Peter Epstein of Epstein Research discusses the macro picture for precious metals prices and one junior that he believes will benefit from higher prices.

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

The Critical Investor discusses recent developments at the company that is exploring the Goliath Gold Project in Ontario.

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

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

Peter Epstein of Epstein Research looks into the Gross Overriding Royalty that just changed hands on the company's flagship Red Hill project, and discusses what it means for the firm.

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

President Trump walks outside the White House in January. The president received intelligence briefings on the coronavirus twice that month, according to a White House official.; Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

President Trump twice received intelligence briefings on the coronavirus in January, according to a White House official. The official tells NPR the briefings occurred on Jan. 23 and Jan. 28.

"The president was told that the coronavirus was potentially going to 'spread globally,' " the official said of the first briefing, which came two days after the first case of the virus was reported in the United States. "But the 'good news' was that it was not deadly for most people," the official said the president was told.

Five days after that initial briefing, the president was briefed again, according to the official. This time, "he was told that virus was spreading outside of China, but that deaths from the disease were happening only in China," the official said. "He was also told that China was withholding data."

The question of what Trump knew about the coronavirus, when he was aware of it and the tenor of those conversations have come under heavy scrutiny, as the administration faces criticism that it was slow to respond to early warnings about the virus. In the time since the president's January briefings, the U.S. has reported more than 1.1 million cases of the coronavirus — more than any other nation. In all, more than 66,000 Americans have died.

The president has defended his handling of the crisis — pointing to steps like his decision at the end of January to restrict travel into the U.S. from China. But for much of the following month, the president and some of his top surrogates downplayed the threat of the virus.

"We pretty much shut it down coming in from China," the president said in an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News early in February. By the end of the month, with the virus reported in several dozen countries at that point, he continued to tell reporters that the risk "remains very low ."

During his State of the Union address, roughly a week after being told that China was withholding data, Trump said his administration was "coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely together on the coronavirus outbreak."

To this point, the White House has offered little clarity publicly about the exact dates when Trump was briefed about the virus. Asked about this on Thursday, Trump told reporters that he spoke with intelligence officials about the coronavirus "in January, later January," adding that intelligence officials had confirmed that this was the case.

On Monday, when The Washington Post reported that Trump received more than a dozen classified briefings in January and February, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence responded, "The detail of this is not true," and declined to elaborate.

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

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made filling judicial vacancies his top priority ahead of the 2020 elections.; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

As new allegations emerge about his motives for retirement, Judge Thomas Griffith says that he faced no political pressure in his decision to leave the bench.

"My decision was driven entirely by personal concerns and involved no discussions with the White House or the Senate," he said in a statement provided to NPR.

Griffith said that his wife was diagnosed 11 years ago with a "debilitating chronic illness" and that her health was "the sole reason for my retirement." He said he made the decision to retire in June 2019 and privately informed his family and law clerks at the time. His retirement was announced publicly in March.

Griffith, 65, is a circuit court judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President George W. Bush, he has served since 2005.

On Monday, The New York Times reported that Demand Justice, a liberal judicial advocacy group, filed a complaint that raises questions about whether Griffith's decision was tied to efforts by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to encourage older, conservative judges to retire in order to fill their vacancies with younger, conservative judges ahead of the 2020 election, when control of the White House and the Senate will be in play.

Griffith's retirement has paved the way for Justin Walker's nomination to fill the vacancy. Walker, 37, is a longtime McConnell ally who is currently serving as a U.S. district judge of the Western District of Kentucky, McConnell's home state.

The Demand Justice complaint was directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, where the court's chief judge, Sri Srinivasan, has asked Chief Justice John Roberts to assign another circuit to look into the complaint about whether any ethical improprieties occurred. Griffith's statement refutes the core allegation — that his decision was fueled by political considerations or the result of a pressure campaign.

These allegations are likely to come up at Walker's confirmation hearing on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Democrats broadly oppose Walker's nomination. He was rated "not qualified" by the American Bar Association. However, unless support for him is diminished among Republicans — unlikely with McConnell's backing — he is likely to be confirmed.

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.

David Biello; Credit: /Elizabeth Zeeuw / TED

About The Episode

There's so much we've yet to explore—from outer space to the deep ocean to our own brains. This hour, Manoush goes on a journey through those uncharted places, led by TED Science Curator David Biello.

About David Biello

As TED's Science Curator, David Biello finds scientists with spectacular stories of discovery and helps them bring those stories to life on the TED stage.

A science journalist by trade, he is also a contributing editor at Scientific American, where he's been since 2005. He has also written for Yale E360, Aeon, Foreign Policy, The New York Times and New Republic. David has been a guest on numerous television and radio shows, and he hosts the ongoing duPont-Columbia award-wining documentary "Beyond the Light Switch" as well as "The Ethanol Effect" for PBS.

Biello is the author of The Unnatural World: The Race to Remake Civilization in Earth's Newest Age. He received a BA in English from Wesleyan University and a MS in Journalism from Columbia University.

Featured Speakers

Juna Kollmeier: The Most Detailed Map Of Galaxies, Black Holes And Stars Ever Made

Humans have charted stars for thousands of years, but Juna Kollmeier wants to make the most complete map of the universe ever concieved — by 3D imaging millions of stars, black holes, and galaxies.

Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz: Your Body Was Forged In The Spectacular Death Of Stars

Astrophysicist and self-proclaimed "stellar mortician" Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz takes us through the spectacular life and death of supernovas that make all living things the stuff of stars.

Karen Lloyd: The Mysterious Microbes Living Deep Inside The Earth — And How They Could Help Humanity

Deep beneath our feet and beyond the ocean floor, there is a world teeming with microbes that get their energy not from the sun but from rocks. Karen Lloyd leads us into the alien world below.

Victor Vescovo: What's At The Bottom Of The Ocean — And How We're Getting There

Victor Vescovo has a submarine that takes him further down into the ocean than the height of Mt. Everest. He's been to the deepest parts of our five oceans, revealing lifeforms that defy imagination.

Kay M. Tye: What Investigating Neural Pathways Can Reveal About Mental Health

Behavior, emotion ... it's all in our heads. Kay M. Tye has found neural pathways that create specific emotional or behavioral states — and she's made a switch to turn them on and off.

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

; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court is no stranger to controversy, but it still gets higher marks in public opinion polls than the other branches of government. Now though, for the first time in memory, the court is not just split along ideological lines, but along political lines as well: All the conservatives are Republican appointees, all the liberals Democratic appointees. That division could put the court in the crosshairs of public opinion if it is forced to make decisions that affect the 2020 election.

Chief Justice John Roberts has worked hard to persuade the public that the justices are fair-minded legal umpires--not politicians in robes. That image got pretty scuffed up earlier this month when the conservative court majority shot down accommodations for the coronavirus that would have allowed six more days for absentee ballots to be received in Wisconsin's election for 500 school board seats, over 100 judicial seats, and thousands of other state and local positions.

In the weeks leading up to the election, the COVID-19 pandemic had become a public health crisis. Encouraged by local officials, about a million more voters than usual requested absentee ballots, and local officials were unable to keep up with the surge. To mitigate that problem, the lower courts allowed an extra six days for election officials to receive completed absentee ballots.

But the day before the election, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling by a 5-to-4 vote. The result was that tens of thousands of people who had not yet even received their absentee ballots were forced to, as the dissenters put it, choose between their health and their right to vote.

The TV footage of people wearing masks waiting for hours to vote at the very few precincts that were open amid the pandemic was, to say the least, not a good look. Health officials in Milwaukee have since identified six voters and one poll worker who appear to have contracted the virus during the election.

The majority opinion was unsigned, so no one knows who the principal author was. But we do know some things.

First, the emergency appeal in the case came through the justice assigned to that region of the country, Brett Kavanaugh. Typically, when a justice refers a case to the full court, he or she writes a memo about the issues, likely with a recommendation. Kavanaugh almost certainly did that. But other justices would then chime in. And in a voting case, Chief Justice Roberts assuredly would have played a pivotal role.

"John Roberts' fingerprints are on this as chief justice and as someone who has owned this area of the law," says Joan Biskupic, a Supreme Court biographer and CNN legal analyst who is the author of a critically acclaimed biography about Roberts.

Indeed, Roberts was invested in voting-rights law as far back as 1982 when he was a staffer in the Reagan administration. Back then, he led the effort to narrow the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. When that failed, President Reagan signed the broad extension of the law, rejecting advice to veto it. But years later, on the Supreme Court, Roberts wrote the decision in Shelby County v. Holder, gutting a key provision of that law.

So, it was no surprise when the conservative majority refused to make even a modest accommodation to the pandemic. What was surprising was the tone of the opinion. Critics of the opinion, including some Roberts defenders, called the language "callous," "cynical," and "unfortunate."

In fact, the word "pandemic" appears not once in the court's unsigned opinion. Rather, the majority sought to portray the issue before the court as a "narrow, technical question." The majority said the lower court had overstepped the Supreme Court's established rule that courts should "ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election."

The dissenters replied that the court's treatment of the current situation as ordinary "boggles the mind." Writing for the dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opined that "a voter cannot deliver...a ballot she has not yet received. Yet tens of thousands of voters who timely requested absentee ballots" are being asked to do just that.

"I do think there's something to this idea that we need to stick with the rules even in the context of an emergency," says law professor Rick Hasen, an election expert at the University of California, Irvine.

He and others see the legal question before the court as a close call, but say the decision was, at the very least, tone deaf in light of the reality of a pandemic.

Hasen says that the court could have recognized "the inhumanity of making people vote in this way," but that instead the tone of the opinion was "really dismissive of the entire threat facing these voters."

Chief Justice Roberts has, on some occasions tried to bridge the two wings of the court, in a couple of big cases siding with the court's liberals, or sometimes trying to fashion a compromise. But as Hasen observes, "there really is not any case I can think of involving elections where Roberts has forged a larger consensus."

Roberts must have anticipated at least some of the outcry over the Wisconsin decision. He is, after all, an astute political observer.

But as any student of the court knows, Roberts is a reliable, and often leading member of the conservative majority when it comes to a whole host of issues involving campaigns, voting and elections. That includes decisions he has written striking down laws aimed at limiting the role of big money in campaigns and decisions upholding partisan gerrymanders. Moreover voting rights in particular "is an area of the law where John Roberts has not been deterred by anticipated public criticism," says Biskupic, his biographer.

For the chief, says Biskupic, "It's not just voting rights. It's a broader overlay of representation" in his decisions, a pattern that "often will favor Republicans, but more fundamentally, it seems to favor entrenched powers, the status quo in many states, against ordinary citizens. And we certainly saw that in Wisconsin."

Uncertainties around COVID-19 remain, with states facing decisions about when to reopen and what size of public gatherings are safe. As November inches closer, those decisions could affect the 2020 election. Who gets to vote, when, and how, are unanswered questions and states are surely exploring different plans to keep voters safe. But Roberts' Supreme Court may be the ultimate arbiter of what changes and accommodations to voting are allowed.

The majority opinion "tried to tell the public that this was a very small decision," says Biskupic. "But as the dissent pointed out, it laid down a very serious marker about how voters will be accommodated in the middle of the coronavirus crisis."

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

Attorney General William Barris pictured at a coronavirus task force meeting at the White House on March 23. The Justice Department is looking to crack down on coronavirus-related fraud.; Credit: Alex Brandon/AP

The coronavirus pandemic has brought out the good side of many Americans, but certainly not all Americans. Officials say that fraud related to COVID-19 — like hoarding equipment, price gouging and hawking fake treatments — are spreading as the country wrestles with the outbreak.

"It's a perfect ecosystem for somebody like a fraudster to operate in," said Craig Carpenito, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey and the head of the Justice Department's COVID-19 price gouging and hoarding task force.

"People want to believe that there's a magic pill that they can take or that if they buy a certain kind of mask or a certain kind of protective gear that it's going to protect them and their families," he said. "That creates opportunities for the types of people that prey upon scared people. They prey upon their fear."

A month ago, Attorney General William Barr instructed federal prosecutors around the country to aggressively investigate and prosecute scams and other crimes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. He also created the price gouging and hoarding task force and put Carpenito in charge of it.

From that perch, Carpenito has one of the best views of virus-related crime nationwide.

"Instead of seeing that tremendous support from all aspects of society, we're still seeing that sliver, that that dark underbelly, that small percentage of folks who instead of putting the interests of the country and support for those medical professionals that are putting themselves at risk in the forefront, they're finding ways to try and take advantage of this situation and illegally profiteer from it," he said. "And it's despicable."

The most prevalent kind of fraud that federal authorities are seeing at this point, he and others say, is tied to personal protective equipment like N95 masks, gloves or face shields.

In one notable case, prosecutors brought charges against a Georgia man, Christopher Parris, for allegedly trying to sell $750 million worth of masks and other protective equipment to the Department of Veterans Affairs but with a sizable advance payment.

The problem, prosecutors say, is the masks and other items didn't exist, at least not in the quantities Parris was offering.

Steven Merrill, the head of the FBI's financial crimes section, says the bureau refers to these sorts of operations as advance-fee schemes.

"We're getting many complaints that different entities are entering into these agreements, paying money upfront, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars, and may or may not get any masks or other PPE ordered at all," Merrill said. "So our guidance to the public is to please be wary of these frauds and solicitations."

Other problems, such as hoarding and price gouging, can arise even when the medical gear does exist.

The FBI is trying to identify individuals who are stockpiling protective equipment and trying to sell it at exorbitant markups, sometimes 40 to 70 times the value, Merrill said.

A few weeks ago, the FBI seized nearly 1 million respirator masks, gloves and other medical gear from a Brooklyn man who was allegedly stockpiling them and selling them to nurses and doctors at what officials say was around a 700% markup.

The man, Baruch Feldheim, has been charged with lying to the FBI about price gouging. He's also been charged with allegedly assaulting a federal officer after he coughed on agents and claimed he had COVID-19.

The confiscated items, meanwhile, have been distributed to medical workers in the New York area.

Carpenito said the Justice Department has more than 100 investigations open into price gouging. It has hundreds more, he said, into other crimes tied to the pandemic, including fake treatments and cures.

In one case out of California, prosecutors charged a man who was allegedly soliciting large investments for what he claimed was a cure for COVID-19.

"He was doing so by broadcasting this scheme via, notably, YouTube, where had thousands of hits and views," Merrill said.

In a separate case out of Florida last week, the Justice Department got a court order to stop a Florida church from selling on its website an industrial bleach that was being marketed as a miracle treatment for the virus.

To be clear, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there is no cure at this point for the virus.

More than a month into this crisis, there's no sense COVID-related crime is going to slow down.

In fact, Carpenito and Merrill say that with the massive $2 trillion economic relief package beginning to be doled out, they expect to see even more fraud in the weeks and months ahead.

"What we're worried about is that not only do we have these existing conditions, but we are awaiting — like everybody in the country — the arrival of $2 trillion to hit the streets," Merrill said. "And anytime there's that much money out there, you can just multiply the amount of frauds that are going to take place. So we're preparing for many more complaints to come in and new schemes to arrive on a daily basis."

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

Gov. Ralph Northam, seen last month, was wrong to close gun ranges in response to the spread of the coronavirus, a state court ruled Monday.; Credit: Steve Helber/AP

A Virginia gun range can remain open, despite Gov. Ralph Northam's order closing nonessential businesses throughout the state in response to the coronavirus pandemic, a state judge ruled Monday.

In a March executive order, Northam had included indoor shooting ranges among the businesses to be temporarily shuttered to stop the spread of COVID-19. In response, the shooting range SafeSide sued, asking a court to block the order. Judge F. Patrick Yeatts granted the request, prohibiting law enforcement from blocking citizens' access to the gun range.

Northam lacks the authority to close gun ranges, Yeatts said, because of a state statute, modeled on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, giving citizens the right to bear arms. "During an emergency, the governor is given great deference, but [the statute] specifically limits his authority in relation to the right to keep and bear arms," Yeatts wrote.

"The purpose of the right is to have a population trained with firearms in order to defend the Commonwealth," Yeatts wrote. "Proper training and practice at a range ... is fundamental to the right to keep and bear arms."

"The Court understands the Governor's desire to protect the citizens of our great commonwealth," Yeatts said. "But in taking steps to stop the spread of COVID-19, he took a step beyond what is allowed."

In a statement, Attorney General Mark Herring said that his office was considering how to respond. "Governor Northam's efforts to save lives and slow the spread of COVID-19 are necessary and proving to be effective, but unfortunately, the gun lobby believes the ability to shoot a gun indoors during this pandemic is worth risking further spread of the virus and making Virginia communities and families less safe," Herring said, according to the Associated Press.

University of Virginia law professor Richard Schragger told The Virginian-Pilot that the ruling only applies to the Lynchburg gun range — but the reasoning could apply to any subsequent lawsuits brought by other gun ranges in the state.

SafeSide was joined on the lawsuit by Gun Owners of America, the Association of Virginia Gun Ranges and the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told the AP his group would try to get a broader ruling that applied statewide.

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.

As millions of Americans have lost their jobs, Congress is trying to figure out what to do to help those who have also lost their health insurance.; Credit: South_agency/Getty Images

Mayra Jimenez had just lost the job she loved — and the health insurance that went along with it.

The 35-year-old San Francisco server needed coverage. Jimenez has ulcerative colitis, a chronic condition. Just one of her medications costs $18,000 per year.

"I was just in panic mode, scrambling to get coverage," Jimenez said.

A recent estimate suggests the pandemic has cost more than 9 million Americans both their jobs and their health insurance.

"Those numbers are just going to go up," MIT economist Jon Gruber said. "We've never seen such a dramatic increase in such a short period of time."

House Democrats introduced a bill in mid-April to help the millions of people, like Jimenez, who find themselves unsure of where to turn.

The Worker Health Coverage Protection Act would fully fund the cost of COBRA, a program that allows workers who leave or lose a job to stay on their former employer's insurance plan. COBRA currently requires workers to pay for their entire premium, including their employer's share.

The Worker Health Coverage Protection Act is one bill being considered as Congress tries to figure out what to do about the very real health care gap for those millions who have lost their jobs. Sponsors of the COBRA legislation say they hope their plan gets rolled into the next relief bill. But it's unclear when, how and whether the problem will get addressed in upcoming coronavirus relief measures.

Jimenez learned COBRA would run her $426 a month.

"I was kind of shocked to hear the number," she said. "That's almost half my rent."

The idea of allowing laid-off workers to stick with their coverage at no cost in a pandemic has clear appeal, says Gruber.

But he warns, "COBRA is expensive, and for many employees, it won't be there."

Only workers who get insurance through their employer are eligible for COBRA, leaving out more than half of the 26 million who have lost jobs in the last few weeks. Many of the industries hit hardest by COVID-19, including retail and hospitality, are among those least likely to offer employees insurance.

And even if someone had insurance through work, the person loses COBRA coverage if the former employer goes out of business.

Funding COBRA costs, federal dollars also wouldn't go as far as they could. Unpublished Urban Institute estimates show that an employer plan costs, on average, about 25% more than a Gold plan on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

"We need to be all hands on deck, spending whatever we can to help people," Gruber said. "But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking about efficient ways to do it."

Congress has tried this move before. In response to the Great Recession, lawmakers tucked a similar COBRA subsidy into the massive stimulus bill a decade ago. That legislation paid for 65% of COBRA premiums, leaving laid-off workers to cover the rest.

A federally commissioned study found that COBRA enrollment increased by just 15%. Mathematica senior researcher and study co-author Jill Berk said workers skipped the subsidy for two main reasons.

First, only about 30% of eligible workers even knew the subsidy existed.

"For those that were aware," Berk said, "their overwhelming response was that COBRA was still too expensive."

At that time, the average premium for a single worker — even with the subsidy — ran about $400 per month for a worker with family coverage.

"When you're actually facing those choices, choosing between rent and food and other bills," Berk said, "that COBRA bill looks quite high."

Berk's team also discovered that people who reported using the subsidy were four times more likely to have a college degree and a higher income than those who passed on it. In other words, Berk found that the COBRA subsidy was least helpful to those with the greatest need.

Several economists, including Gruber, and some Democrats in Washington are kicking around alternatives to COBRA. Among their ideas is a plan to have the federal government pick up more of a person's premium and other expenses on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Another proposal would extend ACA subsidies to people who earn too much to qualify for any aid and to lower-income people who live in states yet to expand Medicaid.

Compared with funding COBRA, beefing up ACA subsidies could potentially help millions more people, including the pool of laid-off workers who did not get health insurance from their employer.

The ACA ties subsidies to people's income, giving more help to those at the bottom end of the wage scale and spending less on those who are better off. In contrast, the current COBRA plan would cover 100% of COBRA for everyone, regardless of the person's income.

There are some downsides to this approach. Making ACA subsidies more generous could end up costing the federal government more overall, because it gives more help to a lot more people.

Chris Holt from the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, points out that the ACA already increases federal support when people's earnings fall and questions how much more of the tab Washington should pick up.

"If that subsidy would have been good enough for someone six months ago, why is it not good enough now?" he asked.

Maybe the biggest challenge to building on the ACA: The 10-year-old law remains a political football.

"There's just so much both emotion and, frankly, bitterness tied up in debates," Holt said, adding that this makes it hard to move anything forward.

Holt notes that COBRA is not free of political hang-ups either. He expects a fight over whether subsidy money can be spent on employer plans that cover abortion services, for example.

Holt and Gruber agree that perhaps the easiest idea is to leave the ACA alone with one minor tweak: allow people to take the ACA subsidy they're already eligible for and use it on COBRA if they choose.

As for Jimenez, she did not have time to wait for Congress. She brought in too much from unemployment to qualify for Medicaid. And she couldn't afford COBRA, so she picked out a plan on the ACA exchange, where she's eligible for generous existing subsidies. It will cost her $79.17 per month, and she gets to keep her doctors. Not everyone does.

This is the first time she has ever purchased insurance on her own, rather than gotten it through work — and that has delivered one other unexpected benefit.

"Freedom," Jimenez said. "It feels so freeing to take charge of my health care and to know that no one can take this away from me. I don't have to rely on a job to give me what they want to give me. I can make my own choices."

Policymakers, providers, employers and health-industry executives have been fighting over whether the United States should tie insurance to work since the end of World War II.

Subsidizing COBRA preserves the status quo, while doubling down on the ACA might just start to drive a real wedge between work and health insurance.

As states begin reopening businesses, some laid-off workers will get back their jobs, as well as their insurance. But many will remain unemployed and uninsured. A decade ago, faced with the same challenge, Congress chose to subsidize COBRA. It proved to be a narrow solution with limited impact.

Lawmakers now have the ACA at their disposal, a tool that may be a better fit for this moment. Whether they choose to use it may be a choice grounded more in political realism than policy idealism.

Dan Gorenstein is the creator and co-host of the Tradeoffs podcast, and Leslie Walker is a producer on the show, which ran a version of this story on April 23.

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

President Trump has said he wants to see the country begin to reopen. The pandemic crashed the economy by keeping people at home, leading to millions of job losses.; Credit: Pool/Getty Images

The White House coronavirus task force rejected detailed guidance drafted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how workplaces ranging from schools to bars to churches should resume operations to prevent the spread of the virus because it was viewed as "overly prescriptive."

President Trump has said he wants to see the country begin to reopen. The pandemic crashed the economy by keeping people at home, leading to millions of job losses. The White House task force issued guidelines on how to gradually and safely reopen but left decisions up to governors based on conditions in their states.

Experts have warned that a rush to reopen could have disastrous implications for containing COVID-19. Many businesses have said they want more details about how to do things safely.

The draft detailed guidance was provided to the task force in late April, a couple of weeks after it released its April 16 guidance to states for reopening.

The task force sought "certain revisions" to the CDC's detailed guidance, two administration officials told NPR. But revised recommendations were never returned to the task force.

The Associated Press first reported on the task force decision to shelve the detailed guidance. Copies obtained and published by the AP, The New York Times and The Washington Post revealed detailed, staged directions for child care centers, schools, camps, restaurants and bars, churches and mass transit providers about how to safely resume operations.

"I think many people would argue that it is not the role of the federal government to tell specific entities — whether they be schools or churches or businesses — how they should go about doing things because the nation is so diverse," one of the administration officials said.

The task force said that some of the points may be helpful, but they needed to "zoom out a little bit and not be so prescriptive," according to the official. The task force said they would welcome a new set of recommendations, but that never happened, the official said.

"Issuing overly specific instructions — that CDC leadership never cleared — for how various types of businesses open up would be overly prescriptive and broad for the various circumstances states are experiencing throughout the country," the second administration official said. "Guidance in rural Tennessee shouldn't be the same guidance for urban New York City."

The United States last month reached 1 million known coronavirus cases, representing one-third of all coronavirus cases worldwide. Nearly 74,000 Americans have been felled by the disease as of Thursday, according to data compiled by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

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

Among those protesting stay-at-home orders this week at the California Capitol in Sacramento were activists who oppose governments requiring vaccinations for school children.; Credit: Katie Orr/KQED

Protests over stay-at-home orders because of COVID-19 have become more common around the country. In California, a surprising group is behind some of them: those who oppose mandatory vaccinations.

On Thursday, a mash-up of people mingled on the sidewalk in front of California's state Capitol in Sacramento. There were Trump supporters wearing MAGA hats and waving American flags. There were Christians, singing along to religious rock songs and raising their hands in prayer. The event's MC. urged Gov. Gavin Newsom to tune into their event.

"Everybody up at the Capitol, tell Gavin Newsom [to tune in to] 107.9 FM, if he wants to hear what we have to say," the MC told the crowd over loudspeakers. "It could be kind of good for him!"

There were also mothers with their children at the rally. Many people were not wearing face masks or observing social distancing protocols.

They'd all come out to protest California's stay-at-home order, put in place to slow the spread of COVID-19. This week's event was built around the National Day of Prayer, and featured pastors and sermons. But it was organized by a group called Freedom Angels, which was originally formed to fight mandatory vaccine laws in the state.

At the beginning of the rally, the group's founders took the stage, including Denise Aguilar.

"Hello everybody, my name is Denise, I'm one of the founders of Freedom Angels," Aguilar said to a cheering crowd. "Thank you guys for being out here to let Gov. Newsom know we're not going away! We've said this for years!"

The group has become a fixture at the Capitol ever since California passed a law requiring school students to be vaccinated and a second law tightening restrictions on medical exemptions for those vaccines. But another Freedom Angels founder, Stefanie Fetzer, said they're not a single-issue group. She said these events are about promoting personal freedom.

"I think what we're seeing now is the predictive modeling that they came out with in the beginning didn't hold true. We aren't seeing the numbers that they predicted," Fetzer said. "And instead of backing off of the shutdown and the restrictive measures that Gov. Newsom implemented, he seems to be doubling down."

Attention-seeking strategy

Public health advocates point out that the reason those early predictions didn't come true is that aggressive social distancing measures — including stay-at-home orders — worked. Democratic state Senator Richard Pan, who authored California's vaccine laws, believes this anti-vaccine group is aligning with others protesting the stay-at-home order as a way to promote their cause. After all, Pan said, a vaccine would eventually allow the economy to reopen.

"They have staged these protests to basically find a way to get media attention for themselves. They fund raise off of their activities as well," Pan said. "So, frankly, many of the anti-vaxxers who are involved in this are really there for their own interests."

It's common for anti-vaccine groups to latch onto other controversial issues, according to epidemiologist and vaccine educator René Najera. For instance, he points to abortion.

"They try to say that there are aborted fetal cells in vaccines — which there are not — to try to get the anti-abortion people on their side," he said. "And then they flip it around and say, also, 'My body, my choice.'"

Najera said those tactics can have dangerous outcomes, including making people think twice about getting vaccines. In fact, he said, in 2019 the World Health Organization named vaccine hesitancy, or people's reluctance to consider vaccination, as one of the world's top 10 public health challenges.

"And we saw the effects of that," Najera said. "We saw a rise of measles in the United States to the point where the elimination status of the United States for measles was in jeopardy."

Najera is confident vaccine opponents aren't going away. He says, if anything, the rise of social media has made it easier for them to spread their message. What he finds most frustrating is that these anti-vaccines protesters aren't just making choices that affect their own families. Najera says choosing not to vaccinate their children and joining other large protests to spread their message puts the health of everyone at risk.

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

; Credit: /Dani Pendergast for NPR

Friday, March 13, was the last time Alexandra Sullivan saw her fellow yearbook staffers in person.

"We were trying to get as many pictures of people as possible 'cause we knew we wouldn't be able to take any more," Sullivan, 18, says.

Like most U.S. public school students, Sullivan is learning from home now. And much like her lessons, her work on the yearbook continues.

Sullivan is the yearbook profiles editor at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. She's one of 10 seniors who were also on staff two years ago, when a gunman opened fire at their school. Back then, she and her classmates had to adapt to an unimaginable tragedy. Now, they have to adapt again – this time, to the pandemic.

"This book has to get done and we'll do whatever we have to do to finish it," she says, "which is exactly how we approached the '18 book."

Senior Caitlynn Tibbetts, the yearbook's co-editor-in-chief, was also on staff when the shooting happened. She says there's a collective grief among seniors over what their class — which has already lost so much — is losing now. They won't be able to dance together at prom, or walk across the stage at graduation.

"This class especially has gotten screwed over so much through the past four years," Tibbetts, 18, says. "The last two months were supposed to be the best, and they were supposed to make up for everything that we've been through. And it's really hard on us to kind of just watch it all disappear."

Amid all the uncertainty, she says, one thing is clear: The yearbook must get done, and it must get to students.

High school yearbooks are like time capsules. They record theater productions, which teams went to state finals, who was voted most likely to succeed.

And when a news event makes history – leaving a mark on students and society – it's the yearbook's job to document it. At Stoneman Douglas, that's meant changing plans just weeks before the yearbook is due.

Yearbook advisor Sarah Lerner says, "Having done one under unthinkable circumstances before, I hate to say that we're kind of, you know, used to it, but, for the seniors on staff, we are."

Two years ago, after the shooting, the yearbook staff pivoted to include remembrances of the victims. Tibbetts and Sullivan stepped up to help write them, and anything else that was needed at the last minute, while other yearbook staffers took time to attend funerals.

This year, they're making room for two new spreads about the pandemic.

"One of them is more of a factual-based one, how it's affected our community, including businesses," Tibbetts explains. "The other spread is focused on the effect it's had on us personally, both with online schooling and especially with seniors."

Logistically, putting the yearbook together and writing the new sections has been a challenge. Unlike 2018, they can't be in the same room with each other to finish the design.

"We have to social distance and our parents wouldn't let us go out," Tibbetts says.

They mainly rely on a group chat with everyone on the staff. "It can get hectic," Tibbetts says, "especially when it's all happening at like 12 a.m."

Lerner and her students missed the original deadline to finish the book, on April 6. But the printer, Walsworth, says the company is being flexible with Stoneman Douglas and other yearbook staffs across the country. Lerner says she's aiming to get the book in by the end of April.

Once the printed copies come back, more than 1,200 books will somehow have to be distributed to students. Lerner has some ideas for how to do that safely.

However, there's one important yearbook tradition they may not be able to save.

"We may not actually get to sign books this year," Lerner says. And that's been hard to accept.

"As a teacher, I really like to get my students to sign my book, you know, and I like to sign theirs and I like to see the kids carrying them around at school."

Lerner says she's sad that might not happen this year. But at least this time, the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School aren't on their own.

"Unlike the 2018 books, this situation is not unique to us," she says. "So there's comfort in knowing that all staffs are going through the same issue. It's not just us."

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

Robert F. Kennedy's speech at the Ambassador Hotel. Sandi Gibbons the woman in the white dress on the bottom right.

She’s spent her life on both sides of the microphone.

For half of her career she was a reporter, finding herself in places like the Ambassador Hotel ballroom on the night Robert F. Kennedy was shot, and in the courthouse covering Charles Manson.

For the other half of her professional life, she spent a lot more time in L.A.’s courthouses as the spokeswoman for the L.A. County District Attorney’s office. She served three DAs, and now she’s hanging it up. Her retirement lunch was attended by three past and present DAs, with a fond message from a fourth, and as many of her reporter and DA friends could fit in the restaurant.

RELATED: Veteran reporter, DA spokesperson Sandi Gibbons is retiring

Sandi Gibbons has tales to tell, and here she recounts a few funny, moving and plain old perplexing ones from her life in court. And I can tell you from knowing her, she is one great dame.

Correction: Original headline spelled Sandi Gibbons' name "Sandy"

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

Patt Morrison's ensemble for Aug 8, 2013.; Credit: Dave Coelho/KPCC

What shall we call this color scheme? How about ‘Manhattan Mermaid’?

The petrel blues, the turquoises, the aquas – and then that uptown/downtown black, in this case a black linen duster over a Peter Max-style splashy-print silk dress. The way the hem pools at the sides a bit reminds me of the cut of Pre-Raphaelite ladies’ tunics; I’d love to dress “period” for a week to see whether I’d like it.

Imagine, a week of hoop skirts … a week of 1950s tailleurs … a week of bustles … a week of hobble skirts … a week of liberated Pre-Raphaelite velvet gowns!

The hat is so unmistakably summer in fabric and color that it doesn’t get out of the hatbox as much as it should, poor thing. And the shoes – I did not get them together, honest, but even though the prints don’t match, it’s the dissonance that makes them work better together than if they had.

The fabric is a very textured canvas and printed like batik. [They are not the soul of comfort – oh what a dreadful pun, but is there any other kind of pun? – but they look smart hooked over the railing of a chair in a chic bistro, which is where I intend to take them!]

And the bracelets, one from a great-aunt who had a fine eye for jewelry – the turquoise is almost Persian, it’s so green, but it’s more likely to be American. The cuff is definitely Southwest, with the rope-pattern trim and the irregularly shaped bezels, although the turquoises themselves are symmetrical.

Because I’m left-handed, my right arm bears the singular honor of being “ornamental,” and bearing the burden of the bling.

Summer on, ladies!

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

Director Eliza Hittman on the set of her film "Never Rarely Sometimes Always".
; Credit: Focus Features/Never Rarely Sometimes Always (2020)

The film “Never Rarely Sometimes Always” was slated for a theatrical release in March, but due to COVID-19 screenings were postponed. Instead, the film is out on digital this week, currently sporting a 98 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes and receiving critical acclaim both here on FilmWeek and nationwide as one of the best films of 2020 so far.

Writer-director Eliza Hittman’s third feature-length film is about two teenage girls Skylar (Talia Ryder) and Autumn (Sidney Flanagan) from rural Pennsylvania who travel to New York City for medical help after an unplanned pregnancy. Hittman says the idea for the film came to her when she read in a book about how some women in Ireland, which up until recently had very strict laws against abortions, would travel from Ireland to London in 24 hours just to get a procedure. It struck her as worthy of a screenplay, and the idea was born. As part of her research for the film Hittman went to a small coal-mining community in rural Pennsylvania and, even though she wasn’t pregnant, visited pregnancy centers, got tested, and talked with women getting treatment and counseling so she could, as she says, “write the scenes with credibility.”

Today on FilmWeek, we’ll air “The Frame” host John Horn’s interview with “Never Rarely Sometimes Always” director Eliza Hittman where the two discuss how Hittman came up with the idea for the film, her journey to rural America to find out what visiting pregnancy centers there is like, and how that informed the way she conceived and wrote the film.

Guest:

Eliza Hittman, writer and director of “Never Rarely Sometimes Always”

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

New research has shed light on the factors needed to successfully implement pilot projects designed to reduce the dumping of unwanted fish by fishermen. The analysis of 15 European projects highlights the importance of involving the fishing industry in developing and implementing pilot projects.

New way to 'see' objects accelerates the future of self-driving cars

We reported last week that layoffs were coming soon to Warner Brothers, but how many positions will be cut is still unknown.  

A spokesman for Warner Brothers Entertainment, Paul McGuire, told KPCC there's no exact number yet. "There is no headcount reduction target, but there is a substantial financial target," Maguire said. 

“This is a budget issue, not a head count issue,” Dee Dee Myers, Warner Brothers Vice President of Corporation Communications told Variety.  The trade publication reports that Warner Brothers is expected to eliminate as many as 1,000 positions worldwide - or about 10 percent of its workforce:

Senior managers are currently assessing their businesses to come up with ways to trim overhead. Only at the end of that process will an exact reduction figure be known. It could be somewhat lower than the current numbers being speculated, but cuts are expected to be substantial.  

News of coming layoffs became public two weeks ago, when KPCC and other media outlets obtained an internal memo written by Warner Bros. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Kevin Tsujihara.   

"It pains me to say this, positions will be eliminated—at every level—across the Studio," Tsujihara wrote in the memo. 

Morningstar Analyst Neil Macker told KPCC that management at Warner Brothers is trying to protect the company from another takeover play by Rupert Murdoch.  In July, Murdoch offered to buy parent company Time Warner for $80 billion. He withdrew the offer in August. 

A job seeker fills out an application during a career fair at the Southeast Community Facility Commission on May 21, 2014 in San Francisco; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

California employers added 44,200 jobs in August, the largest gain of any state in the country. The state's unemployment rate stood still at 7.4 percent, compared to 6.1 percent nationwide.

"When the national numbers came out for August, and we saw a significant slowdown in job creation, we were a little bit concerned that we'd see the same thing happening here," said economist Kimberly Ritter-Martinez of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. "But in California, we stayed pretty much on track, outpacing the nation in terms of job creation." 

The construction sector was a huge contributor to California's job growth in August, with a gain of 13,600 jobs.  The other sectors with large gains were Education/Health Services (+12,200), and Professional/Business Services (+10,600). 

"We've been seeing steady increases in construction employment for some time, but it has been a slow steady increase," said Tom Holsman, CEO of the Associated General Contractors of California.

"Recent increases are attributable to many projects that have been in the early stages of startup gaining momentum," Holsman added, citing LA County Metro transit projects and the new Wilshire Grand Hotel construction project as local examples.

In Los Angeles County, the unemployment rate also stayed flat at 8.1 percent, but it remains far lower than the 9.9 percent of August of 2013. In the last twelve months, the L.A. County Metro area has gained 6,600 construction jobs, a rate of 5.6 percent.

Ritter-Martinez, of the LAEDC says other economic indicators support a boost in construction jobs at the Los Angeles and statewide levels: permits for new housing construction, remodeling, and non-residential construction are all on the rise. 

"Builders and developers are reporting that they're having trouble finding some skilled labor for construction," Ritter-Martinez said. "It's taken so long for that sector to come back, a lot of construction people have gone off and found other kinds of jobs or moved out of the region." 

In Orange County, the unemployment rate was 5.4 percent, down from 5.7 percent in July. The unemployment rate in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area was 8.7 percent in 
August 2014, down from a revised 9.3 percent in July 2014.

Among those protesting stay-at-home orders this week at the California Capitol in Sacramento were activists who oppose governments requiring vaccinations for school children.; Credit: Katie Orr/KQED

Protests over stay-at-home orders because of COVID-19 have become more common around the country. In California, a surprising group is behind some of them: those who oppose mandatory vaccinations.

On Thursday, a mash-up of people mingled on the sidewalk in front of California's state Capitol in Sacramento. There were Trump supporters wearing MAGA hats and waving American flags. There were Christians, singing along to religious rock songs and raising their hands in prayer. The event's MC. urged Gov. Gavin Newsom to tune into their event.

"Everybody up at the Capitol, tell Gavin Newsom [to tune in to] 107.9 FM, if he wants to hear what we have to say," the MC told the crowd over loudspeakers. "It could be kind of good for him!"

There were also mothers with their children at the rally. Many people were not wearing face masks or observing social distancing protocols.

They'd all come out to protest California's stay-at-home order, put in place to slow the spread of COVID-19. This week's event was built around the National Day of Prayer, and featured pastors and sermons. But it was organized by a group called Freedom Angels, which was originally formed to fight mandatory vaccine laws in the state.

At the beginning of the rally, the group's founders took the stage, including Denise Aguilar.

"Hello everybody, my name is Denise, I'm one of the founders of Freedom Angels," Aguilar said to a cheering crowd. "Thank you guys for being out here to let Gov. Newsom know we're not going away! We've said this for years!"

The group has become a fixture at the Capitol ever since California passed a law requiring school students to be vaccinated and a second law tightening restrictions on medical exemptions for those vaccines. But another Freedom Angels founder, Stefanie Fetzer, said they're not a single-issue group. She said these events are about promoting personal freedom.

"I think what we're seeing now is the predictive modeling that they came out with in the beginning didn't hold true. We aren't seeing the numbers that they predicted," Fetzer said. "And instead of backing off of the shutdown and the restrictive measures that Gov. Newsom implemented, he seems to be doubling down."

Attention-seeking strategy

Public health advocates point out that the reason those early predictions didn't come true is that aggressive social distancing measures — including stay-at-home orders — worked. Democratic state Senator Richard Pan, who authored California's vaccine laws, believes this anti-vaccine group is aligning with others protesting the stay-at-home order as a way to promote their cause. After all, Pan said, a vaccine would eventually allow the economy to reopen.

"They have staged these protests to basically find a way to get media attention for themselves. They fund raise off of their activities as well," Pan said. "So, frankly, many of the anti-vaxxers who are involved in this are really there for their own interests."

It's common for anti-vaccine groups to latch onto other controversial issues, according to epidemiologist and vaccine educator René Najera. For instance, he points to abortion.

"They try to say that there are aborted fetal cells in vaccines — which there are not — to try to get the anti-abortion people on their side," he said. "And then they flip it around and say, also, 'My body, my choice.'"

Najera said those tactics can have dangerous outcomes, including making people think twice about getting vaccines. In fact, he said, in 2019 the World Health Organization named vaccine hesitancy, or people's reluctance to consider vaccination, as one of the world's top 10 public health challenges.

"And we saw the effects of that," Najera said. "We saw a rise of measles in the United States to the point where the elimination status of the United States for measles was in jeopardy."

Najera is confident vaccine opponents aren't going away. He says, if anything, the rise of social media has made it easier for them to spread their message. What he finds most frustrating is that these anti-vaccines protesters aren't just making choices that affect their own families. Najera says choosing not to vaccinate their children and joining other large protests to spread their message puts the health of everyone at risk.

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

The technical update on the asset, which Wheaton Precious Metals owns a production stream on, is explored in a CIBC report.

Ron Struthers of Struthers' Research Report takes a look at the investment thesis for Ridgestone Mining.

The opportunities surrounding a potential district-scale prospect are outlined by Hannan Metals CEO Michael Hudson in conversation with Maurice Jackson of Proven and Probable.

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

Tom Rachal (R) receives a free meningitis vaccine from Dr. Wayne Chen at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation pharmacy on April 15, 2013 in Hollywood, California. Los Angeles County's unemployment rate is 7.9%, down from 9.2% a year ago, and once again it was healthcare that added the most jobs: 22,000.
; Credit: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

If you want a job in Los Angeles County, you’re best off being a nurse or a hotel worker and you’re less likely to find employment in manufacturing. 

We’re getting our first look at the employment numbers for 2014, which show mostly good news: California’s unemployment has fallen to 7 percent, the lowest rate in five and a half years. (The final numbers come out in March)

The state’s job growth outpaced the rest of the country for the third straight year, though it slowed slightly towards the end of the year.

California added jobs at a 2.2 percent annual rate last year, outpacing the nation’s 1.8 percent rate. 

Los Angeles County fared the worst as far as seasonally adjusted year-to-year job gains among California's major metropolitan areas, according to The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.:

• San Jose/Silicon Valley +4 percent
• San Francisco Bay Area + 3.8 percent 
• San Diego +3.3 percent
• Inland Empire +1.9 percent
• Orange County +2.3 percent
• Ventura +2 percent
• Los Angeles +1.7 percent

Los Angeles County's unemployment rate is 7.9 percent, down from 9.2 percent a year ago, and once again it was health care that added the most jobs: 22,000.

"Part of it is demographic, and part of it was the Affordable Care Act, which is helping more individuals take advantage of health care," said Robert Kleinhenz, Chief Economist at the L.A. County Economic Development Corp.

Aside from an aging population needing more health care, Kleinhenz adds that more people can afford to get medical treatment because of the improvement in the economy. 

With more money in their pockets, more people have also been traveling, which made leisure and hospitality the second-best area for job growth in the county, with 11,300 new jobs.

What's not doing well? 

Manufacturing, especially in non-durable goods – which includes food and clothing – lost the most jobs in L.A. County in 2014: 6,700 jobs. The only other sector that shed jobs was the government, which lost almost 3,800 jobs positions last year.

Kleinhenz also pointed to wholesale trade, which lost 300 jobs year-to-year in but saw job growth in the Inland Empire. 

"Some parts of the goods movement may be moving into the Inland Empire, where we have seen in recent years quite a bit of warehouse building taking place,” said Kleinhenz. 

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

The LAEDC helped Huy Fong Foods reach a compromise to keep operating its Sriracha factory in Irwindale ; Credit: Maya Sugarman/KPCC

Even as California loses manufacturing jobs, a program run by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation has fought to save some. 

When a company is considering relocating to take advantage of lower costs or an easier business climate, the LAEDC’s business assistance program steps in.  

It did so in the well-publicized case of Huy Fung Foods last year.  

When the city of Irwindale filed a lawsuit against the Sriracha sauce-maker because of bad smells, politicians from other states - most notably Texas - began to circle, offering the company a new home.  

Fighting against those suitors is a  familiar dance for the nonprofit Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. Many states and municipalities have similar agencies, whose job it is to try to attract and keep employers.

In the Sriracha case, the LAEDC prepared an economic impact analysis, met with the company and the South Coast Air Quality Management District and negotiated a compromise that kept the hot sauce manufacturer here, according to Carrie Rogers, Vice President of Business Assistance and Development with LAEDC.

"We all love Sriracha," she said, adding that she was happy to keep the "180 jobs and really to thwart the efforts of Governor Perry from Texas to try to lure our company away to their state."

The LAEDC estimates its business assistance program has played a role in keeping or luring 200,000 jobs since 1996, when it was formed. It's being recognized by the County Board of Supervisors for those efforts today.

But plenty of jobs still leave.

In a study published in July, the LAEDC said between 1990 and 2012, California lost about 40 percent of its manufacturing jobs – 842,180. 

"We compete internationally so a lot of our competitors have gone to Mexico," said Jeff Hynes, CEO of Covina-based Composites Horizons Incorporated, which makes ceramic structures for jet engines. "A week doesn’t go by that I don’t get a call from an economic development corp out of Texas or the South."

He scored a big contract recently and needed to expand fast to begin fulfilling orders. 

"Los Angeles  - in our particular industry - has a very good supplier base with materials and equipment," he said "but certainly facility costs are lower in other areas of the state and country."  

He said the LAEDC helped him get the permits quickly to buy and modify another building on its street and they decided to stay put. 

Composites Horizons currently employs 200 people but plans to add 50 employees this year and another 50 next year, he said. 

Rogers, of the LAEDC, said that may not seem like much, but it's important to support businesses like this one.

"When you take a step back and think about it, here’s a company that’s growing when many businesses aren’t," she said. "We know there are suppliers that feed into Composites Horizons. So when they get millions of dollars worth of contracts, we know that many more companies and employees around the county will be employed doing work directly for this company."

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

New way to 'see' objects accelerates the future of self-driving cars

Microsoft plugs a security hole that could have enabled attackers to weaponize a GIF in order to hijack Teams accounts and steal data

The post Microsoft Teams flaw could let attackers hijack accounts appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

As you rush to buy something for your mom, con artists will be trying to make a dent in your wallet. Here are some common types of fraud to look out for not only this Mother's Day.

The post Scams to watch out for not just this Mother’s Day appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Content: Making the most of our lockdown opportunities The future of the coronavirus task force Testing our way out, versus reality The economy and recovery If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful […]

The post Episode 959 Scott Adams: Join Me in My Fortress of Garagitude appeared first on Scott Adams' Blog.

This project, along with two other new projects, increases the company's order backlog by 65%.

The status and potential implications of this deal involving BP as the seller are discussed in a Raymond James report.