(CHICAGO) — Three years ago, a 26-year-old postal worker who was eagerly expecting her first child mysteriously disappeared in her own neighborhood.
There’s still no resolution, leaving her heartbroken mother desperate to know if her daughter is even alive or dead.
Kierra Coles was about three months pregnant when she vanished on Oct. 2, 2018, on Chicago’s South Side. Her car was found in front of her apartment with her phone and packed lunch still inside.
The Chicago Police Department considers the case “a high-risk missing person investigation with potential foul play suspected.”
For Coles’ mother, Karen Phillips, having no answers is torturous.
Phillips said police have not provided any information whenever she’s called over the last year.
“I could never reach nobody. They’re gone to lunch, they’ll call me back, they’re out of the office. It’s always something,” she told ABC News last week. “They don’t even reach out and say, ‘Well, Ms. Phillips, we’re still going through this’ … or, ‘We don’t have any new leads.’ Just say something.”
The Chicago police didn’t respond to Phillips’ claim that they ignored her calls, but in a statement to ABC News the police department said it urges “anybody with knowledge of her last whereabouts … to contact the Chicago Police Department.”
“We are seeking any and all information in an attempt to locate her and we won’t stop until we do,” police said.
For Phillips, the loss is “unbearable.”
“I went from seeing my child every day — if not seeing her, at least talking to her every day — to not seeing her in three years,” Phillips said. “I try to stay strong for the other kids, I try to not really break down in front of them. But we talk about her all the time, we got pictures everywhere. We just really want her home.”
Coles’ siblings range in age from 35 to 24. Coles, a devoted aunt to her nieces and nephews, was the last of Phillips’ children to have a baby.
Phillips said she misses the grandchild she never got a chance to meet.
“I miss him — he or she — even though they wasn’t born yet. I just miss him because she would’ve been a great mother,” she said. “For her to be a mother, we were so excited. … That was the last thing she was waiting for.”
Coles had a plan for her life and so far “everything was going according to plan,” her mother said.
Coles first wanted a good job, and after years with the post office she had saved for a car and a home. Then, she and her boyfriend decided they were ready for a baby, Phillips said.
For her to vanish “out of the blue,” she said, “I can’t understand it.”
The United States Postal Inspection Service and the FBI are both working with the Chicago police on the case.
“Since October 2018, Postal Inspectors have tracked down and vetted nearly 400 leads across the country. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service distributed thousands of reward flyers,” the Postal Inspection Service said.
“Kierra Coles is a member of our Postal family and we will continue looking for her and following up on all leads,” the agency continued. “If you know something, no matter how trivial it may seem, please come forward as it may be crucial to our investigation. Please contact the U.S. Postal Inspection Service hotline at (877) 876-2455 and reference case number 2693502.”
Some days Phillips said she “really can’t function because my mind just, you know, keeps wondering — where’s my child? Is she being harmed? Is she dead or alive?”
“It’s hard waking up every day wondering,” she said. “I just want somebody to come forward and say what happened.”
(WASHINGTON) — Lawyers from the Justice Department and the state of Texas squared off in court Friday as the Biden administration seeks an order that would halt enforcement of the state’s restrictive abortion law.
In an overnight filing, DOJ officials accused Texas of mounting a “brazen” effort to enact a law purely designed to obstruct women’s right to an abortion while evading all traditional methods of judicial review.
“S.B. 8’s novel enforcement scheme is calculated to accomplish what no state should be able to do in our federal system: deter, suppress, and render moot rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,” department officials said in their filing. “The State does not dispute that S.B. 8 has virtually eliminated previability abortions after six weeks of pregnancy in the State. Moreover, the approach Texas has taken need not be confined to the abortion context. If this mechanism works here, it would serve as a blueprint for the suppression of nearly any other constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court but resented by a state government.”
S.B. 8, or the ‘Texas Heartbeat Act,’ bars physicians from providing abortions once they detect a so-called fetal heartbeat — which can be seen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. But the language of the law makes it so private citizens can sue anyone they “reasonably believed” provided an abortion, and effectively removes any government officials from being part of its enforcement.
Attorney General Merrick Garland announced last month that the Justice Department would sue Texas over its law just one week after the U.S. Supreme Court let it take effect. Soon after, the department filed for an emergency injunction seeking to halt enforcement of the law entirely as the legal fight plays out.
In a filing Wednesday, Texas officials urged District Judge Robert Pitman to dismiss DOJ’s request for an injunction — arguing the Biden Administration had no standing to pull it before a federal judge and that the matter should instead be resolved before state courts.
“The federal government asks the Court to dispense with the normal cause-of-action requirement based on unfounded fears that the Texas Heartbeat Act will otherwise “evade judicial review.” Nothing could be further from the truth,” officials wrote in their filing. “The constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act can be reviewed in the same way that virtually all of state tort law is: State-court defendants raise constitutional defenses before neutral judges sworn to follow the U.S. Constitution and, if necessary, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Also in their brief, Texas officials made an eyebrow-raising counterargument to DOJ’s contention that the abortion law hinders interstate commerce — the state instead pointed to reports of women seeking an abortion being forced to travel out of the Texas to Oklahoma, saying that “is stimulating rather than obstructing interstate travel.”
It’s not clear when Judge Pitman might rule on DOJ’s request for an emergency injunction — though the ruling is likely to face a quick appeal from either Texas or DOJ to try and put the matter before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which in a separate challenge previously ruled the law could take effect.
(LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla.) — October 1 marks 50 years since Walt Disney World Resort officially opened to guests.
To celebrate its 50th anniversary, “The Most Magical Place on Earth” has put together an 18-month event featuring new attractions, nighttime spectaculars and a lot more.
“Guests will discover new experiences across the resort, where shimmering EARidescence appears as if by magic everywhere from theme parks to Disney Resort hotels to transportation to merchandise and more,” Disney said in a press release.
In honor of “The World’s Most Magical Celebration,” here are six things to watch for as you plan your trip for the 50th-anniversary celebration.
1. Expanded EPCOT France Pavilion
The France Pavilion at EPCOT is serving up a new attraction and a new restaurant.
Remy’s Ratatouille Adventure is a family-friendly attraction where guests are shrunk to the size of Chef Remy from Disney and Pixar’s Academy Award-winning film, Ratatouille.
The new restaurant, La Crêperie de Paris, offers table and quick-service options featuring items like sweet crepes and savory buckwheat galettes.
2. Nighttime Spectacular ‘Harmonious’
EPCOT guests can also experience “Harmonious,” one of the largest nighttime spectaculars ever created for a Disney park.
The show at World Showcase Lagoon features new interpretations of classic Disney songs from a diverse group of 240 artists from around the world.
3. ‘Disney Enchantment’ at Magic Kingdom Park
Magic Kingdom Park is also debuting a new nighttime spectacular called “Disney Enchantment.”
According to a press release, “Disney Enchantment” features stunning fireworks, powerful music, enhanced lighting and, for the first time, immersive projection effects that extend from Cinderella Castle down Main Street, U.S.A.”
4. ‘Disney KiteTails’ at Animal Kingdom
Discovery River Theater at Animal Kingdom will now feature “Disney KiteTails” several times daily.
You can watch performers fly windcatchers and kites of all shapes and sizes to the beat of favorite Disney songs.
5. Beacons of Magic
Four icons at Walt Disney World theme parks will transform at night into Beacons of Magic.
Cinderella Castle, Tree of Life, The Hollywood Tower Hotel, and Spaceship Earth will all come to life with their own “EARidescent” glow.
6. ‘Disney Fab 50 Character Collection’ Sculptures
In honor of the park’s 50th anniversary, 50 golden sculptures have been spread across the four Walt Disney World theme parks.
These sculptures feature characters from Timon and Pumba from The Lion King to Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse.
(WASHINGTON) — Justice Brett Kavanaugh has tested positive for COVID-19, the Supreme Court said on Friday.
Kavanaugh tested positive during a routine test ahead of an investiture ceremony for Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
He has been vaccinated since January and currently has no symptoms, the court said. His family has also tested negative.
The court said Kavanaugh was informed Thursday evening that he tested positive.
“On Thursday, per the Court’s regular testing protocols, Justice Kavanaugh had a routine Covid test ahead of Justice Barrett’s investiture on Friday. On Thursday evening, Justice Kavanaugh was informed that he had tested positive for Covid-19,” the court’s spokesperson Patricia McCabe said in a press release.
“As a precaution, Justice and Mrs. Kavanaugh will not attend Justice Barrett’s investiture this morning,” McCabe said.
Barrett is scheduled to have an investiture photo op on Friday coming down the steps of the Supreme Court Building with the Chief Justice and her husband.
The news comes three days before the court is scheduled to begin its new term on Monday.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Women’s rights advocates are preparing to march again in Washington, D.C., and other cities across the U.S. this weekend, with a focus on reproductive rights.
The fifth annual Women’s March will take place on Saturday, a date specifically chosen for its proximity to the start of the U.S. Supreme Court’s new term — Oct. 4, the first Monday in October.
Women’s March organizers said the restrictive abortion law that went into effect in Texas in September motivated them to act now.
The law, which bans nearly all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, went into effect after the Supreme Court rejected a request by Texas abortion providers to block the law as legal challenges continued.
“When the Supreme Court rejected an emergency request to block Texas’s abortion ban, they effectively took the next step towards overturning Roe v. Wade. Simply put: We are witnessing the most dire threat to abortion access in our lifetime,” reads a statement on the Women’s March website.
The Supreme Court also is scheduled to hear in December oral arguments in a case that could be the most consequential abortion rights case in decades. The state of Mississippi is asking the justices to overturn longstanding legal precedent that restrictions on abortion access before a fetus is viable outside the womb — around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy — are categorically unconstitutional. Mississippi wants to ban abortions after 15 weeks, or even earlier.
Reproductive rights advocates call the case, which centers around Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi’s last remaining abortion clinic, an existential threat to American abortion rights not seen in nearly 50 years.
This year’s protest will follow in the footsteps of Women’s March protests that have taken place every year since 2017, when the first march drew more than a million people to various locations across the U.S. the day after the inauguration of President Donald Trump.
The protests have dwindled in size since the first march, but have continued across the country.
As women take to the streets this year to march, in addition to battles over reproductive rights, women have also experienced disproportionate job loss during the coronavirus pandemic and faced greater caregiving burdens than male counterparts, data shows.
Women’s March organizers said that in addition to the Washington, D.C., march, there will be smaller marches from Bangor, Maine, and the way to Seattle.
The Washington march will begin at Freedom Plaza and continue along Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Supreme Court building.
Busy Phillips, who has spoken publicly about having an abortion at age 15, is among the speakers confirmed for the Washington march.
(WASHINGTON) — In today’s world of permanent campaigning, “leadership PACs” — political action committees established by individual politicians — have served as an invaluable vehicle for members of Congress to support their political allies.
Leadership PACs were approved in 1978 as a way for politicians to raise money and then make contributions to other candidates. The money cannot be used on a politician’s own election expenses.
But a new report by the good-government groups Campaign Legal Center and Issue One shows that numerous lawmakers have been dedicating most of their leadership PAC spending to overhead and fundraising for the PAC — often at fancy restaurants and luxury resorts — while spending comparatively little on actual contributions to other candidates or political allies.
During the 2020 election cycle, there were at least 120 members of Congress whose leadership PACs reported that less than 50% of their spending was in the form of political contributions to other candidates, political allies, or parties, according to the report.
Of those, 43 members’ leadership PACs devoted less than 25% of their overall spending to political contributions during that cycle, while a handful of members’ leadership PACs spent more than five figures without making any political contributions whatsoever.
Early in 2019, then-North Carolina GOP Rep. George Holding’s leadership PAC made two such contributions, giving a total of $5,000 to a fellow North Carolina Republican House hopeful running in a GOP primary.
But a few months later in December, Holding announced that he would not seek reelection in 2020 — and that $5,000 remained the PAC’s only political contributions throughout the 2020 cycle. All the while, Holding’s PAC continued to rake in contributions from supporters, while the PAC spent nearly $200,000 on airfare and car services and on food and drink at restaurants and clubs, including the exclusive East India Club in London and the Union Club in New York City, according to the report.
The report notes that none of the donor funds beyond the $5,000 contributions went toward supporting Holding’s political allies.
“Most members of Congress use their leadership PAC for their intended purposes — aiding other candidates, their parties, and political allies,” Issue One Research Director Michael Beckel told ABC News. For a typical member, Beckel said, 70% of their leadership PAC’s expenditures go toward political expenditures.
But other members use their leadership PAC funds to spend lavishly on expensive meals, trips to elite resorts and rounds of golf at premier courses, which is “purportedly done for the purpose of political fundraising,” Beckel and his co-authors wrote in the report. However, the authors wrote, “this explanation rings hollow when just a fraction of the money raised goes toward political contributions.”
“Some politicians are simply raising money at one posh location to pay for the next fundraiser at the next fancy destination — creating an endless fundraising cycle at luxurious restaurants and resorts, much of which is paid for by special interest money, with no cost to lawmakers’ own pocketbooks,” the authors wrote.
When Holding launched his leadership PAC, Conservative Roundtable, in 2014, it devoted nearly 70% of its funds to supporting fellow Republicans running for office that year, past disclosure filings show. But over the years, according to the report, the PAC gradually spent less and less on supporting GOP allies. Out of the $202,000 the PAC spent in the last election cycle — besides the $5,000 in political contributions and the funds spent on social clubs, airfare and lodging — the bulk of the PAC’s expenditures went to a fundraising firm.
Holding’s PAC did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment, but the then-congressman told CQ Roll Call in a statement last year that as co-chair of the U.K. Caucus and co-chair of the British American Parliamentary Group, he “traveled to London at no expense to the taxpayer for the purpose of developing and maintaining a leadership role on U.K./U.S. issues.”
“In addition, I have developed a supporter base with the American expatriate community in the U.K,” Holding said in the statement. It’s unclear from the report or from committee disclosure filings if his trips to London were paid for by his leadership PAC.
GOP Sen. Rand Paul’s leadership PAC, Reinventing a New Direction, spent only 12% of its expenditures on political contributions out of the nearly $1 million it spent during the 2020 cycle, according to the report, with a big chunk of the PAC’s money going to political research and consulting, as well as to fundraising.
Tens of thousands of dollars of Paul’s PAC money also went to travel, lodging and meals at high-end establishments, including The Breakers, a five-star resort in Palm Beach, Florida, and BLT Prime at former President Donald Trump’s hotel in Washington, D.C. Paul’s PAC also spent money on tickets at Nationals Park, home of Washington’s Major League Baseball team, and at Karlštejn Castle, a tourist destination outside Prague in the Czech Republic, according to the report.
Paul’s spokesperson did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore’s leadership PAC also reported using just 12% of its total spending during the 2020 election cycle on direct political contributions, while spending tens of thousands of dollars on fundraising, lodging and airfare. The PAC spent roughly $32,000 on meals and catering, including thousands of dollars at steakhouses and for delivery services, and spent thousands of dollars on event tickets purchased through Live Nation, StubHub and Ticketmaster, according to the report.
Moore’s PAC did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
While some PACs may be skimping on direct political contributions to political allies, a number of lawmakers say they’ve found other ways for their PACs to support their political interests.
GOP Sen. Ted Cruz’ leadership PAC, while spending just 18% of its $2.2 million in total expenditures on directly supporting other Republican candidates and political groups in the 2020 cycle, spent more than 70% of its funds on media buys and online advertising promoting Republican political causes.
Cruz’ spokesperson told ABC News that “in addition to making direct contributions to candidates, his strong fundraising has permitted Jobs, Freedom & Security PAC to go above and beyond the typical Leadership PAC by investing heavily in advertisements and messaging that empower and help give voice to the conservative movement.”
Cruz’ PAC also spent more than $12,000 for facility and equipment rentals from the Houston Astros baseball team, as well as big sums on airfare and boutique hotels, according to the report.
Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton’s two leadership PACs reported spending just 8% on political contributions out of their combined total expenditures of $1.7 million during the 2020 cycle, with the vast majority of their funds being spent on salaries, consulting and fundraising. In contrast, during the 2016 cycle, the majority of Moulton’s Serve America PAC money — more than 84% — went to other Democratic campaigns, past campaign disclosure filings show.
Moulton, however, told ABC News in a statement that his PACs’ political contributions to Democratic allies were lower in the 2020 election cycle because he had been mobilizing his donors to contribute directly to other candidates rather than asking them to cut a check to his PACs to then be forwarded along. Through this strategy, Moulton said, his team raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for then-candidate Joe Biden’s presidential campaign and for Democratic Georgia Senate candidates.
(NEW YORK) — A breast cancer survivor has created a mobile app, called Feel For Your Life, to help women conduct breast self-exams.
“I found out there were three reasons women weren’t doing self exams,” Jessica Baladad, 36, told Good Morning America. “They were afraid of finding something and not knowing what to do, they weren’t comfortable with their bodies, and they didn’t know how because no one’s ever showed them or talked to them about the importance of a exam, so I thought, ‘I need to advocate for this.'”
According to the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer is one of the three most common cancers in women. The NCI estimates there will be more new cases of female breast cancer than any other cancer in 2021, with a projection of 281,550 new cases.
Breast cancer is primarily detected through a mammogram, ultrasound, MRI or biopsy, and usually involves a combination of testing to ensure an accurate diagnosis. Mammograms can often detect tumors before a lump appears, so screenings are crucial for early detection.
“As a supplementary tool for women of all ages, self-breast exams can increase women’s awareness of their body and what their breasts normally feel like,” Dr. Elizabeth Comen, breast medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering, told GMA. “As a screening strategy, it helps women identify any concerning findings such as new changes in the shape, skin, or nipple as well as any concerning lumps which may require further imaging and work-up.”
Most guidelines recommend women begin routine annual screenings once they’re 45 years old; a recommendation that can leave younger women vulnerable to missing early detection of the disease.
For those under the recommended age for screening, Comen said that self-exams can have an important role in picking up breast abnormalities and prompt patients to seek out further care from their doctor.
“This is particularly true for women under the age of 40, for whom there’s no routine breast cancer imaging screening recommendations,” she said. “Since most of these women aren’t indicated to have mammograms, many of these cancers are actually detected by women themselves, through self-breast exams.”
Baladad has done regular self-exams ever since she had surgery to remove a benign fibroadenoma tumor in her breast when she was 18 years old, she said.
“I had a pain in my breast and I ran to the bathroom real quick, right before class, and I noticed there was a lump and it scared me,” she recalled, adding that she immediately went to health services after class and it was from there that doctors discovered the tumor. “It was that experience that got me into the habit of doing self-breast exams throughout the rest of adulthood.”
A personal connection to breast cancer
Breast cancer runs in Baladad’s family on her father’s side, with her great-grandmother, grandmother, five grand-aunts, and two aunts all having lived with the disease, she said. Fifteen years later after that initial scare, Baladad was diagnosed with breast cancer herself.
In March 2018, Baladad said she didn’t do her routine self-exam that month because she was scheduled to see her nurse practitioner around then.
“I thought, ‘Who better than my practitioner to do a clinical breast exam?’ and when I saw her, she didn’t say anything about a lump to me so I thought I was good to go,” she said.
When Baladad did a self-exam in the shower just two weeks after her appointment, however, she found a lump in her left breast.
“I just started freaking out like ‘This is it, it’s cancer,'” Baladad said. “But then I thought, ‘Wait. I’m working out in the gym almost every day. I take care of myself. I eat well. I just saw my doctor, surely she would’ve said something about this.'”
After calming herself down, Baladad went on with her life. But when an acquaintance posted about shaving their head due to having breast cancer, Baladad said she decided to get her own lump checked out in August 2018.
“She was a year older than me,” she said. “If she’s young enough to get breast cancer then I’m young enough to get breast cancer.”
This time, Baladad went to a different doctor and had a mammogram, ultrasound and a biopsy. The lump was confirmed as breast cancer, making her one of the millions of women in the United States living with the disease at the time.
“I found out later that my original practitioner didn’t tell me about the lump in my breast because she thought I was too young to have breast cancer and she thought I’d be fine,” Baladad, who was 33 when diagnosed, said. “A self-exam saved my life.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, most breast cancers are found in women 50 and older, though age is not the ultimate determining factor. In 2018, CDC data found that there were 184 new cases of breast cancer in women ages 20-24; 1,173 in ages 25-29; and 3,300 in ages 30-34, with the number of cases continuing to increase thereafter.
“Most breast cancers are identified in women over age 50. That being said, younger women can get breast cancer too,” Comen said. “Any woman, or any patient for that matter, who has an inkling that they need a second opinion, should get a second opinion. Intuition and trusting your doctor are critical for a therapeutic doctor-patient relationship.”
Fortunately, Baladad’s cancer has been in remission since May 2019 — but the road there wasn’t easy.
“I did 16 rounds of chemo, a double mastectomy, 24 rounds of radiation, a hysterectomy, and back in February I had a 10-hour flap reconstruction procedure done where they took fat, tissue, and blood vessels from my abdomen and placed them in my chest,” she said. “I have phase two of that surgery in October.”
From a social media project to app launch
Baladad originally created Feel For Your Life as a social media project during her cancer journey, where she would share her story, as well as cancer statistics, and encourage women to perform self-exams and get checked out by a doctor.
“One night I was in the shower literally watching my life go down the drain as I watched my hair come off my head and the idea just kind of came to me,” she said. “I felt like I was called to do it.”
The idea to build an app came last year after Breast Cancer Awareness Month in October. Baladad said she “wanted to reach more women” and thought the way to do so was through an app.
Over the following months, she researched how to build an app, the features she wanted it to have, and consulted tech-savvy people who helped her with the process. It officially launched on Apple and Android app stores in September 2021.
“I just thought about [the app] from a woman’s experience, and I wanted it to be really intuitive for how a woman may want to use it,” she said. “I’m not a coder or developer, I’m an advocate. I look at the app as an advocacy tool that women can use to communicate with their physicians. I’m not a doctor and I’m not trying to be a doctor — my mission is to help women advocate for their breast health.”
The information on the app is sourced from the CDC, the National Breast Cancer Foundation, and Johns Hopkins Medicine. There are instructions on how and when to do a self-exam and information on genetic testing and counseling, types of breast screenings, risk-reducing surgical procedures, breast reconstruction options and more.
Other features of the app include the ability to set reminders for self-exams and a space to track any changes. There’s also a section where users can share their advocacy wins with Baladad, plus a community feature where users can talk to others about what they’re doing.
“I also have reminders throughout the app that if you find anything, please talk to your doctor,” Baladad said.
Baladad hopes to one day include a telehealth feature within the app, where users can connect with medical professionals in real time.
“If a woman is doing a self-exam and she finds a lump, she may get scared or have anxiety,” she said. “I want to be able to connect her with a physician and they can put her on the right track to help her [with] getting the answers that she needs.”
(WASHINGTON) — A federal court on Thursday ordered the Federal Election Commission to rule on pending complaints that allege the National Rifle Association used shell entities to illegally coordinate campaign spending with federal candidates, including with the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump.
In 2019, the Washington-based nonpartisan watchdog group Campaign Legal Center Action sued the FEC on behalf of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control advocacy group led by former Democratic Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords, after the federal agency failed to act on multiple complaints that accused the gun rights group of perpetrating what plaintiffs called “an elaborate scheme … to unlawfully coordinate with candidates it supports for federal office.”
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday ordered the FEC to take action on the complaints within 30 days.
In the 2019 suit, the plaintiffs alleged that the NRA used a “network of shell corporations” to circumvent contribution limits and coordinate approximately $35 million in ad spending with the campaigns of at least seven Republican candidates over the last three election cycles, “thereby making millions of dollars of illegal, unreported, and excessive in-kind contributions.”
The complaint alleged that while the NRA deliberately circumvented FEC rules that prohibit vendor coordination between campaigns and outside groups, the federal agency responsible for oversight of election spending — whose members frequently deadlock on matters along partisan lines — had not taken any enforcement action.
“The failure of the FEC to enforce our campaign finance laws has resulted in an explosion of shady campaign spending,” said Trevor Potter, the president of Campaign Legal Center Action CLC and a former FEC chairman. “The FEC had the chance to do the right thing by taking action against the NRA for this blatant spending coordination, but failed to do so.”
“This is a baseless effort engineered by anti-gun groups who want to silence the voices of our members,” NRA spokesperson Lars Dalseide told ABC News in a statement. “We welcome the FEC’s review so we can move on from this frivolous distraction.”
A spokesperson for the FEC declined to comment on the litigation.
FEC rules prohibit outside groups from making coordinated expenditures with campaigns, stipulating that candidate campaigns should not be “materially involved” in the production and placement of ads purchased by the super PAC arm or the politically active nonprofit arm of the NRA. Vendors that are shared by the NRA and federal campaigns are also prohibited from sharing information in support of each other.
“Over the last several years and across election cycles, the NRA has been brazenly flouting campaign finance law by illegally funneling money to candidates while claiming to remain independent,” said David Pucino, senior staff attorney at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
“It is clear that the NRA will continue to violate the law until someone stops them,” Pucino said. “Today’s decision ordering the FEC to take action is a resounding win to keep dark money out of our politics.”
(NEW YORK) — Taking a course of a particular antiviral pill over five days, shortly after COVID-19 diagnosis, may slash the risk of being hospitalized or dying of the virus by 50%, according to preliminary results announced by pharmaceutical companies Merck and Ridgeback.
If this pill — called molnupiravir — is ultimately authorized by the Food and Drug Administration, it would be the first antiviral pill people can take at home to reduce their risk of winding up in the hospital from the coronavirus. The medication would require a prescription and likely be for people with mild or moderate symptoms of COVID-19.
“It’s really exciting,” Dr. Carlos Del Rio, the executive associate dean and a global health expert at the Emory School of Medicine, said.
Right now, most COVID-19 patients are sent home and told to monitor their symptoms. Having an effective pill to offer them would “make a difference,” Del Rio added.
Merck Thursday morning announced the results of an ongoing Phase 3 study are so compelling that an independent monitoring board recommended, in consultation with the FDA, ending the trial early so the companies can swiftly seek authorization. The full set of data would become available to the public at that time.
Other companies, including Pfizer and Roche, are also working on antiviral pills that could become available soon. Merck plans to seek emergency authorization in the U.S. “as soon as possible” so that it can start mass distributing its antiviral pill.
The company has started producing the pills with the goal of having 10 million courses of the medication by the end of the year. The U.S. has already asked for 1.7 million doses, at a cost of over $1 billion.
Currently, doctors have some treatments to help those who are already sick with the virus, but those treatments are cumbersome, as they’re typically administered via intravenous infusion and usually reserved for patients who are hospitalized or have a high risk of becoming so.
“What we really need is the Tamiflu, if you will, for COVID-19,” Dr. Todd Ellerin, the director of infectious diseases at South Shore Health and an ABC News Med Unit contributor, said. “It’s possible that molnupiravir could be the agent.”
Molnupiravir is an antiviral drug, meaning it works by slowing the replication of the virus that causes COVID-19.
In an early analysis of 775 volunteers in a late-stage clinical trial, people who tested positive for COVID-19 within the last five days were split into two groups. The first group got the drug and the second got a placebo pill.
About 14% of people who got the placebo were hospitalized or died, compared to just over 7% of those who got the real drug.
“More tools and treatments are urgently needed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, which has become a leading cause of death and continues to profoundly affect patients, families, and societies and strain health care systems all around the world,” Robert M. Davis, the chief executive officer and president of Merck, said.
“I think this is exciting,” Ellerin said, “because we need an oral antiviral. We desperately need an oral antiviral that can be given early in the course.”
(WASHINGTON) — House Democrats scrapped plans on Thursday to vote on the Senate’s bipartisan infrastructure agreement after leadership and the White House failed to bring progressives and moderates together behind a path forward for President Joe Biden’s broader agenda.
“The President is grateful to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer for their extraordinary leadership, and to Members from across the Democratic Caucus who have worked so hard the past few days to try to reach an agreement on how to proceed on the Infrastructure Bill and the Build Back Better plan,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement Thursday night. “A great deal of progress has been made this week, and we are closer to an agreement than ever. But we are not there yet, and so, we will need some additional time to finish the work, starting tomorrow morning first thing.”
“While Democrats do have some differences, we share common goals of creating good union jobs, building a clean energy future, cutting taxes for working families and small businesses, helping to give those families breathing room on basic expenses — and doing it without adding to the deficit, by making those at the top pay their fair share,” Psaki added.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., left the Capitol just after midnight, and told Rachel Scott that progressives and moderates are closer to reaching an agreement on the size of their social policy package than it appeared earlier in the week.
“We’re not trillions of dollars apart,” Pelosi said.
Asked about the vote on the Senate-approved infrastructure bill that didn’t take place Thursday, Pelosi said, “There will be a vote today,” in what appeared to be a reference to the legislative calendar.
The decision to delay the vote came after Pelosi insisted Thursday morning that she planned to go ahead with a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill — despite progressive Democrats vowing to defeat it.
“We’re on a path to win. I don’t want to even consider any options other than that,” Pelosi told reporters at her weekly news conference. “We go in it to win it.”
Earlier, as she arrived on Capitol Hill, pressed by a reporter that the bill is facing “insurmountable opposition at the moment,” Pelosi responded that it’s “our plan” to bring the bill to vote Thursday, her self-imposed deadline.
“Hour by hour,” she responded. “You’re moment by moment. I’m hour-by-hour.”
“You cannot tire. You cannot concede. This is the fun part,” Pelosi said later at her news conference. “Our best interest is served by passing this bill today.”
Yet her comments suggested the House was in a holding pattern, with no firm decision on whether to hold or cancel the vote.
“We are proceeding in a very positive direction,” Pelosi said brightly, even though the bill has not been scheduled for the House floor and her top lieutenants have said publicly that it lacks the votes to pass.
Meanwhile, the White House wasn’t ruling out Biden heading to Capitol Hill Thursday to make a last-minute push to House Democrats just before the big vote.
While lawmakers were expected to agree separately on a government funding resolution with hours to spare Thursday, the outcome of the House vote on the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill — central to Biden’s agenda — was still in serious doubt.
Pelosi spent the afternoon meeting with various factions of her caucus. Even as progressives left the meeting vowing to withhold support for the infrastructure bill absent progress on Democrats’ larger agenda, two groups of moderates left meetings with Pelosi predicting a vote later Thursday evening.
Progressive Democrats have all but guaranteed that they will defeat the bipartisan bill on the floor — to the embarrassment of Pelosi who vowed to pass the bill this week — absent any breakthroughs on the larger policy spending package. Those breakthroughs seem unlikely as negotiations between the White House and Democratic Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, who oppose the package’s $3.5 trillion price tag, have fallen flat.
Roughly half of the nearly 100-member progressive caucus — at least 50 members, urged on by Sen. Bernie Sanders — have vowed to vote no on the bipartisan bill, effectively holding it hostage until a larger infrastructure bill passes via the reconciliation process.
While progressives bashed Manchin and Sinema over their objections to the larger package, Pelosi praised Manchin at her news conference, calling the West Virginia Democrat “a good member of Congress” and said negotiations are focused on “substance” rather than “rhetoric” or “dollars.”
At midday, Manchin told reporters his topline number for the larger bill — that he’s conveyed to Biden — is $1.5 trillion, something bound to harden progressive opposition and put the House vote in even more jeopardy.
Attempting to also sway progressives, Pelosi said Thursday members should “remove all doubt” that there will not be a reconciliation bill following a bipartisan vote on Thursday.
“We will have a reconciliation bill. That is for sure. today the question is about. We are proceeding in a very positive way to bring up the bill, to bring up the “BIF” (the bipartisan infrastructure bill), and to do so in a way that can win. And so far so good for today, it’s going in a positive direction,” she said.
Pelosi, who met with her leadership team ahead of news conference, hinted that getting a larger human infrastructure and climate policy bill is vital to her and her legacy.
“I just told members of my leadership that the reconciliation bill was a culmination of my service in Congress ’cause it was about the children,” she said.
But progressives appear to be holding firm in opposition.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., reiterated on Thursday that progressives are in the “same place” and will not vote to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill unless there is agreement with the moderate Democratic senators on a larger social spending package.
“We will not be able to vote for the infrastructure bill until the reconciliation bill has passed,” Jayapal told reporters after a meeting with Pelosi.
“It’s not about trusting the speaker, it’s not about trusting the president, it’s really about the vote as an ironclad assurance from the Senate,” she added, referring to Manchin and Sinema.
At her midafternoon White House briefing, press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters, “We’re working towards winning a vote tonight. We have several hours left in the day.”
She added, “We know that compromise is inevitable. We’ve also seen that play out over the last couple of days. And right now, we’re clearly in the thick of it.
Pelosi told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” that she’s “never bringing a bill to the floor that doesn’t have the votes” — raising questions of whether she’ll stop the vote in the 11th hour.
Asked on Sunday by Stephanopoulos if she was confident that progressive members would vote yes, Pelosi answered, “Well, let me just say we’re going to pass the bill this week.”
Biden stepped out of the White House Wednesday night, rubbing elbows at the congressional game with his former colleagues, appearing to be in good spirits, amid the tense legislative negotiations, while Pelosi appeared to do some last-minute lobbying on her cell phone, in a show of the stakes of the infrastructure bill passing this week — as opposed to later.
The $3.5 trillion bill progressives insist the House passes before or at the same time as the $1.2 trillion package includes significant new investments in health care, child care, higher education, workforce training, and paid family and medical leave which would include 12 weeks paid family and medical leave for most working Americans.
