Midrange Weekly Sept 6

Your Weekly Round Up On What’s Got The Midrange Staff’s Attention

Welcome back to Midrange Weekly, and sorry but there’s no other way to put it but this week was fucked. In Vancouver we had anti maskers or anti mandate folk protesting public health orders in front of a hospital, an embarrassment that needs to be its own chapter in the eventual historical texts on the end times. Meanwhile Hurricane Ida battered the Gulf Coast, Texas has gone off the deep end and the Supreme Court let them, and New York was briefly underwater. Everything is insane, no wonder the aliens want nothing to do with us. For those of us that have to live on this planet, let’s see if we can make some sense of at least some of what’s going on

 

The New Texas Abortion Law is Unspeakably Cruel. It’s Also A Constitutional Spectre

gettyimages-1233172250-edit_custom-1ff3feeac5aefb3603b942d44d902c92bb233976-s1100-c50.jpg

It’s hard to grasp in words the cognitive dissonance happening in Texas, where ‘my body my choice’ aphorisms are being used as a veiled excuse against mask mandates or vaccine requirements, while one of the most stunningly restrictive and unscrupulous abortion laws ever has just been passed. The best I can muster in terms of a lexical commentary is that this is what irony being bludgeoned to death looks like. Of course words seems woefully inadequate to describe the inchoate fear the Supreme Court has cowardly, disgracefully subjected the women of Texas to by allowing this judicial rat fucking of constitutional abortion precedent to proceed. The court’s conduct is egregiously, gallingly shameful, overshadowed only by the insidious architects of this sadistically punitive abortion ban. How did something so explicitly incongruous with the constitutional outlines of Roe V Wade- ostensibly the law of the land in America in regards to abortion dating back to 1973- become implemented?

The law in question, SB8, recently introduced in Texas and ratified last week by defacto negligence and malignant levels of apathy on the part of the Supreme Court, has proven successful due to its unique and sinisterly designed text. SB8 effectively bans all abortions past 6 weeks in Texas, which is a ridiculously narrow and draconian time line to inflict upon a woman when making personal or health decisions in regards to carrying a pregnancy to term. This is also in direct violation to the terms of Roe V Wade, which prohibits all 15 week or earlier abortion bans nation wide. For context the average point of viability for a fetus is 23-24 weeks, so such protections don’t really come close to killing a living, breathing baby, as anti abortion propaganda would have you believe. By the Supreme Court’s own previous acknowledgement of facts, approximately 85 percent of all abortions happen after the 6 weeks period. It’s extremely hard to even be aware you are pregnant until the 6 week mark. It takes about 4.5 weeks to determine if one is pregnant through in vitro fertilization, and that’s with a medical team intentionally tracking the condition of a potential embryo every single day. The SB8 ban makes zero exceptions for cases of rape or incest, which is good as time as any to mention that a woman who carries a pregnancy to term in America is 14 times more likely to die than one who gets an abortion. It’s hard to proselytize the sanctity of life within such contexts.

What makes this law so vile is the atypical and weirdly vulture-capitalist methods for its enforcement and consequences of violation. SB8 does not compel any state or municipal government to inflict any criminal charges upon someone who seeks an abortion. Rather it allows literally any Texas citizen to sue a person who does so. Furthermore the litigant can sue any person or entity that aides and abets a person seeking an abortion after 6 weeks. This would obviously include the healthcare provider or abortion clinic that administers the abortion, but the language is so broad it can include anyone from friends and family who help a woman come to the decision to the Uber driver that drops her off at the clinic. Yes, really. Any person who choses to sue can do so for a minimum of $10000 plus legal fees against each individual or entity. This essentially becomes a get rich quick scheme for any virulent misogynist that wants to micro-manage the financial misery of a woman, or anyone really. Furthermore, upon a successful lawsuit on the litigant’s part, the defendant abortion clinic is legally required to shut down, which thusly violates the terms of another Supreme Court ruling Planned Parenthood V Casey, dating back to 1992 and ensuring reasonable access to abortion facilities. 

It’s this weaponization of civil suits in place of state oversight that gave the Supreme Court, now firmly entrenched in conservative majority, the flimsy pretext to allow for this gross miscarriage of justice to stand. Legal advocates on behalf of abortion providers petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality or lack thereof on SB8 before it could go into effect in the case Whole Women’s Health V Jackson. The Supreme Court, currently in recess mind you, had already agreed to hear a case on a 15 week abortion ban in Mississippi later in the fall. As it falls under the same judicial context, why are they taking up the case essentially twice, when they could simply tie the ruling together? Whatever the case it’s their prerogative to do so. However they didn’t really. Rather than hearing actual oral arguments and allowing for legal cases to be made by advocates both for against SB8, they- in the literal dead of night- released a barely one page ruling, or shadow docket, that essentially said this is none of their business and the unique working of the law makes it tricky to weigh in on, therefore they can’t get in the way of SB8.

The majority ruling of the court, opined by Justices Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas, asserted that because it is not the state that enforces the law or codified deterrents of SB8, but rather a process adjudicated through civil suits, it is out of their jurisdiction. “Complex and novel antecedent procedural questions”, as the majority opinion so obliquely puts it, states that a law intended to confuse judicial oversight is going to get away with just that. By exporting the debilitating consequences from state actors to arbitrary but no less ruinous civil litigation, it creates an abstract gray zone as to who executes or administers this law, and therefore how it should be assessed by judicial authorities. In other words, by designing the law to work around the system of legal review in an especially sketchy manner, the Supreme Court is essentially saying they cannot subject this law to legal review. The totality to the extent in which the Supreme Court has shrugged off their responsibilities and let Roe V Wade get gutted in the second largest state in the Union is appalling. It’s interesting that Chief Justice Roberts- a Bush appointee- joined the three liberal judges in a dissenting opinion, indicating just how radicalized the idea of nominally family values oriented small ‘c’ conservatism has become under the age of Trump.

It’s those vestigial after effects of the waning days of Trump that we are experiencing with this ruling. This is a direct result of Trump appointing hyper partisan, supremely (forgive the pun) under qualified judges to the highest court in the land with the expressed intentions of carrying out a ideologically sectarian re-working of legal precedent in America, starting with abortion rights. It’s hard not to linger on the absolutely toxic confluence of astounding stupidity and naivety on the part of senators like Susan Collins, the ignominious face of venerated moderates in the senate who assured us the Barrett and Kavanaugh wouldn’t scorch Roe V Wade. Collins has made a name for herself burying her head in the sand while the world burns, infamously saying that Trump had learned his lesson after his first impeachment. These condescendingly naïve words should adorn her legal and political epitaph, which can’t come soon enough for her and her nauseatingly ‘moderate’ cohorts. 

Beyond the legal and judicial implications of SB8, what makes the thing so acutely evil, is how its design ensures it only effects lower income individuals, disproportionately effecting minority women furthermore. When the punishment for violating SB8 is detrimental civil litigation that is surely a terrifyingly persuasive deterrent for women who are not rich. For those that are, it’s a parking ticket; or even more insanely it’s not even something to consider. To the powerful conservative men or influential lobbyists that designed this law, should their partners, their family members, their mistresses seek an abortion, they will have no trouble. They will have accesses to the most discreet and private facilities, ones where no witness will ever be in a position to sue. Or they will have the financial and institutional clout to intimidate away or swat down any potential lawsuits. This law is designed to keep pour women pour; to further isolate them from economic or social mobility. The rich and powerful on the other hand are specifically inoculated from the pernicious effects of this law; indeed the law is designed to ensure they are anathematized from those effects. SB8 is an attack on women, on judicial precedent, on the rule of law, and the very idea that we are all living in the same society. You don’t need to be a Texan or a woman to be upset about this. Other republican controlled states will no doubt draft similar laws now that this ridiculous precedent is in place and if any man thinks he hasn’t benefited from abortion services as well then he’s an idiot. Also you don’t need a personal association with this law to be outraged, this is simply outrageous and that should be enough. When shadow laws like this slip through judicial scrutiny based on a complex overlay of technicalities and entropy from the top, the institutions that are supposed to observe the world with an unbiased lens fail us all. -Tristan

 

The Election, Healthcare And Vaccines

Coronavirus-is-about-to-reveal-how-fragile-our-health-system-is.jpg

“The challenges of COVID-19 underscore the challenges that already exist in the system.” — Paul-Émile Cloutier, president of hospital advocacy group HealthCareCAN

A few nights ago I was out for dinner with a few friends of mine. As has become common place for most during this time of uncertainty, we invariably began talking about the state of things pandemic wise here in Vancouver and around the country. The conversation was calm and cordial and I found myself enjoying the communication quite a lot. However, throughout this exchange there was little to no talk regarding our healthcare system and why it was nowhere close to being prepared for a situation we currently find ourselves in. 

Personally, I’ve noticed numerous times where individuals who speak on this topic get our healthcare system and the role vaccines play in it incorrectly. If you get or decide not to get the vaccine, you can still contract COVID-19. The vaccines don’t prevent you from getting it or spreading it. Too many people misunderstand this issue. Now the main reason why the government wants you to get the vaccine isn’t because they worry about your health, it’s because our healthcare system can barely handle any uptick in cases of any sort. Even with an 80% vaccination rate, they’re still telling the public we can narrowly handle this. This says more about our public healthcare system than this virus. 

From Reuters: (March 2020)

In British Columbia, which has seen the most virus-linked deaths in Canada, the majority of hospitals are running between 110% and 140% of their official capacity, said Christine Sorensen, president of the BC Nurses’ Union.

Most current Canadian hospitals were built between the 1940–1960s, under a federal program. Budget cuts forced closures, and in recent years, growing demand for long-term care has further strained the system.

Canada had 12.9 adult intensive care beds per 100,000 people, according to a study based on 2013–14 data, with variations across the country. British Columbia had only 10.5 beds, and the Atlantic province of Newfoundland and Labrador had 21.8, according to a report from Canadian Institute for Health Information.

Quebec’s government recently said it has 1,000 ICU beds, or 11.8 per 100,000.

In contrast, the United States had 34.7 ICU beds per 100,000 as of 2009, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information.

We’re in the midst of an election but nowhere during this campaign have I heard or read how the parties intend to solve this issue. If our hospital intensive care units are running at near capacity in normal times, how in the world do we expect them to manage even the slightest boost? 

Answer. They won’t be able too and it’s why we keep hearing of doctor and nurse burnouts and massive declines in other types of surgeries and procedures. Fixing this should be a priority and it’s weird it isn’t. 

From The Canadian Medical Association Journal: (emphasis mine)

A primary concern in public health planning is the use of health care resources for treatment of patients needing critical care. For example, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, critical care was severely challenged during the initial peak of the influenza A (H1N1) virus pandemic in June 2009, as intensive care units (ICUs) were at full capacity. At the peak of the second wave, usage of invasive ventilators was 14% greater than average, with 50% of this increase being caused by cases of H1N1-associated illness. With Canadian ICU bed occupancy already close to capacity before a public health crisis and varying widely across jurisdictions, it is imperative to ascertain the extent to which these resources will be required in a COVID-19 outbreak scenario.

The number of existing ICU beds in each province ranged from 0.63 to 1.85 per 10 000 population. Assuming an existing occupancy rate of 80%, we estimated that unoccupied ICU beds available for treatment of COVID-19 patients would range across provinces from 0.13 to 0.37 per 10 000 population.

In the base-case scenario of R0 = 2.5 without self-isolation by mild cases, we projected that each province would need an average of 569 ICU bed days (range 548–587) per 10 000 population over the course of COVID-19 outbreaks across all provinces.

In British Columbia we have 0.63 ICU beds per 10,000 people. Of those we have 0.13 which are unoccupied. This means that we don’t even have one bed per 10,000. That’s insane. With a population of just over 5 million, if my math is correct, this means we have 315 ICU beds in this province. At the peak of the third wave, we reached 121 in critical care. Am I wrong to think we might need a massive investment in this area if we are to avoid going through this once more in the future? The main reason for the lockdowns and mask mandates was to “flatten the curve.” But why we did that was because our healthcare system was already on the brink. 

The real reason why this pandemic has upended so much of our way of life was because we were woefully unprepared for anything out of the ordinary. We run our healthcare system like an airline. Each hospital is filled to the gills and we cut accordingly. Massive investments in more hospitals, more staff and plenty more beds will be necessary if we don’t want to repeat this. It’ll be cheaper in the long run if we do this. 

The irony of all of this, especially here in BC, is that we have another crisis on our hands, one which is considerably worse in my opinion and we give it little thought compared to this narrative. Why? Because the opioid epidemic isn’t taking up beds — they’re just dying. This year alone, over 1,011 people have died so far. That’s more than COVID-19 in BC this year. If they were taking up beds, trust me, this would be a way bigger issue than this pandemic. 

One last thing. 

From CNBC:

An overwhelming majority of people who have been hospitalized, needed a ventilator or died from Covid-19 have been overweight or obese, the CDC said in a new study Monday.

Among 148,494 adults who received a Covid-19 diagnosis during an emergency department or inpatient visit at 238 U.S. hospitals from March to December, 71,491 were hospitalized. Of those who were admitted, 27.8% were overweight and 50.2% were obese, according to the CDC report. Overweight is defined as having a body mass index of 25 or more, while obesity is defined as having a BMI of 30 or more.

The agency found the risk for hospitalizations, ICU admissions and deaths was lowest among individuals with BMIs under 25. The risk of severe illness “sharply increased,” however, as BMIs rose, particularly among people 65 and older, the agency said.

These figures are from the US, but I’m confident we’re not that far off if I were to have a closer view of our own statistics. A strong healthcare system is one thing and as this pandemic has shown, we’re woefully far from that. But invest all you will, if we don’t begin to take care of ourselves, then even having the best healthcare system in the world won’t save many of you. Here’s a question which should irk some of you. 

Was it COVID-19 that really killed them?

As this election progresses I’d like to hear more talk about investments in our overall health and healthcare system. In doing so we’ll be able to accept more risk moving forward. — Jamie

 

Things From The Internet We Liked

 

The Mitochondria Is The Power Plant Of The Cell!

Yes! The one thing we all remember from high school biology, zoomed in by about 10 million so we can actually see it. Embedded is a visualization of mitochondrial ATP synthesis in our cells, and its quite humbling to see just how chaotic and furious every aspect of tissue is at a near atomic level.

 

Sun June tap into familiarity and the unknowable with Bad Girl

Regret pop and indie Americana band Sun June’s 2021 album Somewhere permeates a haunting familiarity. On the opening track Bad With Me Laura Colwell sings that she embodies a combination of Jackie O, Patti Smith and Stevie Nicks, “when you wan’t it”, and states: “I am what you got, or I’m what you get, oh I’m everything”. Although these statements are clearly meant to lack any literal efficacy, unless some sort of occult, ritualistic summoning of souls is at play, one can’t help conjure images of Colwell’s musical youth, learning the chords to Dreams on a cheap Casio keyboard or dancing around her room with her hair flying, lip syncing to Gloria. This historical sentiment emerges again on the albums fifth track Karen O, and that admission of influence from some of music histories most influential women, mutated through the passage of time and wrapped in glossy, homespun electric guitar, suggests a form of generational co-habitance. But in the albums fourth track Bad Girl, Colwell taps into something more present. As the title suggest, there exists a negative context, an unjustified stereotype of how young women are represented in our societies. Amplified through not only the lens of rock music, but the lens of Americana itself - from the viewpoint of western individualism - there lives a tendency to place value on the journey to find happiness and our “purpose” in life through self-focus and self-tragedy. Throughout the structure of the verses, Colwell cites tearing up an apartment, spending all of her cigarettes and washing her tears off on a suitcase as part of her experience of youth. In lock step, the suito country tones paint almost a confident mourning of our self evident, self-destructive tendencies. In an ever changing and sometimes morally jagged world, its hard to justify such individualistic notions of complete self-importance. But when your life perspective is just that, your own, the emotional context that comes with this challenging and opaque self-view can be overwhelming. In this sense, “Bad Girl” strikes those emotional chords of justified existential cliche, the feelings of who am I and what will I be. What it’s like to be young, confused and to know that self sabotage is not only unavoidable, but imminent. These blurred lines of our reciprocal co-existence with music, youth and nostalgic sentiment live here in Bad Girl.

 

Vox Drops An Excellent Video Into The Conspiracy Of Lee Harvey Oswald’s Involvement In JFK’s Death

Back in 2008 I was obsessed with the JFK assassination. I read several books on the matter. There’s no way Oswald killed him (Ed note- Says Jamie). It’s impossible. Regardless, videos like this one are fun to watch and stew over. - Jamie

Donate to midrange
MIDRANGE WEEKLYdavid mcleod ringuetteTexas, Abortion, Twitter, healthcare, election, ICU, Bad Girl, Sun JuneComment