At the Science20 Dialogue Forum held today at the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, a statement on improving global health was handed to German Chancellor Angela Merkel by representatives of the G20 science academies.

A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine identifies global health priorities in light of current and emerging challenges and makes 14 recommendations for the U.S. government and other stakeholders to address these challenges, while maintaining U.S. status as a world leader in global health.

A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine outlines how to examine whether specific levels of nutrients or other food substances (NOFSs) can ameliorate the risk of chronic disease and recommends ways to develop dietary reference intakes (DRI) based on chronic disease outcomes.

NASA’s large strategic missions like the Hubble Space Telescope, the Curiosity rover on Mars, and the Terra Earth observation satellite are essential to maintaining the United States’ global leadership in space exploration and should continue to be a primary component of a balanced space science program that includes large, medium, and smaller missions, says a new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

We are concerned deeply by a report that staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were instructed not to use certain words in budget documents. As leaders of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, we are especially stunned that “evidence-based” and “science-based” are reportedly among the barred terms.

NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) should implement a coordinated approach for their space-based environmental observations to further advance Earth science and applications for the next decade, says a new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

A new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine proposes a framework for evaluating proposals to provide authorized government agencies with access to unencrypted versions of encrypted communications and other data.

The National Academy of Medicine (NAM) along with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) have named the 2018-2019 class of FDA Tobacco Regulatory Science Fellows.

The winners of the sixth annual D.C. Public Health Case Challenge were announced at this year’s National Academy of Medicine (NAM) Annual Meeting.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) announces the appointment of May R. Berenbaum as Editor-in-Chief of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the official journal of the Academy. Berenbaum will begin the editorship on January 1, 2019.

Medications to Treat Opioid Addiction Are Effective and Save Lives, But Barriers Prevent Broad Access and Use, Says New Report

Urban flooding is a complex and distinct kind of flooding, compounded by land use and high population density, and it requires a different approach to assess and manage, says Framing the Challenge of Urban Flooding in the United States, a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and U.S. National Academy of Medicine joined the science academies of South Africa, Brazil, and Germany today in issuing a statement calling for urgent worldwide action to reduce air pollution.

International thought leaders will join the next generation of engineers in London from Sept. 16 to 18 for the Global Grand Challenges Summit 2019. The summit aims to help inspire and equip future engineering leaders to address the rapidly evolving challenges of an unpredictable world.

The winners of the seventh annual D.C. Public Health Case Challenge were announced at this year’s National Academy of Medicine (NAM) Annual Meeting. The challenge aims to promote interdisciplinary, problem-based learning around a public health issue of importance to the Washington, D.C., community.

Medicine regulatory authorities — including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — should strengthen cooperation with other countries’ regulators to ensure the quality, safety, and efficacy of medicines, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

For severe acute pain due to surgeries and medical conditions, there is a lack of guidance on the appropriate type, strength, and amount of opioid medication that clinicians should prescribe to patients, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommends ways to make supply chains -- the systems that provide populations with critical goods and services, such as food and water, gasoline, and pharmaceuticals and medical supplies – more resilient in the face of hurricanes and other disasters, drawing upon lessons learned from the 2017 hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.

The goal of achieving universal health coverage by 2030 — one of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals — necessitates that countries strengthen their food and drug regulatory systems as a whole, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The opioid epidemic in the U.S. is driving a simultaneous epidemic of infectious diseases — including HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV) and bacterial infections, and sexually transmitted infections — but workforce shortages, stigma, and financial and policy barriers are preventing the integration of opioid use disorder (OUD) and infectious disease services, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Although less invasive and more evidence-based approaches are available for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) – a set of 30 disorders that cause pain or malfunction in the jaw joint and muscles of the jaw – some dentists continue to rely on aggressive or costly procedures as a first-line treatment, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

From N-95 masks that are protecting health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic to food packaging found in every aisle of the grocery store, plastics play an essential role in our lives.

Ron Struthers of Struthers' Resource Stock Report details the value proposition of Bam Bam Resources and its flagship prospect.

Visit the aureport.com for more information and for a free newsletter

A woman passes a closed Social Security Administration office in Los Angeles in 2013. Some 53,000 of the agency's workers are now working from home.; Credit: Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

The coronavirus pandemic has forced many people to work from home, and that includes employees of the federal government. The numbers vary by agency, but at the Social Security Administration, some 53,000 workers are doing so.

Social Security field offices are closed. But the shutdown hasn't stopped the agency from processing claims for new benefits and appeals of benefit denials. And according to statistics that the SSA sent its workers, the agency has been doing so at a faster pace than before.

"Telework is proving a great boon to the service Social Security provides to the American people," says Ralph deJuliis, who works at the SSA's office in Tulsa, Okla. "We are getting the checks to people faster and quicker."

DeJuliis is president of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 220, which represents many Social Security workers. And he says he hopes the SSA will continue allowing employees to work from home.

Telework, he says, is "good for the employees, good for the public. We've got the work done. We kept the public out of harm's way because, let's face it, we deal with mostly people who are old or disabled. They are at the highest risk."

According to deJuliis, the SSA has found that its backlog of pending cases has fallen by 11% since March 23, when the agency instituted wide-scale telework, and that calls from recipients are answered more quickly.

Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says it's not surprising that productivity is up.

"Actually, there are studies that have been done, including studies in government agencies — small-scale studies, to be sure — but they have shown that productivity does rise when people get to work from home," she says.

Jeff Neal, a former head of human resources at the Department of Homeland Security, says it's not surprising that people become more productive when they work from home.

"The really good workers might be sitting there at their home desk, wherever that is," he says. "And they're supposed to stop at 5 o'clock, and they look at their watch or their computer and they realize it's 7 o'clock and they've still been working, because they get into things and they start getting stuff done and they just keep on going."

It's unclear how many federal workers across the government are teleworking. According to the most recent statistics, from two years ago, 42% of the some 2.1 million government employees were eligible to telework, although only about half of those were in fact working from home.

The Trump administration had been hostile to teleworking, Neal says, because in its view it sees it as a benefit to federal workers. But Neal says it's also a benefit to taxpayers.

"If people view it as what it really is, which is something that is in the interest of the federal government to have, then they would continue it because it helps them hire. It helps them retain people," he says. "And most importantly, it helps them remain operational during a national emergency. So it's a very good thing."

And Sawhill at Brookings says she expects teleworking will continue to increase both in government and the private sector after the coronavirus crisis ends.

"This experience has showed us that we can get work done at home and that we can meet people's needs, the public's needs, by doing so," she says. "That doesn't mean there aren't lots of downsides. But overall, I think this is a trend that is going to accelerate sharply as a result of this recent experience."

The federal government has not given any guidance as to when it expects all federal workers to return to their offices.

The SSA issued a statement saying it continues to monitor the COVID-19 situation across the nation, promising that when it does reopen offices, it will provide a safe environment for the people it serves and its employees.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, seen in February, has been released from the hospital after treatment for a gallbladder condition.; Credit: Patrick Semansky/AP

After being treated on Tuesday for a gallbladder infection at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was discharged on Wednesday.

"She is doing well and glad to be home," according to a Supreme Court press release.

The court said over the next few weeks Ginsburg will return to Johns Hopkins Hospital for follow-up outpatient visits, and for a nonsurgical procedure to remove the gallstone.

Ginsburg, 87, participated in a virtual Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday from her hospital room. The justices and lawyers held unique oral argument sessions by phone all week because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Last year Ginsburg underwent three weeks of radiation for a cancerous tumor on her pancreas, and in December she was operated on for lung cancer.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Symend, a Canada-based digital engagement platform, has raised USD 52 million to identify customers having trouble with their bills to keep them from defaulting.

I know these Presidential debates aren’t debates in the historical sense.  Regardless, I’m looking forward to seeing how both men do on a topic of immense complexity.  Is Mitt Romney going to be more forthcoming about what tax deductions he’d want cut to keep his tax reform plan from ballooning the deficit?  Will President Obama  give more detail about how he would improve the economy, short of a government stimulus that could never get through a GOP Congress?

I’ll be live tweeting during the debate.  Join me @AirTalk #debates.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

I thoroughly enjoyed the VP debate and its fast paced back-and-forth.  Democrats had to love Joe Biden's energy and willingness to challenge Paul Ryan on almost every point.  Republicans had to love Ryan's poise and discipline in how he handled himself, even as Biden was dismissing him throughout the 90-minutes.

Both of our "AirTalk" political strategists, Democrat Darry Sragow and Republican Jonathan Wilcox, agreed that Biden's performance fired up the Democratic base and provided tremendous relief after the President's flat performance the week before.  However, they also agreed that it wasn't likely to have much effect on the small number of undecided voters still out there.

The passionate performances of the VP candidates certainly sets a higher bar for the next Presidential candidates debate.  Will Obama and Romney up their games on Tuesday?  I suspect most of us will be tuning in to see.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

I’ll be live tweeting @AirTalk tonight during the debate.  Of greatest interest to me about President Obama is whether he’ll be able to crisply make his arguments and maintain a high level of energy for the full 90-minutes.  With Mitt Romney I’ll be looking to see whether he can loosen up in the town hall format and make a good connection with the questioners.

What was most striking for me about the first debate was how strongly Romney played with women.  That had been a huge problem for him throughout the campaign.  In fact, a couple of months ago I joked about the “ten single women in the country who were voting for Romney.”  He found a way to connect with women two weeks ago and he’ll attempt to build on that tonight.  The President, obviously, hopes to reverse his loss.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

In the second of the three Presidential debates, President Obama displayed the passion he lacked the first time around.  He also made his arguments more concisely, and didn't shy away from direct engagement with Mitt Romney.  Snap polls after the debate show most viewers and listeners though Obama won the debate, though the percentages weren't nearly as overwhelming as Romney's advantage last time out.

Will the President's apparent victory show up in the polls as dramatically as Romney's previous win?  What will the stakes be like for next Monday's final, tie-breaking, matchup?

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

US President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney debate on October 16, 2012 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. Undecided voters asked questions during a town hall format.; Credit: STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images

There continue to be questions about how moderators approach Presidential debates and about whether the extra time President Obama has received in the first two debates indicates moderator bias in his favor. 

I had chalked up the concerns to Republican hyper-partisanship, such as we saw with many Democrats criticizing Jim Lehrer for his moderating — as though Obama would’ve won the first debate if only Lehrer had asserted himself more.   However, even CNN has been doing significant follow-up on its own Candy Crowley’s performance in debate number two. 

Maybe it’s not just hardcore GOP loyalists who are questioning Crowley’s decision-making on when to cut in and when to allow the candidates to take more time. I thought she did pretty well, but there are plenty of critics.

As someone who has moderated hundreds of debates, I thought I’d share my thoughts on what we’ve seen so far in this election. Though I’ve never moderated a Presidential debate, with its incredible level of attention, concern about rules, and demands by campaigns, there are certain fundamentals regardless of the office or issue at stake.

Time Doesn't Matter...Too Much
First, as strange as this may sound, the time taken by each candidate has little to do with who has an advantage.   Yes, it’s always possible for a candidate to use another minute to fire off the defining line of the night. However, the well-practiced zingers or essential policy explainers are not left to the end of a candidate’s statement, as the clock is running out. 

I’m sure Mitt Romney wasn’t thinking after the last debate, “If only I would’ve had that extra 90-seconds, and Obama hadn’t gotten 90 more than he deserved.”  Both men front-loaded their major talking points and were going to get them in. Neither man could legitimately say he didn’t have a chance to make his strongest points. At some point, a time advantage could make a difference in who wins or loses, but an extra 90-seconds in a debate longer than 90-minutes isn’t going to do it.

Serving The Audience
As a moderator, you also have to think about what best serves your audience. I never guarantee candidates equal time, as it’s my job to serve the listeners, not their campaigns. I strive to get close to equal time, but can’t make any guarantee. Some speakers get to the point succinctly and have their points well put together. Others are messier in their arguments and eat up time just building up any head of steam. 

If the moderator holds to a strict time limit, you run the risk of frustrating listeners by cutting off the rambler just as the candidate is getting to the point. There are methods a moderator can use to help guide the speaker toward being more succinct, but there’s no guarantee the person will be able to comply.

Isn’t this inherently unfair to the succinct speaker? No. The purpose of the debate is to allow the ideas to compete.  It’s not a boxing match that’s about landing punches in a given time. The succinct debater has a big advantage, regardless of how much time the candidate has. That’s why Mitt Romney’s victory in the first debate was so lopsided — he won on the conciseness and clarity of his answers, coupled with Obama’s inability to get to his central points.  Obviously, there are those who thought Obama’s arguments were still more compelling than Romney’s, and that Romney lacked essential details.  However, for most viewers of the first debate, it was stylistically no contest.

Equal Time Is Not A Guarantee
When candidates are allowed to talk to each other directly, it’s very difficult to assure equal time. Even CNN’s clock that registers elapsed time for each candidate is subject to squishiness. Unless a debate is extremely formal, with carefully controlled time limits and a ban on candidates following-up with each other, you’re only going to have an approximation of time balance. I thought Crowley did pretty well to land the second debate with the balance she did. I’m not sure I could get it that close for a debate of that length. She had the added challenge of trying to determine when to cut in on President Obama’s lengthier answers. Also, Romney’s speaking rhythm allows more space for interruption. It’s tougher to break in on Obama.

Moderating Is A Balancing Act
Moderators are always trying to balance a need to move on to the next topic with allowing a candidate to answer an opponent’s charge. Sometimes, you open that door for a candidate, only to regret it later when the politician starts into a monologue, instead of confining the response to the previous challenge. Sometimes moderators, having gotten burned, will become less tolerant of such expansive rebuttals, as the debate goes on. Moderators are always juggling competing goals, and it’s a difficult job (at least for me).

Unfortunately, there are those who think debate moderators attempt to influence the outcome of the debate and the performances of the candidates. Maybe I’m naïve, but I can’t imagine any journalist who’s worked hard enough to get to the position of Presidential debate moderator subordinating his or her career in an effort to getting someone elected. Mainstream political journalism is like national sports reporting. You really don’t care who wins the Super Bowl, you want great story lines to explore with your audience. Yes, sports reporters have affinities for the hometown teams of their youth, but that can’t compete with the professional goal of covering great stories. 

Yes, most journalists in mainstream media probably have a stronger cultural and political affinity for Obama, as he’s more like them. However, it doesn’t mean a journalist is going to sacrifice the better story to intentionally provide a benefit to the President.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

When "Offramp" host John Rabe's father, Bill, created the list at Lake Superior State University in Michigan he likely didn't know it would thrive nearly 40 years later.  As language evolves there should never be a shortage of words and phrases we want to "kick to the curb."

This morning on "AirTalk," I asked listeners to pick the ones they "hate on."  We got some good ones, including my overused "unpack," as in "let's unpack that idea."  Falling into word patterns can happen so subtly that we don't even know it until someone points it out.

My nomination for the list -- "it is what it is."   What are yours?

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

True story.  It may not be incredibly exciting, but it's true!

So!  I work at home, on my laptop—  Writing, editing, corresponding—  In between I pay bills, schedule appointments, shop online for household necessities—  In fact, in spring my to do list got so long I just took to bed.  Oprah-style!  I'm pretty sure she does that— I remember seeing something like it in O Magazine.  Oprah's office is less a conventional box with desks than a soft boudoir of inspiration.  With cozy couches, pashmina throws, vases of fresh cut flowers.

So in the name of what we women of a certain age call "self care"—   I would plump pillows behind me, place my laptop on a blanket in front of me, sip herbal Teavana and I would type mindfully away for hours and hours.  And one afternoon?  I see it's time to pick up my kids from school—  So I swing my legs over the edge of the bed, put my weight on them, and— 

I can't walk!  I literally can't move!  My left hip is completely stiff!  Maybe Oprah has people turn her during the day!  As for me, I could star in that commercial: "I've fallen down and I can't get up!"

I drag myself down the stairs, hanging on to the bannister like an 85 year old.  Correction!  When my now-96 year-old dad was 85, he was doing handstands on the beach and swimming in the ocean!

And I realize, I've come to the age of that dreadful saying: "Use it or lose it."

I used to engage in regular exercise, it's true.  My VISA bill—  So heavy to lift!  Suggests I even pay monthly dues to a gym.  But I don't have the vanity I once had.  Since turning fifty, I've acquired this new "menopot" on my belly.  First I was panicked.  But then I discovered "mom jeans" and even better, at Costco?   Next to a $500 above-ground family pool?  A heap of "Ladies Power Stretch Capris."  How do I look in them?  Fortunately I don't see very well in my Costco glasses. 

And anyway, I have two teen daughters at home, for three more years.  I'd started thinking: if I don't go to the gym, that's 90 minutes more in the day.  90 more minutes to not argue with them and just go buy the strawberry pineapple shampoo they're always requesting—  And Prismacolor gray chisel tip markers—  And mochi, has to be the green tea mochi—  Flabby upper arms are a small price to pay for peace in the house!

But now I can barely even get to the car and, oh no!  Can I even push the gas pedal?

Next week: Fear and Loathing at Zumba

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

I had taken to working at home, on my laptop, in bed. But, talk about first world problems!  After working in bed all day my hip went out and I could barely walk.

So I realized—  I had to return to the gym.  Where I hadn't been for a few weeks.  Or maybe a couple of months.  Where was my gym bag?  In the trunk of my car, under some. . . Christmas stuff that I was planning to return.  OK, so it had been half a year.  Closer inspection revealed there were no less than two locks in the bag, both locked forever—  Because so much time goes by between gym visits I forget the combination. 

The first thing I notice, when I return to my fancy, brightly-lit yuppie gym, blinking like nosferatu—  Is that if I'm going to show up for classes like Cardio Barre, I need better outfits.  All the other Cardio Barristas are in stylish Lulumon wear—  These sort of fabulous. . . yoga. . . leotard. . . cat lady. . . jazz pants—  From the future—  And I am basically wearing floppy board shorts.  With paint on them.  I have come dressed to clean out my garage. 

So I purchase some athletic leggings, pair those with a tank—  Now I look in the mirror and realize—?  Stylish workout clothes only accentuate the fact that my body's not like everyone else's.  My hips are bigger than my waist.  I'm pear-shaped.  All the other Cardio Barre ladies have lean tomboy bodies like swimmers.  Who are they?  How much do they train?  Is cardio barre their actual job?

I switch to Zumba, where the crowd seems more mixed—  Which is to say, now there are also men in shiny leotard jazz pants.  And listen.  I'm not invested in being good at Zumba, the international Latin dance fitness sensation.  I'm a fiftysomething Chinese-German Lutheran.  You know how they say, "The Rhythm is Going to Getcha?"  Well, it doesn't.  And when I'm bested at Zumba by an 80 year old woman in a tennis skirt speaking Cantonese?  The ego smarts.

Thank God for Cardio Broadway.  My spirits rose when I saw a line of gold top hats along the mirror.  "One!  Singular sensation!"  We began with Cabaret.  "Wilkommen!  Bienvenue!"  To little knee bends and plies.  But then our too young, too hip instructor starts going, "And this next number's from Hamilton!"  Haven't seen it!  "And this is from Kinky Boots!  Newsies!"

Now, I've got my boss futuristic outfit, but I prefer an old-fashioned jam – say, Fiddler or Sound of Music. I guess I'll have to join the Senior Center.  Where they do "Broadway" with walkers.

That's more my speed.
 

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Uber and Lyft drivers with Rideshare Drivers United and the
 Transport Workers Union of America conduct a ‘caravan protest’ outside the California Labor Commissioner’s office amidst the coronavirus pandemic on April 16, 2020 in Los Angeles, California. ; Credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images

California sued ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft on Tuesday, alleging they misclassified their drivers as independent contractors under the state’s new labor law.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco announced the lawsuit Tuesday. The labor law, known as AB5 and considered the nation’s strictest test, took effect Jan. 1 and makes it harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors instead of employees who are entitled to minimum wage and benefits such as workers compensation.

California represents Uber and Lyft’s largest source of revenue. The companies, as well as Doordash, are funding a ballot initiative campaign to exclude their drivers from the law while giving new benefits such as health care coverage. The initiative is likely to qualify for the November ballot.

We dive into the suit and California’s saga with ride hailing companies. Plus, if you’re a driver, what do you think of Becerra’s claim? Would you prefer to be treated as an employee? And if you’ve been driving for a while, has the pandemic changed your outlook on Uber and Lyft’s treatment of its drivers? Call us at 866-893-5722. 

With files from the Associated Press.

Guests:

Josh Eidelson, labor reporter for Bloomberg News; based in the Bay Area; tweets @josheidelson

Mike Feuer, City Attorney of Los Angeles

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The TLC Chinese Theatre is shown on April 11, 2020 in Hollywood, California. ; Credit: Kevin Winter/Getty Images

Last week, L.A. City Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell introduced a motion that would create a taskforce to revitalize on-location television and film production, which went down 18 percent in the first quarter of 2020, thanks to the coronavirus. 

The motion asks Film L.A., the nonprofit that oversees film and TV productions in Los Angeles, to create a taskforce of industry experts who will prepare recommendations for how filming might be resumed safely. It also asks the nonprofit to create a guideline of best practices for on-location filming, as well as protocols regarding sets and facilities. 

We sit down with the president of Film L.A. to discuss what progress has been made and how Hollywood might start up again. 

If you’re in the industry, whether in front of the camera or behind it, tell us about how the pandemic has affected your work life. Can you see a way for filming to resume while following public health best practices? Call ust at 866-893-5722.

Guests:

John Horn, host of KPCC’s “The Frame”; he’s been reporting on the reopening of Hollywood; he tweets @JGHorn

Paul Audley, president of Film L.A., the nonprofit that oversees film and TV productions in Los Angeles

Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, chief operating officer and general counsel of SAG-AFTRA, the union representing media artists; he is currently leading SAG-AFTRA’s “Safety and Reopen Initiative”

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Two security guards talk on the campus of the closed McKinley School, part of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) system, in Compton, California, just south of Los Angeles, on April 28, 2020. ; Credit: ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images

With schools still closed amid the coronavirus pandemic, and remote learning continuing for the rest of the school year, the question of when the fall semester might begin (and what it will look like) is looming large for administrators, teachers, parents and students. 

L.A. Unified Superintendent Austin Beutner says no decisions have been made about whether the fall semester — still officially scheduled to start on August 18 — will involve students returning to classrooms or continuing to work remotely. 

What has been decided, as of this week, is that online summer school will be offered to every LAUSD student for the first time ever. It's an alternative to the idea that Governor Gavin Newsom floated last Tuesday, when he said that California schools might start the 2020-21 school year, in person, as early as July, with some physical distancing and safety measures in place.

While the idea of an early start to the school year took many school districts by surprise, Newsom said it was a concern about a "learning loss" that's happened with the switch to online teaching, with some students lacking access to devices and the internet, that led him to propose the idea.

What could reopening look like when it does eventually begin to happen? Ideas include staggered school schedules and alternatives to school activities that are essentially group gatherings — like assemblies, recess, and PE. But before any in-person learning resumes, even in a modified form, Beutner and Newsom say several requirements must be met.

Guests:

Debra Duardo, Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools; she tweets @DebraDuardo

Karin Michels, epidemiologist; chair and professor of the Department of Epidemiology at UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health

Paul von Hippel, associate professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin; he tweets @PaulvonHippel

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

LAKE MEAD NRA, NV - AUGUST 12: Perseid meteors streak across the sky early August 12, 2008 near Rogers Spring in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Nevada. The meteor display, known as the Perseid shower because it appears to radiate from the constellation Perseus in the northeastern sky, is a result of Earth's orbit passing through debris from the comet Swift-Tuttle. Tuesday morning was considered the peak of the shower, which is visible every August. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images); Credit: Ethan Miller/Getty Images

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The engineered Dominguez Gap Wetlands in Long Beach filters stormwater and runoff from the Los Angeles River, then the water is siphoned under the river to a spreading ground to the west.; Credit: Sharon McNary/KPCC

Angelenos are used to looking up Heal the Bay's annual beach water quality report card each May as we search out the cleanest places to swim and surf.

Now, the environmental advocacy group is focusing on a new target — the often polluted water that flows into the ocean from the mountains and across the L.A. Basin.

In a first-ever report, it concludes the managers of 12 watersheds from Malibu to Long Beach are making too little progress toward cleaning up this major source of pollution in the Pacific.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed an executive order banning all elective medical procedures, including abortions, during the coronavirus outbreak. The ban extends to medication abortions.; Credit: Eric Gay/AP

Governors across the country are banning elective surgery as a means of halting the spread of the coronavirus. But in a handful of states that ban is being extended to include a ban on all abortions.

So far the courts have intervened to keep most clinics open. The outlier is Texas, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit this week upheld the governor's abortion ban.

Four years ago, Texas was also the focus of a fierce legal fight that ultimately led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in which the justices struck down a Texas law purportedly aimed at protecting women's health. The court ruled the law was medically unnecessary and unconstitutional.

Now Texas is once again the epicenter of the legal fight around abortion. In other states--Ohio, Iowa, Alabama, and Oklahoma--the courts so far have sided with abortion providers and their patients.

Not so in Texas where Gov. Greg Abbott signed an executive order barring all "non-essential" medical procedures in the state, including abortion. The executive order was temporarily blocked in the district court, but the Fifth Circuit subsequently upheld the governor's order by a 2-to-1 vote, declaring that "all public constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency."

"No more elective medical procedures can be done in the state because of the potential of needing both people ... beds and supplies, and obviously doctors and nurses," said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in an interview with NPR.

'Exploiting This Crisis'

Nancy Northrup, CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, sees things very differently. "It is very clear that anti-abortion rights politicians are shamelessly exploiting this crisis to achieve what has been their longstanding ideological goal to ban abortion in the U.S.," she said.

Paxton denies that, saying Texas "is not targeting any particular group."
The state's the "only goal is to protect people from dying," he said.

Yet the American Medical Association just last week filed a brief in this case in support of abortion providers, as did 18 states, led by New York, which is the state that has been the hardest hit by the coronavirus.

They maintain that banning abortion is far more dangerous,because it will force women to travel long distances to get one. A study from the Guttmacher Institute found that people seeking abortions during the COVID-19 outbreak would have to travel up to 20 times farther than normal if states successfully ban abortion care during the pandemic. The AMA also notes that pregnant women do not stop needing medical care if they don't get an abortion.

Northrup, of the Center for Reproductive Rights, sees this as more evidence that the ban is a calculated move by the state: what "puts the lie to this is the fact that they're trying to ban medication, abortion as well; that's the use of pills for abortion.

"Those do not need to take place in a clinic and they can be done, taken effectively by tele-medicine. So it shows that the real goal here, tragically, is shutting down one's right to make the decision to end the pregnancy, not a legitimate public health response."

'I Was Desperate'

Affidavits filed in the Texas case tell of harrowing experiences already happening as the result of the Texas ban. One declaration was filed by a 24-year-old college student. The week she lost her part-time job as a waitress, she found out she was pregnant. She and her partner agreed they wanted to terminate the pregnancy, and on March 20 she went to a clinic in Forth Worth alone; because of social distancing rules, her partner was not allowed to go with her.

Since she was 10 weeks pregnant, still in her first trimester, she was eligible for a medication abortion. Under state law, she had to wait 24 hours before getting the pills at the clinic, but the night before her scheduled appointment, the clinic called to cancel because of Abbott's executive order.

He partner was with her and we "cried together," she wrote in her declaration. "I couldn't risk the possibility that I would run out of time to have an abortion while the outbreak continued," and it "seemed to be getting more and more difficult to travel."

She made many calls to clinics in New Mexico and Oklahoma. The quickest option was Denver--a 12-hour drive, 780-mile drive from where she lives. Her partner was still working, so her best friend agreed to go with her. They packed sanitizing supplies and food in the car for the long drive and arrived at the Denver Clinic on March 26, where she noticed other cars with Texas plates in the parking lot, according to the affidavit.

At the clinic, she was examined, given a sonogram again, and because Colorado does not have a 24-hour waiting requirement, she was given her first abortion pill without delay and told she should try to get home within 30 hours to take the second pill.

She and her friend then turned around to go home. They were terrified she would have the abortion in the car, and tried to drive through without taking breaks. But after six hours, when it turned dark they were so exhausted they had to stop at a motel to catch some sleep. The woman finally got home and took the second pill just within the 30-hour window.

She said that despite the ordeal she was grateful she had the money, the car, the friend, and the supportive partner with a job, to make the abortion possible. Others will not be so lucky, she wrote. But "I was desperate and desperate people take desperate steps to protect themselves."

A 'Narrative' Of Choice

Paxton, the Texas attorney general, does not seem moved by the time limitations that pregnancy imposes, or the hardships of traveling out of state to get an abortion. He told NPR "the narrative has always been 'It's a choice' ... that's the whole narrative. I'm a little surprised by the question, given that's always been the thing."

On Thursday abortion providers and their patients returned to the district court in Texas instead of appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Fifth Circuit's ruling from earlier this week. The district court judge, who originally blocked the governor's ban, instead narrowed the governor's order so that medical abortions--with pills--would be exempt from the ban, as well as abortions for women who are up against the state-imposed deadline. Abortions in Texas are banned after 22 weeks.

In the end, though, this case may well be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And because of the addition of two Trump appointees since 2016--the composition of the court is a lot more hostile to abortion rights.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling, said the federal government must pay health insurers $12 billion under a provision of the Affordable Care Act.; Credit: Patrick Semansky/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court has told the federal government that it has to pay $12 billion to insurance companies, money that was promised in the Affordable Care Act as part of the start-up costs of Obamacare in the first three years of its existence.

The law, as enacted, promised to limit profits and losses for insurance companies in the first three years of the Obamacare program. Some companies made more money than allowed by the formula, and had to pay some back to the government, and other companies lost money and were owed money by the government under the formula.

But in 2014, the first year that the ACA's plan was in place, the Republican-controlled Congress reneged on the promise to appropriate money for the companies that had lost money. It did the same for the next two years as well, adding to appropriation bills a rider that barred the government from fulfilling the promise in the statute. After President Trump was elected, his administration supported the GOP-led refusal to pay.

The insurance companies sued, and on Monday the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has to pay up.

The vote was 8-to-1, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing for the majority that the decision reflects a principle "as old as the nation itself. The government should honor its obligations."

She noted that the language of the ACA was "rare" in that it permitted lawsuits to enforce the provisions at issue here, provisions that declare the government"shall pay" the losses suffered by insurance companies that participated over the first three years.

The lone dissenter was Justice Samuel Alito, who called the decision "a massive bailout" for the insurance industry, which "took a calculated risk and lost."

Monday's decision was the third involving Obamacare at the Supreme Court. Conservative groups, and now the Trump administration, have consistently sought to invalidate or undermine the law — so far, with limited or no success. But next year, the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider once again whether the law is unconstitutional.

Despite repeated efforts by Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration to either undermine or entirely do away with the program, Obamacare has remained popular, likely because it has enabled millions of Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions, to obtain medical insurance and medical coverage for the first time.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg poses for the official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in 2018.; Credit: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent non-surgical treatment Tuesday for a benign gallbladder condition, according to a press release from the Supreme Court. She plans to participate in oral arguments from the hospital on Wednesday, according to the release.

In pain on Monday, Ginsburg went to Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington after hearing the first-ever Supreme Court teleconference of oral arguments. At Sibley, she was diagnosed with acute cholecystitis, a condition in which a gallstone migrates to the cystic duct. She nonetheless participated in arguments from home on Tuesday, but was in enough pain that she went to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore for treatment of the infected duct later Tuesday.

Doctors not involved in Ginsburg's care said non-surgical treatment typically involves antibiotics and insertion of a tube to drain the infected duct.

Friends said the justice was in good spirits on Tuesday night, and watching the Metropolitan Opera on her iPad.

Ginsburg's emergency treatment coincides with the U.S. Supreme Court's historic live-streaming of its oral arguments in which the justices are participating by telephone because of the coronavirus. According to the court statement, Ginsburg, 87, is "resting comfortably" and plans to participate in oral arguments again on Wednesday when the court considers an important birth control case.

She is expected to remain in the hospital for another day or two.

Last year, Ginsburg completed three weeks of radiation treatment after a cancerous tumor was discovered on her pancreas. It was the fourth time in 20 years that she had been treated for cancer, and the second time in a year. In December 2019, she was operated on for lung cancer.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Nuns with the Little Sisters of The Poor, including Sister Celestine, left, and Sister Jeanne Veronique, center, rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington on March 23, 2016.; Credit: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

The birth-control wars return to the Supreme Court Wednesday, and it is likely that the five-justice conservative majority will make it more difficult for women to get birth control if they work for religiously affiliated institutions like hospitals, charities and universities.

At issue in the case is a Trump administration rule that significantly cuts back on access to birth control under the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare, the massive overhaul of the health care system, sought to equalize preventive health care coverage for women and men by requiring employers to include free birth control in their health care plans.

Listen to the arguments live beginning at 10 a.m. ET.

Houses of worship like churches and synagogues were automatically exempted from the provision, but religiously affiliated nonprofits like universities, charities and hospitals were not. Such organizations employ millions of people, many of whom want access to birth control for themselves and their family members. But many of these institutions say they have a religious objection to providing birth control for employees.

For these nonprofits, the Obama administration enacted rules providing a work-around to accommodate employers' religious objections. The workaround was that an employer was to notify the government, or the insurance company, or the plan administrator, that, for religious reasons, it would not be providing birth-control coverage to its employees. Then, the insurance company could provide free birth-control options to individual employees separately from the employer's plan.

But some religiously affiliated groups still objected, saying the work-around was not good enough, and sued. They contended that signing an opt-out form amounted to authorizing the use of their plan for birth control. Among those objectors was the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns that runs homes for the elderly poor.

The Supreme Court punted in 2016

The Little Sisters sued, and their case first reached the Supreme Court in 2016. At the time, Sister Constance Viet explained why she refused to sign any opt-out form, saying that "the religious burden is what that signifies and the fact that the government would ... be inserting services that we object into our plan. And it would still carry our name."

Back then, when the Little Sisters' case got to the Supreme Court, the justices basically punted, telling the government and the sisters to work together to try to reach a compromise that would still provide "seamless birth control" coverage for employees who want it, without burdening the Sisters' religious beliefs. Although the Little Sisters did eventually get relief from the lower courts, the fight over the accommodations rules continued right up to the end of the Obama administration.

But when President Trump came into office, the administration issued new rules that would give broad exemptions to nonprofits and some for-profit companies that have objections to providing birth-control coverage for their employees. And the new rules expanded the category of employers who would be exempt from the birth-control mandate to include not just those with religious objections, but those with moral objections, too.

New rules

Those new rules, currently blocked by lower courts, are what is at issue Wednesday in the Supreme Court.

"Many states are suing and none of them can find a single actual woman who claims she's been harmed," says Mark Reinezi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is defending the Trump rules against challenges brought by Pennsylvania and other states.

And, he adds, "there are many other ways to provide contraceptive coverage to people if they happen to work for religious objectors."

Rienzi says that employees who work for birth-control objectors can get coverage from their spouse's insurance plan, or by switching to a different insurance plan on an Obamacare exchange. And he says that birth control is also available under a program known as Title X, which gives money to state and local governments to provide health care for women.

But Brigitte Amiri, the deputy director the of ACLU's Reproductive Freedom project, says the idea that Title X could make up for the lost coverage is "a joke." Amiri notes that the Title X program has been underfunded for years, and the Trump administration has issued new regulations that in her words "decimated the program."

According to Amiri, "the Trump administration and Vice President [Mike] Pence have long wanted to ... take away coverage for contraception. They want to block access to birth control. They want to block access to abortion ... so this is all part and parcel of the overall attack on access to reproductive health care."

Potential consequences

She maintains that if the expanded Trump rules are upheld for religious objectors, hundreds of thousands of women across the country will lose their contraceptive coverage. Ultimately, Amiri says, there just is no way to maintain birth-control coverage for employees who work for religiously affiliated institutions unless that employer, as she puts it, is willing to "raise their hand" to opt out.

A break in birth-control coverage that big could have serious consequences, say say birth-control advocates. They note that the National Academy of Medicine, a health policy nonprofit, recommended the original rules because birth control is prescribed not just to avoid pregnancy but also to treat various female medical conditions. In fact, it is the most frequently taken drug for women ages 15-60. And it is expensive, $30 a month and more for pills, and as much as $1,000 for buying and having an IUD inserted.

Birth-control advocates say that's the very reason that a broad requirement to cover birth control in insurance was included in Obamacare. They say the new Trump rule improperly undermines that mandate.

But selling that argument to the Supreme Court will be hard. When the court last considered this issue in 2016, its makeup was far less conservative than it is now. Since then, two Trump appointees have been added to the court. And both of those appointees — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — have already indicated strong support for the notion that religious rights may often trump other rights.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.