expert witness who will testify about Antifa for prosecutors, also has a history of writing for right-wing websites. Perlmutter is an academic who teaches police departments about symbology and extremist movements, but she is also an adjunct professor of osteopathic medicine.

In one article, she described the Black Lives Matter racial justice movement as an “anti-police hate fest.” She decried pro-BLM protestors as “self-loathing affluent white middle-aged women attempting to show how woke they are.” Perlmutter acknowledged to USA TODAY that she wrote the stories.

The San Diego prosecution aims to prove that the black-clad people who committed violence on Jan. 9, 2021, in Pacific Beach weren’t just fired up by a common philosophy or hatred of Trump, or animosity towards authority. By charging the defendants with conspiracy, the prosecutors want to make the case that they acted more like a gang, with a unified goal, common symbols and shared tactics.

From a strictly legal perspective, that could have a significant impact on the defendants who are charged with conspiracy, because the charge could effectively double their sentences for other crimes.

People eating a meal at the beach take pictures as counter-protesters, some carrying Antifa flags, march in opposition to demonstrators holding a "Patriot March" in support of President Donald Trump on January 9, 2021 in the Pacific Beach neighborhood of San Diego, California.

But cases like this aren’t just about the individual outcomes for the San Diego 11, said Cotter, the former federal prosecutor. In a country supercharged by political division, animosity and violence, prosecutions like this are often as much about sending a message out into the world as they are about bringing justice to people who may well have committed crimes, he said.

“If a prosecutor anywhere is successful prosecuting any kind of unusual new kind of case, other prosecutors pay attention,” Cotter said.

He compared the Antifa case to the widespread prosecution of American labor organizers in the early 20th Century. Until unionization was protected by Congress, the movement was a soft target for conservative lawmakers obsessed with targeting progressive causes, Cotter said.

”Prosecutors are politicians looking for ways to build their brand,” he said. “If it’s politically to their advantage to be seen prosecuting these kinds of cases, whether it's Antifa or Hells Angels, or Mexican drug cartels, then other prosecutors pay attention and say, OK, well maybe there's a blueprint there.”

One of the San Diego 11 remains in custody. He and the other 10 defendants face a trial that has been continually delayed but will likely start in the spring.

The trial will be closely watched not just by anti-fascists across the country, but also by conservative pundits, politicians and prosecutors who will finally see whether their perception of Antifa as America’s dark, mysterious underbelly really stands up in court.

Anti-Trans Health Care Laws Are the Latest Republican Target




Kelsey Butler and Andre Tartar
Tue, September 20, 2022 

(Bloomberg) -- For about a week in May, Alabama had the harshest anti-transgender law in the US. Any doctor that prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy to people under the age of 18 could face felony charges, spend up to 10 years in prison and pay a $15,000 fine. Physicians scrambled to refill their patients’ prescriptions before the law kicked in; parents started contemplating plans to relocate their families out of state.

A federal judge has since issued an injunction on the medication ban. But it was a a brief preview of what conservative lawmakers are increasingly pushing for across the country. A Bloomberg News analysis found at least 40 similar bills proposed in around two-dozen Republican-controlled states that would sharply limit or outright ban gender-affirming and transition-related health care, often specifically for minors.

One draft law in Georgia would punish any doctor that prescribes puberty blockers to a minor with up to 10 years in prison; another in North Carolina would fine physicians $1,000 per occurence for doing the same. In Mississippi, a bill would limit health insurance coverage for transgender health-care services.

“We’re seeing a tsunami of these laws,” said Michael Bronski, a professor at Harvard University who researches LGBTQ history and culture.

Anti-LGBTQ legislation has been on the rise in recent years, with a raft of bills seeking to limit what bathrooms transgender people can use and what sports teams they can play on. But in the past year anti-trans health-care regulations really started to gain steam. In the 2022 state legislative year, about 60% of all proposed LGBTQ-health related bills aimed to ban or limit transgender-related health care. It’s a reversal from the past decade when pro-LGBTQ legislators were passing progressive laws like banning conversion therapy, the discredited practice of trying to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

“They’re throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks,” Bronski said.

“Part of the goal is to get rid of the care, but it’s just one of the stops along the way to getting rid of trans people,” said Chase Strangio, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union who has sued multiple states for anti-trans laws arguing they violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Strangio has had some success in convincing judges these laws don’t hold legal water, at least for now. In Arkansas, he got an injunction on a medication ban similar to the Alabama one and in Texas he got another injunction on an order from the governor directing state agencies to investigate parents or doctors who offer gender-affirming care for minors.

The judge that ultimately blocked the Alabama law said “parents—not the states or federal courts—play the primary role in nurturing and caring for their children.” He also said the state had not produced credible evidence that the treatments were “experimental,” and therefore dangerous, as Alabama politicians had argued. The American Academy of Pediatrics and almost two dozen other major medical associations endorse the treatments that clinics are providing for transgender youth.

Conservative groups think that both the public and health-care community will come around to their position. “We’re not there yet, but I do think we’ll reach a point in which this will be seen as an absolutely inappropriate way to intervene,” said Jay Richards, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that’s working to provide model legislation for lawmakers on the issue.

“It’s just one of the stops along the way to getting rid of trans people”

Advocates say that the extremism is part of the strategy. “Each one of these bills is a test,” said Nikita Shepard, a researcher at Columbia University, who studies gender and sexuality. “How far can it go? How far can the rhetoric go?”

They liken it to the anti-abortion crusade that ultimately led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade earlier this year. For more than a decade, state legislators passed hundreds of laws restricting or banning abortion. Many never went into effect, until a more conservative Supreme Court took one up and this year voted to dismantle federal abortion protections. Now physicians in a dozen states face felony charges if they offer any abortion services.

Doctors who see transgender patients fear that’s where their future is headed, said Kellen Baker, the executive director of the Whitman-Walker Institute, an LGBTQ health research and advocacy group. “We’re seeing a lot of confusion, a lot of fear and a lot of anxiety,” he said.

Clinics are also reporting a rise in violence and harassment. Last month, clinicians at Boston Children’s Hospital, home to the nation’s first pediatric and adolescent transgender health program, were the targets of a harassment campaign; the hospital also received a bomb threat a few weeks later.

Despite the legal hurdles they’ve so far faced, the laws aren’t expected to let up.

Promise to America’s Children, an anti-LGBTQ advocacy group, is asking lawmakers to sign a pledge supporting policies that ban “physical interventions on the bodies of children” such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy. The coalition is backed by the Heritage Foundation, the Family Policy Alliance and the Alliance Defending Freedom, conservative groups that have been instrumental in the anti-abortion fight, too. The group will be providing model legislation and education campaigns, Richards said.

“We're dealing with a fundamental disagreement: Can kids be born in the wrong bodies and so should their bodies be transformed to conform to some presumed internal state or should we be trying to help kids be comfortable in their bodies?” the Heritage Foundation’s Richards said. “There's a chasm between those two different views of reality and we think one is right and one is wrong.”

How do Americans view policies on gender? Poll shows big difference between age groups

Brooke Baitinger
Mon, September 19, 2022 

As transgender and non-binary people become more visible in public life, more state leaders are considering or enacting policies that either protect or restrict their rights.

But how Americans view such policies largely depends on their age, according to poll results released Thursday, Sept. 15, from the Pew Research Center.

Most Americans (64%) said they favor policies that would protect transgender people from discrimination they might face in housing, jobs, and public places, the poll says. Ten percent oppose them, and 25% don’t feel strongly one way or the other.

But Americans’ views are more split when it comes to other policies.

In some instances, the policies some opposed deal with public bathroom use, gender identity in school curriculum, and medical coverage for gender-affirming health care.

At least 21 states have passed some kind of restriction on transgender people, such as: blocking certain transgender student athletes from playing on sports teams that match their gender; making it illegal for health care professionals to provide someone younger than 18 with gender-affirming medical care, such as puberty-blocking medication or hormone replacement therapy; excluding coverage of gender-affirming medical care from state Medicaid; or making it illegal for public schools to teach about gender identity in class.

”At least seven states — Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas — have passed two or more of these restrictions,” the poll says.

And it isn’t limited to the southeast. Western states such as Montana have been in the news recently for debating whether transgender people must undergo surgical transitions in order to change the gender on their birth certificate.

Legislators in states on the West Coast, such as California, have considered legislation to create a refuge for families to seek and receive gender-affirming health care that could get them investigated for child abuse in other states, such as Texas.
Transgender athletes

Most Americans, regardless of age, think transgender student athletes should not be able to compete on the team that aligns with their gender, the poll found.

Fifty-eight percent “say they would favor or strongly favor policies that require transgender athletes to compete on teams that match the sex they were assigned at birth,” rather than their gender identity, the poll says.

Seventeen percent oppose or strongly oppose them, the poll found.

“At least 18 states restrict transgender student athletes’ ability to play on sports teams that match their gender identity,” the poll found.

In March 2020, Idaho was the first to pass a transgender athlete ban, with Louisiana being the most recent state to do the same in June 2022
Public bathrooms

Americans’ views are mixed when it comes to public bathroom use. Around four-in-ten favor policies that would require trans people to use public bathrooms that match the sex they were assigned at birth instead of their gender identity.

Few states have taken up the issue since North Carolina’s 2016 law was repealed in 2017, the poll found. That law banned transgender people from using the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.

But the issue has popped up in public school districts in at least three states, the poll found. Alabama, Oklahoma, and Tennessee “restrict public school students’ ability to use the bathroom matching their gender identity,” the poll states.

Transgender woman says Florida bar threw her out after using bathroom. ‘Belittling’
Gender identity in school curriculum

Americans are divided when it comes to whether transgender or non-binary identities can be taught in elementary school, the poll found.

About 41% say they would favor or strongly favor laws “that would make it illegal for public school districts to teach about gender identity in elementary schools,” such as Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law — more widely known as “Don’t Say Gay” — which took effect in July.

Thirty-eight percent oppose laws like that, the poll found.

Alabama signed a similar law in April, and “lawmakers in at least 20 states have introduced similar bills this year,” the poll states.

In the same survey, Pew asked parents of K-12 students “whether their children have learned about people who are transgender or who don’t identify as a boy or a girl from a teacher or another adult at their school.”

About 37% of parents with children in middle or high school said their children learned about transgender and/or non-binary folks in school, the poll found. “A much smaller share of parents of elementary school students (16%) say they same,” the poll states.

Overall, almost 30% of parents with kids in school say “at least one of their K-12 children” learned about transgender or gender noncomforming identities in school, the poll says.
Medical coverage and access to gender-affirming health care

Most Americans don’t believe health insurance companies should have to cover gender-affirming health care, the poll found.

About 44% oppose it, and 27% would favor requiring it, the poll says.

Policy on the topic varies widely by state. According to the poll, “at least 24 states as well as the District of Columbia” either require private health insurance companies to cover gender-affirming medical care, or they prohibit companies from excluding it. Those states also “prohibit companies from withholding insurance plans or charging different premiums because of someone’s gender identity,” the poll states.

The poll goes on to say that “at least 25 states and D.C. include medical care” for gender-affirming health care in their Medicaid programs, while “at least eight states explicitly exclude” it. In West Virginia, a federal judge overturned the state’s exclusion and ruled the state’s Medicaid program must cover gender-affirming medical care, The Hill reported last month.

When it comes to health care professionals providing gender-affirming care to anyone younger than 18, a plurality of Americans — 46% — think it should be illegal, and favor policies that would ban it, the poll found.

According to Pew, “a federal judge blocked part of the Alabama law passed in April that would have made it a felony for doctors to provide” puberty blockers and/or hormone replacement therapy for transgender minors. Arkansas passed a similar ban in 2021, “but a judge blocked that law from going into effect,” the poll states.

Lawmakers in Arizona passed a law “that bans physicians from performing irreversible gender reassignment surgeries on minors.” That law takes effect in 2023, the poll states.

Several states, including Idaho and New Hampshire, have tried to ban minors from accessing gender-affirming health care, classifying any efforts to help as child abuse. But those “attempts have failed,” according to Pew.

In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott’s attempt has been “blocked twice in court,” the poll said.

Americans are divided almost down the middle on whether they want parents to be investigated for child abuse if they help someone younger than 18 get gender-affirming health care, including puberty blockers and/or hormone replacement therapy, the poll found.

About 37% say they would somewhat favor laws that would do so. About 36% oppose them. And 27% neither favor nor oppose it, the poll found.

The Pew Research Center survey was conducted May 16-22 among 10,188 U.S. adults.

Newsom signs bill legalizing composting of human bodies. Thanks, governor

Stephanie Finucane
Mon, September 19, 2022 

I’ve never been thrilled about spending eternity in a casket and now, thanks to a bill signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday, I have another option.

It’s called human composting — or natural organic reduction (NOR).

Here’s how it works: At funeral homes, bodies are placed inside closed, reusable containers along with organic materials like straw, wood chips and plant material and then stored at a high temperature. It takes between 30 and 60 days for the body to decompose and another couple of weeks for the remains to aerate. Bones and teeth are broken down by “mechanical means” using the same device crematoriums use to grind bones.

The process generates 1 cubic yard of nutrient-rich soil, according to Recompose, a NOR company based in Seattle.

The soil is then returned to the deceased person’s family, or the funeral home arranges for it to be placed in a serene setting like a forest or a park.

Not everyone is a fan. When I broached the subject with my immediate family, they were less than enthusiastic about the prospect of dealing with my composted remains.

Too bad. My body, my choice, and I definitely do not choose a traditional burial.

Maybe it’s on account of that macabre song I learned as a child. Its official name is “The Hearse Song,” but it’s better known as “The Worms Crawl In.”

Here is one of the more palatable lines: “It all goes well for about a week and then the coffin begins to leak.”

Then comes the chorus: “The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out, they play pinochle upon your snout.”

Cremation was the obvious alternative, composting is much better for the environment.

It requires a whole lot of energy and produces greenhouse gases; a single cremation releases between 284 and 568 pounds of carbon dioxide.

Another plus: the composted soil can be put to good use, by giving sustenance to a tree, for instance.

“I look forward to continuing my legacy to fight for clean air by using my reduced remains to plant a tree,” the bill’s sponsor, Democrat Christina Garcia of Bell Gardens, wrote in a statement.

A man stands alone amidst the headstones at Fort Snelling National Cemetery, Friday, May 24, 2013 in Minneapolis, as visitors got an early start to the Memorial Day weekend. 

(AP Photo/Jim Mone) ORG XMIT: MP101

Opposition from Catholic Church

Human composting has been legally performed in only a handful of states: Washington, Oregon, Colorado and Vermont.

The whole process is made to seem very zen. Websites for NOR facilities in other states are filled with soothing pictures of deep, rich soil, lovely foliage, bits of bark and photogenic stones.

The language, too, is comforting.

There are references to “transformation of the body into soil,” “carbon-cycle ceremonies” and “giving back to the earth.” One company, Return Home, uses the term “Terramation” to refer to process.

There’s been little formal opposition to the practice — the one exception being the Catholic Church.

The California Catholic Conference submitted a letter of opposition to the California bill, according to a Religion News Service article.

The letter compared the process to the disposal of livestock and said it “reduces the human body to simply a disposable commodity.”

In New York State, which also may legalize the process, the Catholic Conference called the process “more appropriate for vegetable trimmings and eggshells than for human bodies.”

The bottom line

Recompose, the Seattle-based company, is expected to expand into California, but the service won’t be available any time soon. The state’s Cemetery and Funeral Bureau isn’t required to issue licenses to NOR facilities until 2027. That allows enough time to allow for appropriate rules and regulations to be written for the new industry.

In the meantime, bodies can be transported to out-of-state NOR facilities, although that adds to the cost.

As for the NOR process itself, costs listed on company websites range from $5,000 to $7,000, not including extras like funeral services, flowers and obituaries.

That’s at least a few thousand dollars more than cremation, which generally averages between $1,000 and $3,000.

Still, I think I’ll hold off on pre-paying for cremation — something I’ve been meaning to do but have never quite gotten around to.

I like the idea of winding up inside a planter full of geraniums or maybe at the base of a fruit tree — even if it means keeping company with worms.

This column has been updated.