NOVEMBER 20, 2019
NEWS AND VIEWS
I KNEW THAT MEDICAL RESEARCH ON PHARMACEUTICALS
IS OFTEN FINANCED BY THE SAME COMPANY THAT PRODUCES AND SELLS THE DRUG, CREATING AN INCENTIVE TO INFLUENCE THE TRIALS TO SHOW MORE POSITIVE RESULTS THAN
ACTUALLY EXIST. THAT IS BAD ENOUGH, BUT APPARENTLY THE REVIEW BOARD (IRB) THAT IS EXAMINING
AND GREEN LIGHTING THE PROPOSED RESEARCH MAY NOT BE DOING ITS’ JOB EITHER. ONE
ARTICLE REFERRED TO AN IRB AS A “BLACK BOX,” AN IDEA OR IN THIS CASE AN ORGANIZATION
WHOSE INNER WORKINGS ARE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO DETECT AND EVALUATE. SOMETIMES
I WONDER HOW ANYTHING TURNS OUT RIGHT.
FOR THE TEXTS OF THE TWO LETTERS
THAT WERE SENT, GO TO THE WEBSITE AND CLICK ON THE LINKS.
OVERSIGHTLETTERS
NOVEMBER 19, 2019
Senators Warren, Brown, and Sanders
Investigate “Inherent” Conflicts of Interest of Private Equity-Owned
Institutional Review Boards
Little data available to determine
if companies are doing their job to keep research safe and maintain ethics
standards that protect participants
Text of Letter to WCG Clinical (PDF)
| Text of Letter to Advarra (PDF)
Washington, D.C. - United States
Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.) sent letters to two major private equity-owned commercial institutional
review boards (IRBs*), WCG Clinical and Advarra, which review clinical
research proposals to ensure that participant rights are protected
and the research is conducted ethically. IRBs are entrusted with
protecting participants and vulnerable populations. The lawmakers’ letter
raises questions about whether for-profit IRBs are vulnerable to conflicts of
interest that could inhibit their ability to protect research subjects, and
whether the two companies are maintaining appropriate ethics standards. The
lawmakers also request comprehensive information on their approvals, processes,
policies, and quality metrics.
In recent years, approximately
70% of clinical trial reviews have shifted from academic to for-profit
IRBs, dominated by two large companies owned by private equity firms.
For-profit IRBs introduce an inherent conflict of interest into
decision-making, since their financial incentive is to minimize obstacles
for researchers and prioritize profits and turnaround time over thorough
reviews.
“The recent trend of private equity
ownership is especially troubling, given the pressures
to reduce costs and ramp up profits that often accompany private equity’s entry
into a field,” wrote the lawmakers. “If managers see their primary
responsibility as generating returns for their investors, they may emphasize
speed over thoroughness in the review process, creating risks for
patients.”
The lawmakers also express concern
about recent reports of a rise in “pay to participate” clinical trials, which
for-profit IRBs have previously reviewed and approved. These “pay to
participate” clinical trials ask patients to pay thousands of dollars for the opportunity
to participate in sometimes lifesaving research studies. These studies may take
advantage of vulnerable patients and their families, restrict access to
treatment to those who can afford to pay, create incentives to over-sell
the potential benefits of the trial, and potentially compromise the design
of the clinical trial.
“IRB oversight should aim to prevent
precisely these types of exploitative schemes,” wrote the lawmakers.
The lawmakers requested information
regarding approvals, processes, policies, and quality metrics from the
two for-profit IRBs for each of the past five years, by no later than
December 13, 2019.
Senator Warren has been a vocal
critic of private equity abuses throughout her time in the Senate and is
fighting for reforms that protect students, workers, communities, and
investors:
Senators Warren, Brown and Tammy
Baldwin (D-Wis.), along with Representatives Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), and Pramila
Jayapal (D-Wash.), introduced the Stop Wall Street Looting Act, a
comprehensive bill to fundamentally reform the private equity industry and level
the playing field by forcing private equity firms to take responsibility for
the outcomes of companies they take over, empowering workers, and
protecting investors.
Senators Warren, Sanders, and Baldwin, along with Representatives Pocan and Jayapal, sent a letter to
Ernst & Young, sharply criticizing a misleading report the firm released
in partnership with the American Investment Council, a trade group for the
private equity industry, about the scope of private equity’s influence
in the economy.
Senators Warren, Brown, and
Representative Pocan wrote to four private equity
firms that currently invest or have recently invested in companies providing
nursing home care and other long-term care services, citing reports that
show private equity investment has played a role in the declining quality of
care in nursing homes and requesting information about each firms'
management of this sector.
Senator Warren, Representatives
Pocan, and Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) wrote last month to
five private equity firms with investments and physician staffing and emergency
transport companies, questioning the role these companies play in patients
receiving exorbitant surprise bills for out-of-network medical treatment.
In June 2015, Senator Warren was an
original co-sponsor of the Carried Interest Fairness Act, legislation to
close the carried interest loophole that allowed private equity fund
managers to pay lower taxes. The legislation was re-introduced in March
2019 and is included in the Stop Wall Street Looting Act.
###
INVESTMENT TERMS
https://www.google.com/search?q=equity+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS869US869&oq=EQUITY+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.6717j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Dictionary
eq·ui·ty
noun
1.
the quality of being fair and impartial.
"equity of treatment"
2. the value of the shares issued by
a company.
"he owns 62% of the group's
equity"
Private Equity
REVIEWED BY JAMES CHEN Updated Apr 14, 2019
What is Private Equity?
Private equity is an alternative
investment class and consists of capital that is not listed on a public
exchange. Private equity is composed of funds and investors that
directly invest in private companies, or that engage in buyouts of
public companies, resulting in the delisting of public equity. . . . .
public limited company
Definition
A company whose securities are
traded on a stock exchange and can be bought and sold by anyone. Public
companies are strictly regulated, and are required by law to publish their
complete and true financial position so that investors can determine the true
worth of its stock (shares). Also called publicly held company. Public limited
company and its abbreviation Plc are commonly used in the UK in the way that
corporation and Inc. is used in the United States.
Read more:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/public-limited-company.html
JUST A BIT ABOUT THESE REVIEW BOARDS
An institutional review board (IRB),
also known as an independent ethics committee (IEC), ethical review board
(ERB), or research ethics board (REB), is a type of committee that applies research
ethics by reviewing the methods proposed for research to ensure that
they are ethical. Such boards are formally designated to approve (or
reject), monitor, and review biomedical and behavioral research involving
humans.
THIS ARTICLE SEEMS TO ME TO BE VERY
MUCH TO THE POINT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION THAT IS GOING ON, AND IS
WORTH CLOSE ATTENTION. IT’S ALSO VERY INTERESTING AND UNDERSTANDABLY WRITTEN. IT
IS DATED AS 2016, BUT THE ISSUES ARE STILL CURRENT.
In clinical trials, for-profit
review boards are taking over for hospitals. Should they?
By SHEILA KAPLAN JULY 6, 2016
ART -- MIKE REDDY FOR STAT
For years, ethicist Arthur Caplan
warned medical researchers that paying businesses to evaluate their clinical
trials was a bad idea.
He condemned trials that didn’t rely
on hospital or academic review boards — long the gold standard in science — and
argued that for-profit review boards were out to make a buck, not protect
patients.
Today, Caplan sits on the advisory
board of WIRB-Copernicus Group, the largest commercial institutional review
board, or IRB, in the country.
He says he had no choice.
“This shift to commercial IRBs is,
in effect, over,” said Caplan, who heads the division of bioethics at New York
University Langone Medical Center. “It’s automatic and it’s not going back.”
Related: Biden threatens funding
cuts for researchers who fail to report clinical trial results
Institutional review boards — which
review all research that involves human participants — have undergone a quiet
revolution in recent years, with many drug companies strongly encouraging
researchers to use commercial boards, considered by many more efficient
than their nonprofit counterparts.
Commercial IRBs now oversee an estimated 70 percent of US clinical trials for
drugs and medical devices. The industry has also consolidated, with larger
IRBs buying smaller ones, and even private equity firms coming along and
buying the companies. Arsenal Capital Partners, for example, now owns
WIRB-Copernicus Group.
But even if the tide has already
turned, the debate over commercial review boards — and whether they can
serve as human subject safety nets, responsible for protecting the hundreds of
thousands of people who enroll in clinical trials each year — continues to
swirl.
The debate could also intensify. Late
last month, the National Institutes of Health announced that US-funded trials
that are carried out at multiple research centers must begin using a single
IRB, with few exemptions possible. Because few universities or hospitals
have the capacity to review study protocols and track adverse events for far-flung
institutions, the new rule is expected to be a windfall for commercial IRBs.
The modern history of science is
littered with studies in which participants were harmed because researchers
failed to take necessary precautions. Tragic deaths in research studies at the
University of Pennsylvania, University of Minnesota, Johns Hopkins University,
and elsewhere have raised questions about the quality of review boards in
general, even when they are overseen by universities and hospitals.
But some experts say the risks are
far greater with commercial review boards, which often have harder-to-spot
conflicts of interest and a profit motive.
The Food and Drug Administration
reported twice as many violations and problems with commercial IRBs as with
nonprofit boards from 2008 to 2014, according to preliminary findings in a
recent study, conducted by Gabrielle Goldstein, an attorney and doctoral student
at the University of California, Berkeley.
In one example, the agency
disqualified a commercial review board known as Texas Applied Biomedical
Services after the company repeatedly failed FDA inspections.
The agency found that the company,
known as TABS, lacked a doctor who understood the study protocols
well enough to determine if they posed a risk to participants in one trial,
including children. In its decision to disqualify the firm, the FDA said the board
claimed to have lost relevant records in a computer crash, which an agency
official said “strains credibility.”
The board also reportedly failed
to disclose that one of its members had a financial relationship with the
company paying for the trial.
TABS did not return calls seeking
comment.
Mark Schreiner, a medical school
professor and vice chairman of the IRB at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia,
said he is uncomfortable outsourcing the evaluation of pediatric trials to
commercial review boards.
“IRBs are hired by the sponsor,”
Schreiner said. “They are paid by them. And so if they turn down the study,
then I think they’re unlikely to get repeat business.”
Commercial IRBs, for their part,
reject such assertions.
David Borasky, vice president of
WIRB-Copernicus Group, said commercial IRBs, which the
industry prefers to call “independent” IRBs, provide faster
evaluation of proposed clinical trials than universities and hospitals can,
without jeopardizing quality.
Borasky said they also tend to have more
advanced technology, permitting better oversight of multisite trials
that will have to be handled by a single IRB.
“This is what we were built to do,”
Borasky said. “In this day and age you don’t have to be sitting in the same
building as somebody to have good monitoring.”
Related: More clinical trials are
succeeding for the first time in years
Part of the problem with assessing
the relative merits of different review boards is that their overall
performance is hard to measure.
“These are black boxes*,” said Dr.
Steven Joffe, a pediatric oncologist and bioethicist of the University of Pennsylvania, who serves on the FDA’s Pediatric Ethics Committee. “IRBs as a rule
are incredibly difficult to study. Their processes are opaque, they don’t
publicize what they do. There is no public record of their decision or
deliberations, they don’t, as a rule, invite scrutiny or allow themselves to be
observed. They ought to be accountable for the work they do.”
Federal regulators at the FDA and
the Department of Health and Human Service’s Office for Human Research
Protections are charged with overseeing review boards. But they don’t
have sufficient staff to monitor the thousands of IRBs and tens of
thousands of studies conducted in the US and internationally.
The FDA, for example, has inspected WIRB-Copernicus only three times in the past five years, and
in two of those inspections found “objectionable conditions or practices” that
the company agreed to correct. Last year, the company handled reviews for 40
out of the 45 drugs that the agency approved. (In a statement, a
spokeswoman for the agency said data for IRB inspections indicate the boards
are “generally compliant.”)
“I think most ethical and other
problems with IRBs and human subjects research oversight are not detected
by FDA or OHRP,” said Dr. Michael Carome, a former senior official
with the Office for Human Research Protections and now director of Public
Citizen’s Health Research Group.
Against that backdrop, many experts
are worried about the expansion of commercial IRBs.
Schulman Associates IRB, a well-known commercial board based in Ohio, has conducted reviews for hundreds
of study protocols a year and has seen those numbers grow by double-digit
percentages year over year, according to Sharon Nelson, who heads the firm’s
consulting and compliance division. The business has trials covering
about 15,000 individual sites. Two years ago, American Capital Equity
III became the majority investor in the company.
“I think the test is in how the
IRB or the organization manages either real or perceived or potential conflict
of interest,” Nelson said. “In the case of Schulman and many strong
commercial or independent IRBs, we are accredited. We have measures in place
that are very clear to all of us. Those who sit in the business realm, or the
ethical review board, are clear about lines that we don’t cross.”
Jennifer Miller, an assistant
professor of bioethics at NYU’s medical school, who has studied the impact of
private equity investment in commercial IRBs, thinks the model of private
equity investing in scientific review boards, with their practice of buying a
company, increasing its value, and reselling within three to five years for a
profit, is worrisome.
“Private equity could help an IRB by
allowing it to professionalize, better educate, and train its members and
handle globalization of research,” Miller said. “But it could also put extra
emphasis on cutting costs and boosting revenues. The main mission and reason
for being of an IRB is to protect research subjects.”
Caplan, the NYU ethicist, said he
joined the advisory board of WIRB-Copernicus Group to help ensure the
commercial review board does its job responsibly.
“If you want to work in research
ethics,” he said, “you work with them.’’
An earlier version of this story
misstated the number of trials that are overseen by Schulman Associates IRB.
THIS ARTICLE MENTIONS A NUMBER OF
GROUPS WHO ARE ACTIVE IN THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT NOW. I HOPE THIS PLANNING
SESSION MEANS THAT A CLOSE SOLIDIFICATION OF GROUPS WILL OCCUR TO INCLUDE AS
MANY AS POSSIBLE IN ONE COMMITTED VOTING BLOC. WE SHOULDN’T FORGET TO INCLUDE
LABOR UNIONS AS WELL. THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE BELOW SHOWS A HISTORY OF WHAT WAS FAMILIAR
TO ME WHEN I WAS YOUNG. I WORKED FOR EUGENE MCCARTHY, FOR INSTANCE, WHO IS
MENTIONED IN IT. THE TIME TO MAKE CHANGES HAS COME AGAIN, IN MY VIEW. BERNIE
SANDERS HAS THE SORT OF PERSONALITY TO LEAD IT, AND THE INTELLECTUAL ABILITY AS
WELL. FOR ME, HE’S THE ONE.
Reeling progressives meet behind
closed doors after Medicare for All barrage
Leaders of the left implore the
movement to stop pitting Sanders against Warren and get on the same page.
By ALEX THOMPSON , HOLLY OTTERBEIN
and ALICE MIRANDA OLLSTEIN
11/20/2019 12:45 PM EST
Updated: 11/20/2019 06:50 PM EST
PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen. Bernie Sanders. |
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Medicare for All has taken a beating
lately.
Its two biggest proponents in the
presidential field, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have come under
sustained attack from centrist Democrats over the issue. The health care
industry is spending millions to sow opposition. And polls show it’s taking a
toll: Support for single-payer has slipped in some recent surveys, as has
Warren's standing in the primary after spending weeks on the defensive over it.
Now, leaders of the left — suddenly
reeling after seeing the Democratic health care debate shift dramatically in
their direction the past few years — are strategizing on how to retake the
offensive. At a closed-door meeting Tuesday, Congressional Progressive
Caucus leader Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) had a message for her fellow
supporters of Medicare for All: Unite against the moderates and don’t fight
about whether Warren’s plan is too mild compared to Sanders’.
“I understand that people have
favorites,” Jayapal, who has not yet endorsed in the race, told POLITICO after
the meeting, which included representatives from top congressional allies of
Warren and Sanders along with longtime advocates on the issue like National
Nurses United. “We are better off having two strong presidential candidates
endorsing Medicare for All than having one.”
Warren has done a delicate dance on
the issue over the past month, releasing a detailed financing plan that she
said would avoid middle-class tax hikes, then following up with a
two-stage transition plan in a nod to those concerned about upheaval in the
health care system. Though some established Democratic strategists said
Warren's plans could give her more flexibility in a general election — by
initially passing a robust public option and then trying to pass a full single
payer bill later in her term — some progressives saw the maneuvering as too
clever by half.
But Jayapal and other people at the
meeting said sniping at Warren will only hurt the cause.
“I think everyone left [the meeting]
knowing the overall objective is the same and Warren is as committed as
she’s ever been to achieving Medicare for All,” said Wendell Potter,
president of the group Business for Medicare for All, who attended the
gathering.
Ady Barkan, one of the country's
most prominent Medicare for All advocates who is dying of terminal ALS, made a similar plea as he endorsed Warren on Wednesday. "We
should keep perspective," he wrote to fellow progressives, after laying
out his reasons for preferring Warren's health care strategy. "We are,
ultimately, on the same side. When the dust settles, Warren will
enthusiastically endorse Sanders, or vice versa, and then we will need to all
struggle together, as one progressive movement."
Pramila Jayapal
"We are better off having two
strong presidential candidates endorsing Medicare for All than having
one," Rep. Pramila Jayapal said. | Andrew
Harnik, file/AP Photo
In the Capitol Hill meeting, Jayapal
also expressed dismay at the online backlash Barkan received from some on
the left for his previous positive assessments of Warren's health plans,
and urged unity going forward. Jayapal and about 20 members of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus also attended a separate Medicare for All closed-door
briefing Tuesday. Informed by new polling paid for by the Progressive
Change Institute in partnership with Public Citizen and Business for
Medicare for All, the session offered strategies to respond to the most
common attacks on Medicare for All, particularly that it will result in massive
tax hikes and eliminate private insurance.
“This polling is really helpful
because now we know that we can proceed with confidence,” said Adam Green, a
Warren supporter and co-founder of the Progressive
Change Campaign Committee who helped present the polling results to the members
of Congress.
The polling session and Jayapal’s
meeting Tuesday were two of several moves by the left in recent weeks to try to
regain the offensive in the battle over Medicare for All. Some progressives have also felt that they need to challenge the
alternative offered by moderates — a public-option plan dubbed ”Medicare for
All who want it” by Mayor Pete Buttigieg — more aggressively. They argue the
plan, which polls as more popular than Medicare for All, would continue to
leave millions uninsured and still charge many people premiums and deductibles.
Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have dismissed the idea as
“Medicare for All who can afford it” and “Medicare for Some,” respectively.
Conducted by Democratic pollster
Margie Omero, the survey presented Tuesday found that the three
strongest arguments for single-payer are that people would no longer die
because they couldn’t afford medicine or care; that the U.S. would no longer be
the only developed country without a universal health system; and that families
would no longer struggle to provide long-term care for seniors and people with
disabilities. The poll also found that most of the rebuttals to attacks
about tax hikes or eliminating private insurance survey are about equally
effective, so progressives urged members to confidently use the arguments
they are naturally drawn to in order to regain control of the narrative.
“The most important thing is to make
the case,” Green said.
Single-payer advocates also stressed
that supporters need to end the friendly fire between Warren and Sanders
supporters and redirect it toward the Democratic candidates who oppose the
idea. “The enemy here is not one or the other of them,” Jayapal said of
Sanders and Warren. “It is the entrenched interests, and the groups that are
rallying around them, including some of our Democratic presidential candidates
who are really doing a disservice to the American people.”
Several progressive members of
Congress seemed to take the message to heart. “I think it's excellent,” Rep.
Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said of Warren’s plan, despite having endorsed Sanders in
the race. “There are many approaches to how we transition into this.”
“Obviously, I think it should be
done in one bill, but when you look at the plans they have the same blueprint,”
added Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is also a co-chair on Sanders’
campaign.
The Medicare for All movement has
gained tremendous ground since Sanders ran on the plan in 2016, with more
congressional co-sponsors than ever and Barack Obama dubbing it a “good, new
idea” for Democrats last fall. But the 2020 presidential primary’s intense
focus on the issue has put single-payer backers on their heels. Several of the
candidates or former candidates who originally embraced the plan, including
Sens. Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand, have backed away from it. And
Warren has been consumed by the issue for weeks.
Now, Democratic and outside groups
are hoping to go to the grassroots to take back control of the narrative. The
150,000-plus member nurses union, which endorsed Sanders in the 2020 primary
and backed him in 2016, has mounted a 50-state organizing campaign to try to redirect
the conversation away from Medicare for All’s cost and impact on private
insurance and towards its benefits. They say they’ve knocked on 20,000 doors so
far this year, and are in the midst of training thousands of volunteers.
“We’re seeing the presidential
debates really muddying the waters on Medicare for All,” said Jasmine Ruddy,
the lead Medicare for All organizer for the nurses union. “But that’s not what
we’re seeing in our work out in the community, when we’re canvassing,” she
added optimistically. “These conversations cut through the misinformation.”
CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS
NOT SURPRISINGLY, BERNIE SANDERS WAS
ONE OF THE FIRST LEADERS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS WHICH BEGAN IN
1991. SEE THIS ARTICLE AND, ON THE SUBJECT OF OUR VARIOUS LEFT-LEANING GROUPS
AND MOVEMENTS IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS, SEE ALSO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrats,_USA.
WHAT SANDERS IS DOING IS NOT NEW, IT’S JUST RESURGING.
Congressional Progressive Caucus
From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
The Congressional Progressive Caucus
(CPC) is a caucus within the Democratic congressional caucus in the United
States Congress.[6] The CPC is a left-leaning organization that works to
advance progressive and liberal issues and positions and represents the
progressive faction of the Democratic Party.[7][8] It was founded in 1991 and
has grown steadily since then.
Midway through the 116th United
States Congress, following the death of Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and resignation
of Katie Hill (politician) (D-CA), the CPC has 98 members, making it the
second-largest caucus within the Democratic Party and the third largest caucus
in Congress. The CPC is currently co-chaired by U.S. Representatives Mark Pocan
(D-WI) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).
The founding CPC
members were concerned about the economic hardship imposed by the deepening
recession and the growing inequality brought about by the timidity of the
Democratic Party response in the early 1990s. On January 3, 1995 at a standing
room only news conference on Capitol Hill, they were the first group inside
Congress to chart a detailed, comprehensive legislative alternative to U.S.
Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Republican Contract with America, which they
termed "the most regressive tax proposals and reactionary social
legislation the Congress had before it in 70 years". The CPC's ambitious
agenda was framed as "The Progressive Promise: Fairness".
. . . .
Ideology
The CPC advocates "universal
access to affordable, high quality healthcare" (universal healthcare or
single-payer healthcare), fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of
all workers to organize into labor unions and engage in collective bargaining,
the abolition of the USA PATRIOT Act, the legalization of same-sex marriage,
U.S. participation in international treaties such as the climate change related
Kyoto Accords, responsible reductions in profligate military expenditure,
strict campaign finance reform laws, a crackdown on corporate welfare and
influence, an increase in income tax rates on upper-middle and upper class
households, tax cuts for the poor and an increase in welfare spending by the
federal government.[11]
List of Chairs
House members
Senate members
ANOTHER YOUNG STAR SPEAKS UP FOR
BERNIE HERE, AND NOTE HER MEMBERSHIP IN A MUSIC AND ARTS BASED VOTER
REGISTRATION GROUP, @headcountorg.
NOVEMBER 20, 2019 5:11PM ET
Ariana Grande Breaks Free From
Capitalism, Endorses Bernie Sanders
Pop star posts photos with Vermont
senator on Twitter
By CLAIRE SHAFFER
Ariana Grande gave a ringing
endorsement of Vermont senator and presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders on
Twitter Wednesday afternoon.
Erik Pendzich/Shutterstock, Matt
Baron/Shutterstock
Ariana Grande gave a ringing
endorsement of Vermont senator and presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders on
Twitter Wednesday afternoon.
The pop star shared two photos of
her posing with Sanders and giving him a hug. “MY GUY. thank you Senator
Sanders for coming to my show, making my whole night and for all that you stand
for !” Grande wrote. “@headcountorg and i are doing
our best to make you proud. we’ve already registered 20k+ young voters at my
shows alone. also i will never smile this hard again promise.”
Ariana Grande
✔
@ArianaGrande
MY GUY. thank you Senator Sanders
for coming to my show, making my whole night and for all that you stand for !
@headcountorg* and i are doing our best to make you proud. we’ve already
registered 20k+ young voters at my shows alone. also i will never smile
this hard again promise.
View image on TwitterView image on
Twitter
136K
3:55 PM - Nov 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
23.3K people are talking about this
Sanders shared the photos himself
and added, “I want to thank @ArianaGrande for not only being a wonderful
entertainer, but also for being such an outstanding advocate for social
justice. We must all be prepared — like Ariana has shown — to fight for
everyone who is struggling. It was great to meet her in Atlanta last night.”
Left Twitter was quick to jump on
the posts, uncovering an old tweet from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who once
tweeted a “Progressive policies as an Ariana dance party” set list.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔
@AOC
Progressive policies as an Ariana
dance party:
👋🏽 thank u, next:
Replace for-profit health insurance w/ #MedicareForAll
👩🏾 God is a Woman:
Strike the Hyde Amendment*
👨🏽🎓 Break Free: Student loan debt forgiveness
🌎 Be Alright: Pass a
Green New Deal!
💃🏽🎶 https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1187805239723859968 …
Bernie Sanders
✔
@BernieSanders
Ready to fight for Medicare for All.
https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande/status/1187779679542841345 …
107K
4:02 PM - Oct 25, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
19.5K people are talking about this
If you’re shocked at all by Grande’s
endorsement of a democratic socialist candidate, consider that she once licked
a doughnut and said “I hate America” — an iconic protest against capitalism if
there ever was one.
In This Article: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Ariana Grande, Bernie Sanders
HEADCOUNT.ORG
HeadCountVerified account
@HeadCountOrg
We use music+culture to engage
Americans with democracy. We've registered over 600K voters at concerts, music
festivals & online since 2004. #TheFutureIsVoting
headcount.org
Joined January 2009
9,058 Photos and videos
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO, LIKE ME, FORGET
THINGS, THIS IS THE HYDE AMENDMENT.
Hyde Amendment
From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment
is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion
except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or
rape.[1][2] Legislation, including the Hyde Amendment, generally restricts the
use of funds allocated for the Department of Health and Human Services and
consequently has significant effects involving Medicaid recipients.[1][2]
In 2018, 37% of Americans said that
the practice of abortion should be illegal in most cases, while 58% said it
should be legal in most cases, results consistent with prior years.[3] A
minority of U.S. adults take an absolutist position, that abortion should be
either illegal (15%) or legal (25%) in all cases.[3]
The Hyde Amendment itself was
supported by 57% of voters and opposed by 36%, as of 2016.[4]
As of 2016, Medicaid currently
serves approximately 15.6 million women in the United States, including 1 in 5
women of reproductive age (women aged 15–44).[5][6]
Before the Hyde Amendment took
effect, an estimated 300,000 abortions were performed annually using taxpayer
funds.[7]
The original Hyde Amendment was
passed on September 30, 1976, by the House of Representatives, by a 207–167
vote.[8] It was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde
of Illinois.[7] The measure represents one of the first major legislative gains
by the United States pro-life movement, especially the National Committee for a
Human Life Amendment led by lobbyist Mark Gallagher,[9] after the striking-down
of anti-abortion laws following the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade.
Congress subsequently altered the Hyde Amendment several times.[7] The version
in force from 1981 until 1993 prohibited the use of federal funds for abortions
"except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term."[10]
On October 22, 1993, President
Clinton signed into law the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994.[11] The Act
contained a new version of the Hyde Amendment that expanded the category of
abortions for which federal funds are available under Medicaid to include cases
of rape and incest.[12]
The 2016 platform marked the first
time the Democratic platform had an explicit call to repeal the Hyde
Amendment.[13] On January 24, 2017, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 7,
which, according to the press office of Speaker Paul Ryan, "makes the Hyde
amendment permanent."[14] The bill failed to pass the Senate and did not
become law.
DEMOCRATIC DEBATE IN ATLANTA IS
HAPPENING NOW, SO TODAY’S BLOG IS OVER. TUNE IN ON NBC OR ELSEWHERE.
Democratic debate live updates:
Foreign policy and wars discussed
By Sean Sullivan,
Chelsea Janes,
Isaac Stanley-Becker and
Reis Thebault
November 20, 2019 at 10:04 PM EST
Right now: Candidates are talking
about Afghanistan and foreign wars.
The fifth Democratic debate has
begun. On stage in Atlanta are former vice president Joe Biden; Sen. Cory
Booker (D-N.J.); South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg; Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii);
Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.); Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.); Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.); businessman Tom Steyer; Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.); and
businessman Andrew Yang.
HIGHLIGHTS
Divides over approaches to health
care
Sanders says party shouldn’t be
‘consumed by Donald Trump’
Just tuning into the 2020 Democratic
primary? Start here.
Split screen: The latest on the
impeachment inquiry hearing
November 20, 2019 at 10:07 PM EST
Booker takes on Buttigieg on
experience
Booker, a sitting senator, sought to
put this focus on a different stage of his career — his days as mayor of
Newark, N.J.
“I happen to be the other Rhodes
Scholar mayor on this stage,” he said at one point, a reference to Buttigieg.
Soon, Booker returned to the topic of his mayoral record during a discussion on
housing.
Booker also pointed out that he was
mayor of the “largest city in my state,” which some on social media also
interpreted as a dig at Butigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind. South Bend is
the fourth most populous city in Indiana.
By Sean Sullivan
* * *
* *
Comments
Post a Comment