The new policy platform on the Harris campaign’s website comes 50 days after Biden exited the race.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign just released a new page on its website titled, “Issues,” which includes a 23-point policy platform that comes following weeks of criticism over its absence. 

Pressure has been building on the Harris campaign to put up a policy platform on its website, similar to how former President Donald Trump and others have done in the past. Upon its release this week, however, the platform was met with even more criticism over a lack of specifics.

In particular, one conservative immigration hawk took issue with the policy platform’s failure to clarify Harris’ stance on border wall funding, and whether she still views illegal border crossings as a civil enforcement issue — or rather, a criminal one.

“The Harris campaign finally has an ‘Issues’ page, but — on immigration, at least — there’s no there, there,” Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told Fox News Digital. “She doesn’t say if she’d build more border barriers. She doesn’t say whether she still wants to decriminalize border-jumping. The statement just repeats the vacuous nonsense about the ‘bipartisan’ Senate border bill, which was drafted by the Biden-Harris DHS to codify its unlawful schemes to import more illegal aliens.”

Despite indicating a potential Harris-Walz administration would “bring back the bipartisan border security bill,” the new online policy platform did not indicate where Harris stands on funding additional border wall construction. Republicans have pointed to Harris’ public support for the failed bipartisan border bill as evidence she now backs a border wall after once calling it a “medieval vanity project.” 

But Harris campaign officials have said the border bill did not include any new money for border wall construction — it just extended the timeline to spend funds appropriated during Trump’s last year as president. The bill, however, has limits to ensure the money is spent on border barriers.

“Americans should believe Harris’ prior statements and current policies as Vice President,” Lora Ries, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told Fox News Digital in a statement Tuesday. “She has previously stated numerous times that she opposes a border wall. And on day one of the Biden-Harris Administration, they halted construction of the border wall system.”

Meanwhile, while running for president in 2019, Harris indicated during a nationally televised debate that she would not go after illegal border crossings. In a segment on ABC’s “The View,” she reiterated her stance in a riff with the late-Sen. John McCain’s daughter, Meghan. 

“I would not make it a crime punishable by jail,” Harris said. “It should be a civil enforcement issue but not a criminal enforcement issue.”

“Harris repeatedly said during her CNN interview that her values have not changed,” Ries highlighted in her statement to Fox News Digital. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the Harris campaign for comment on the criticism from Krikorian and others about a lack of specifics in its new online policy platform, but did not receive a response.

Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt called the new policy platform “a late-night, half-ass, wish list of policies.” 

“If Kamala really wanted to lower costs and secure the border — why did she cast the tie-breaking vote to cause inflation and support the war on our energy industry, and why is she allowing an invasion of illegal immigrants through our southern border as we speak?”

Not long after the Harris campaign’s “Issues” page was added to its website, social media users pointed out that the new web page contained metadata with language urging voters to reelect President Joe Biden, according to The New Republic. The Biden language was quickly removed, but not before leaving the impression that the Harris campaign copied and pasted from Biden’s documents, the outlet reported.

Source

The post Harris camp’s new policy page criticized for lacking specifics on border security: ‘There’s no there, there’ appeared first on Policy Print.

The economy, a key issue for voters as the November 5 presidential election draws nearer, will have a starring role in the debate tonight between the two candidates, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and her Republican rival, former President Donald Trump. 

About 8 in 10 adults tell CBS News that the economy is a major factor in their choice at the polls, outpacing issues such as abortion and climate change. 

Each candidate will seek to convince voters that their proposals will lead to better economic conditions, ranging from bigger paychecks to lower inflation. And CBS News polling shows that Trump may have an edge with inflation-weary consumers, with about 4 in 10 voters saying prices are likely to go down if he wins — twice as many as those who believe the same would be the case with a Harris victory. 

“[I]nflation and the high cost of living are deeply impacting lower- and middle-income Americans,” said Liza Landsman, the CEO of Stash, a financial services firm that polled consumers ahead of the debate, in a statement. “What the study did shed sharper light on is how vastly different individuals’ perceive their economic condition depending on their political view.”

For instance, about 7 in 10 Trump supporters told Stash they are deeply concerned about inflation, compared with 2 in 10 Harris voters, the study found.

Economists largely rate the current economy as good, albeit with some weak spots, such as a slowing labor market. But about 42% of Americans incorrectly believe the U.S. is currently in a recession, down from about 48% last year, a new MassMutual survey found. 

“Sometimes it is difficult to separate out various doom-and-gloom factors when it is hitting your wallet directly,” Paul LaPiana, a certified financial planner and head of brand, product and affiliated distribution with MassMutual, told CBS MoneyWatch.

Even so, a number of Wall Street economists are predicting that Harris’ policies are likely to result in stronger economic growth for the U.S., while warning that Trump’s combination of tariffs and tax cuts could both spur inflation while causing the deficit to mushroom by trillions. 

Here’s what to know about three key economic issues that could influence voters. 

Inflation and grocery costs

Inflation has sapped household budgets since 2021, when prices started rising due to the impact of the pandemic, which disrupted global supply chains and prompted the federal government to pump trillions into the economy. (Both Presidents Trump and Biden signed large spending bills into law during the pandemic, authorizing stimulus payments and extra unemployment aid, among other supports).

To temper inflation, the Federal Reserve responded by hiking interest rates to their highest point in 23 years. That’s paying off, with government data on Wednesday expected to show that inflation cooled to 2.6% on an annual basis in August, its lowest since March 2021, according to financial data firm FactSet.

But lower inflation doesn’t mean that prices have come down; instead, it simply means that the rate of price hikes have moderated from their pandemic peak. 

The candidates are likely to discuss their plans to address inflation, which remains a key issue for voters given that grocery costs remain 21% higher than they were prior to the pandemic. That means a cart of groceries in 2020 that cost $150 would now set you back by $182, or $32 more at the register.

Harris has vowed to tackle grocery costs by enacting the first federal law against price gouging by food suppliers and retailers. But economists say they’re skeptical such a law could make much of an impact. 

Trump, meanwhile, has pledged to end the “inflation nightmare.” But his policies, which include adding tariffs to all imported goods, would likely fuel inflation and reverse some of the progress of the last two years, some economists say.

What the candidates are pledging on taxes 

Both Harris and Trump have already made some tax pledges, with Harris vowing to increase the corporate tax rate and Trump proposing a steep cut, taking it down to 15% from its current 21%. 

Trump also wants to extend his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — his 2017 law that reduced tax rates for most individuals but provided the biggest benefits to the nation’s richest families. Many of those cuts are due to expire at the end of 2025. Trump’s vice presidential running mate, JD Vance, has also floated the idea of a bigger Child Tax Credit.

Harris, meanwhile, wants to enact more generous tax benefits, such as a $6,000 Child Tax Credit for parents of newborns and a bigger Earned Income Tax Credit. One analysis from the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model found that her proposals would help more low- and middle-income families than Trump’s.

“If Democrats sweep, personal and corporate taxes and benefit spending will likely rise,” Goldman Sachs analysts said in September 3 research report. “If Republicans sweep, they will likely stay mostly unchanged.”

Housing and the American Dream 

Housing remains out of reach for millions of Americans who are now priced out of home-buying due to high mortgage rates and housing prices. 

Harris has proposed providing $25,000 in down payment assistance for Americans who have paid their rent on time for two years, with more support for first-generation homeowners. She’s also proposing tax incentives for builders of starter homes, with the goal of widening the housing supply and lowering home prices.

Trump, meanwhile, has proposed making federal land available to help with housing supply, but his campaign hasn’t offered any details. He’s also vowed to deport between 15 million to 20 million undocumented workers, which he’s blamed for increasing housing demand and pushing up prices.

But the surge in home prices preceded the recent jump in undocumented workers, the New York Times reported. And deporting so many workers, many of whom work in construction, could jeopardize the workforce that builds homes. 

Source

The post The economy is a top issue for voters. Here’s what to watch for in the Harris-Trump debate. appeared first on Policy Print.

The debate was heavily focused on US domestic matters—even when questions were on international affairs, both candidates sought to bring the issues back to domestic politics and policies.  

Of most relevance to Australia was the lack of interest in this region. Other than passing references—in heavily political contexts—neither the media nor the candidates raised China in any meaningful way. Notwithstanding the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, China is the most significant issue globally. 

Without China being prioritised by the two candidates or media today, we can only hope that the next administration will be struck by the realities of Beijing as the pacing military and technological threat to our livelihoods and way of life. Australia and partners like Japan, the Quad and NATO, will need to work together to ensure the next administration is focused on competing with and countering China, and does so by viewing China as a strategic rival first and not as an economic partner. 

Given the next president will immediately face a world in conflict, a further debate that is limited to foreign policy and held before the November election would be best for both US voters and America’s partners. 

On China—Bethany Allen, head of program for China investigations and analysis, and Daria Impiombato, analyst 

While the moderators never asked about China, the topic came up unprompted within the first few minutes of the debate with Harris accusing Trump of inviting ‘trade wars’ but then adding the former President ‘sold us out’ to China. In a sense this focus was not surprising because the Trump administration’s tough turn on China was one of the most significant and controversial foreign policy shifts of his term. The Biden-Harris administration has also made competition with Beijing a key platform. 

More surprising was that, other than brief references, the issue of how to manage China strategically and in the context of potential flashpoints such a Taiwan and the South China Sea did not come up at all. 

Harris and Trump went on to spar over tariffs, microchips and the pandemic response, with Harris accusing the Trump administration of allowing the sale of chips to China that served to modernise the People’s Liberation Army. Trump’s retort that the US ‘barely make any chips anymore’ and that it is Taiwan instead that’s selling them to China again demonstrated the economic lens with which he views these issues.  

This is in line with his latest stances on Taiwan, as he has repeatedly stated that the island should pay the US to defend it, and that they have ‘stolen’ the chip manufacturing business from American companies. Harris, instead, opted to focus on the CHIPS Act and her intention to win the competition with China especially on technology and artificial intelligence. 

On Alliances—Eric Lies, analyst 

What stood out, in particular for US allies the world over, was Trump’s refusal to answer the question as to whether he believes Ukraine should win in the war against Russia. Instead, he repeatedly stated that he would end the war as president-elect. A key element of deterrence is convincing potential adversaries that if they choose violence, they will be met with resolve. Responses like Trump’s, which put Ukraine and Russia on a false equivalence, corrode that confidence in US security promises and will likely make allies in the Indo-Pacific nervous, while emboldening China’s revanchist activities. 

In contrast, Harris unequivocally stated her support for allied efforts within Europe, and how she intends to continue those efforts should she be elected. It meant that a clear foreign policy difference came through between the two candidates—a more isolationist, transactional foreign policy on the one hand and an alliance-driven policy on the other.  

On Ukraine and China—Malcolm Davis, senior analyst 

On Ukraine, Harris clearly demonstrated that she understood the potential implications of a Russian victory in Ukraine. Noting that if such an outcome were realised, ‘Putin would have his eye on the rest of Europe’. This is an accurate interpretation of the stakes at play. In contrast, Trump failed to deliver a convincing response, simply saying ‘he’d get on the phone to Putin and Zelensky’. 

The risk is therefore that a second Trump Administration could reduce support for Ukraine and increase the likelihood of delivering Putin a decisive strategic victory. 

On China, both candidates avoided any real discussion of the defence and national security implications of a rising China. Instead, they focused on trade relations. Whichever candidate wins in November, however, there is a chance that they will be confronted with a major crisis with Beijing over Taiwan. This is an issue that is far more important to the United States than tariffs. 

Generally, the debate avoided any real discussion on critical and emerging technologies and the importance of maintaining US leadership. In fact, as the ASPI Critical Technology tracker shows, China now holds a dominance in high-impact research that was once held by the US. Both candidates should have dealt more with this important issue and will need to do so as president. 

On Disinformation and Migration—Mike Copage, head of the Climate and Security Policy Centre 

As the world grapples with the prospect of AI driving mis and dis-information in democracies, the debate highlighted how vulnerable American political discourse has become to the spread of disinformation without it. Pressed by moderators that there’s no evidence to back claims by vice-presidential candidate JD Vance that Haitian illegal immigrants are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, Trump responded that he knew it was true because he heard it from ‘people on television’. While ridiculous at face value, the real and serious consequences of a former President and current candidate repeating clearly false, racist and anti-immigrant claims cannot be ignored. The violence perpetuated following the spread of anti-immigrant misinformation in the United Kingdom demonstrates how far that can lead without responsible leadership. 

On the Media and China—Greg Brown, senior analyst, Washington DC 

Harris had a solid showing defined by poise without policy articulation. Her supporters will feel emboldened by the strategy to distance herself from the present Administration—noting during the debate that she was neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump. 

President Trump had a weaker night—notwithstanding his zingers like ‘wake the President (Biden) up at four o’clock in the afternoon’—and appeared rambling at times. He missed opportunities to attack Harris effectively. 

As usual, the debate moderators (in this case ABC News) and voters were the losers.   

The lone foreign policy issue mentioned with any repetition was migration though with a heavy domestic lens. And neither candidate provided any sense of the drivers of, let alone policy responses to, the weaponization of mass migration. The passing references by both candidates regarding Iran, Ukraine and Russia were pedestrian. 

China, the ​supposed pacing challenge and threat, received little attention. Nor did we have a discussion of the Pentagon’s budget priorities, tariffs as tools of economic warfare, how to revive the US defence industrial base, let alone to US interests across the Pacific. 

On Asia-Pacific—Raji Pillai Rajagopalan, resident senior fellow 

While understandably focused on domestic issues, it was still surprisingly how little interest there was on foreign policy in the presidential debate. Considering the growing chaos the next president will have to deal with, that was unfortunate. 

America’s China and Indo-Pacific policy was not mentioned, nor were any other aspects of foreign and security policy in any detail. We heard only some broad outlines to which we were already familiar, such as a Trump Administration that will be suspicious of its partners because of the worry that America is being exploited, that will be more open to deal-making with adversaries such as Russia, China and North Korea, irrespective of the character of their behaviour and that will potentially raise tariff barriers with wide-ranging economic effects globally. 

On the Democrat side, Vice President Harris reiterated she would strengthen partnerships and stand up to authoritarian leaders, which is a more positive starting point, but all said without much detail. 

From a foreign policy perspective, it was clearly not a substantive debate. Leaving out everything from narrow issues of nuances to nuclear policy to broad issues such as relative commitment to different theatres like Europe, Middle East and Indo-Pacific. 

Source

The post The US presidential debate: ASPI responds appeared first on Policy Print.

Multiple Catholic schools have issued statements reflecting an LGBTQ-positive stance in response to the Diocese of Cleveland’s restrictive gender policy released in September.

The policy, which includes harmful restrictions such as bans on the use of chosen names and pronouns, gender-affirming care, and celebrations of LGBTQ+ Pride, has been criticized by many for the potential harm the policy could inflict on LGBTQ+ youth.

A number of Catholic schools run by religious orders, which have some independence from the diocese, have since released statements to parents and staff prioritizing welcome, compassion, and sensitivity, especially in regard to LGBTQ+ students. Cleveland.com gathered several of these statements, and some excerpts follow.

In an email to students and parents of Magnificat High School, run by the Sisters of Humility of Mary, president Moira Clark emphasized the need to stand in solidarity with LGBTQ+ youth:

“’In a time when our adolescent youth, and young women in particular, are facing mental health crises, we remain deeply concerned about the heightened risk of mental health challenges — including depression, self-harm, and suicide — faced especially by LGBTQ youth, and we will continue to accompany them, to stand with them and accept them with love, respect, compassion, and sensitivity.’”

Such sensitivity on the part of faculty and staff is crucial to the protection of LGBTQ+ youth, especially since the policy mandates parents be informed that their child may be transgender, and because it does not consider intentional misgendering to be abuse.

Fr. Raymond Guiao, S.J., president of St. Ignatius High School, likewise spoke of the need for schools to truly care for their students in ways that reflect God’s own care, writing:

“’While questions about sexuality and gender can be complex in the context of Catholic teaching, it is our duty as a Catholic school in the Ignatian tradition to meet anyone who has these questions with pastoral care and sensitivity that embodies God’s unsurpasing love for each person.’”

Representatives of other Catholic schools echoed this need for pastoral care of LGBTQ+ youth. KC McKenna, president of St. Edward High School, operated by the Congregation of the Holy Cross, affirmed that LGBTQ+ students will receive the same level of care and concern, despite the policy, stating:

“’We will always operate in the best interest of our students and do not plan to make any changes to the pastoral ways in which we support LGBTQ+ students at St. Edward High School because of this policy.’”

It is not only pastoral care and accompaniment that LGBTQ+ Catholic youth need, but outspoken advocacy as well. St. Joseph Academy and its sponsor, the Congregation of St. Joseph, issued statements of firm support for LGBTQ+ students and staff. The Congregation’s website has the following statement:

“’We act in solidarity with all those who are marginalized. We are called by God to love one another, and with love comes compassion, respect and sensitivity for others. As a congregation, we are committed to doing the work needed to be allies and to help LGBTQ+ individuals find welcome in our church, communities and in our world.’”

A common thread throughout these schools’ statements is the conviction that responding to LGBTQ+ youth with compassion is the most Christ-filled response to this situation. Anthony Burke, a spokesman for Walsh Jesuit High School, noted that it is specifically because of the school’s Catholic identity and a faithfulness to the teachings of the Catholic Church that they strive for inclusion and welcome, stating:

“‘A central truth of our faith is to care for everyone with sensitivity that embodies God’s limitless love for each person, and that every single human being is of limitless value because they are created in the image and likeness of God.’”

In related news, the Diocese of Cleveland’s policy is impacting the wider community. News 5 Cleveland reported that Khalil Seren, mayor of Cleveland Heights, is reviewing the city’s non-discrimination ordinances’ exemptions for private and religious schools. The city includes Beaumont School, sponsored by the Ursuline Sisters of Cleveland, and Communion of Saints Catholic School, a diocesan institution. Seren said, “we have the ability to protect the kids that live in our community, that go to school in our community, but I want to make sure we’re doing it the right way.”

Cleveland Scene reported on the impact the diocesan gender policy could have in the local arts community. Already, Daniel Kenworthy, a member of Quire Cleveland, a performance group, had his contract terminated after posting publicly on Facebook against the diocesan policy. The dispute led Quire Cleveland to cancel its final concert series, “Churches of the Same God: Mass Settings of Byrd and Tallis,” set to be performed in late September at three local Catholic churches. A board member resigned in protest of Kenworthy’s firing, which some believe was due to pressure by the diocese. A leader for the Cleveland Chamber Choir said the group would be reassessing performances in Catholic churches, too.

It is sad the diocesan gender policy is having such fallout. However, the words and convictions of Catholic schools and religious congregations are hopeful. They signal to students, parents, faculty, and staff that Catholic schools ought to be, and are, communities of Christ’s love, welcome, and radical hospitality for all, LGBTQ+ individuals included.

Source : New Ways Ministry

The post Cleveland Catholic Schools Resist Transgender-Negative Diocesan Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

WHEELING — West Virginia has established a policy pertaining to the use of medical cannabis in schools, and Ohio County Board of Education members were briefed on the new guidelines Monday night.

To date, there have been no requests for the use of medical cannabis by students in the school district, according to Ohio County Schools nurse Melissa Soltesz.

The new policy for medical cannabis is more restrictive than existing policy for other medications, Soltesz told board members.

Normally when a school nurse is asked to give medication to a student while at school, an order from a physician is required. The nurse also has to have a parental signature, and the medication must be kept in a drawer or cabinet that can be locked, she said.

“This is much stricter,” Soltesz continued. “This is not a situation where we simply (need) a doctor’s order or a parent’s order.”

The parent or guardian must first apply for and receive a medical cannabis card for their child from the State Department of Health and Human Resources. The youth also must apply separately for an identification card from the DHHR.

Then a physician certification has to be issued stating that medical cannabis is necessary for the student’s medical condition.

“This isn’t something we’re going to be keeping in our buildings,” Soltesz added. “It specifically says we cannot keep any of this on site. The caregiver would have to come to the school, and they would need to administer the medical cannabis. It cannot be delegated. It has to be the caregiver who has the card.”

That keeps the school district from having liability in the procedure, she explained.

If a student with a certified medical condition is found to no longer need medical cannabis, they need to notify their school’s principal within 10 days.

The medical cannabis administered cannot be in plant form, but must be in the semblance of a pill, drop or gummy form. It cannot be in a smokable form, according to Soltesz.

“At this point, we’ve not had a physician even try to give us any type of an order to administer medical cannabis in the school system,” she explained. “This (policy) actually makes it more difficult.

“If someone truly needs medical cannabis they will go through these steps. If they don’t, they won’t waste their time because it is a tedious process.”

The Ohio County Board of Education next meets at 6 p.m. on Oct. 23 at the board office, 2203 National Road, Wheeling.

Source : The Intelligencer

The post Ohio County Board of Education Briefed on Medical Cannabis Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

Only a third of countries include sexual and reproductive health in their national plans to tackle the climate crisis, the UN has warned.

Of the 119 countries that have published plans, only 38 include access to contraception, maternal and newborn health services and just 15 make any reference to violence against women, according to a report published by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and Queen Mary University of London on Tuesday.

The report is the first to examine whether climate plans refer to sexual and reproductive health.

It calls on more countries to recognise the disproportionate impact of the climate crisis on women and girls, and for more action.

Rising temperatures have been linked to poorer maternal health and complications during pregnancy, such as gestational diabetes. Extreme heat has been associated with triggering earlier deliveries and an increase in stillbirths.

The report said the climate crisis exacerbated existing inequalities. In east and southern Africa, for example, tropical cyclones have damaged health facilities, disrupting access to maternal health services and helping spread waterborne diseases such as cholera.

Hurricanes and droughts increase the risks of gender-based violence and child marriage, it added, as families under stress are less able to support daughters and seek to marry them off.

Angela Baschieri, an adviser on population and development for UNFPA and one of the report’s authors, said: “If we look at the plan of action for women and girls, national plans show there is more work that could be done.

“We know climate change disproportionately affects women and is not gender neutral so there is a need to address those gaps and impacts.”

The report highlighted the countries that are taking action. Paraguay, Seychelles and Benin have specified the need to build climate-resilient health systems allowing women to give birth safely and access health services.

Nine countries, including El Salvador, Sierra Leone and Guinea, have included policies or interventions to address gender-based violence.

Only Dominica has mentioned the need for contraception, despite evidence of disruptions to family-planning services during climate-related disasters.

Vietnam is the only country to acknowledge that child marriage occurs more often during times of crises as families seek to reduce their economic burden (for example, marriages of girls aged 11 to 14 increased by half in Bangladesh in years with a heatwave lasting a month).

“Climate is setting us back on the fight to gender equality. Our point would be to make sure that climate policy recognises the differential impact on women and takes it into account in the design of policy,” said Baschieri.

Source : The Guardian

The post Climate Crisis is ‘not Gender Neutral’: UN Calls for More Policy Focus on Women appeared first on Policy Print.

Nipah, a deadly RNA virus that can spill over from bats to humans, has infected six people and killed two in the Indian state of Kerala since August. The virus can cause encephalitis — inflammation of the brain — which manifests as fever, headaches, vomiting and respiratory distress. It has a fatality rate of 40–75%, depending on the strain.

This is the fourth Nipah spillover event in Kerala in the past six years. Before the 2023 outbreak, one in 2018 also spread between people and caused at least 17 deaths. The other two, in 2019 and 2021, were limited to single cases.

At present, Nipah spreads between humans through contact with bodily fluids, so it is unlikely to cause a pandemic. But the virus is poorly understood, and no approved vaccines or treatments are available. Each outbreak gives the virus the chance to adapt and produce a strain that could spread more effectively.

Based on my experience as one of the leaders of the Nipah surveillance team in Kerala during the 2018 and 2023 outbreaks, more scientific and policy work on Nipah is needed. As a key first step, all countries likely to have Nipah virus reservoirs should have early detection systems.

That starts with knowing better where the risks lie. The strain in Kerala’s outbreaks originated from Bangladesh in 2001. Health systems have missed this strain because its mortality rate is so high that it often causes small outbreaks or single cases. Outbreaks in Bangladesh in 2001 and 2003 were only detected later, when antibodies against Nipah were found in stored samples.

To reach Kerala, the virus must have spread undetected over more than 2,000 kilometres, from Bangladesh or the neighbouring Indian state of West Bengal. It is highly probable that many places in southeast Asia have Nipah virus reservoirs and could experience spillovers: Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, southern China, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and many Indian states all lie a similar distance from Bangladesh and are home to fruit bats. Bat populations in many Indian states harbour serological evidence of exposure to Nipah virus (M. Gokhale et al. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 85, 101800; 2022).

In Kerala’s 2018 outbreak, the virus spread mainly in hospitals simply because people were most likely to be there when they were highly infectious. In areas with endemic Nipah, hospitals should screen anyone with sudden symptoms of encephalitis or respiratory distress for the virus, unless there is a clear alternative diagnosis. They should also follow strict infection-control protocols, including proper room ventilation, mask wearing for health-care workers, and isolation of patients. In India, it is common for friends and family members to accompany people to the hospital, but these bystanders were affected the most in both the larger outbreaks.

Lack of treatments for Nipah is another concern. Drug trials are difficult, because outbreaks typically last for only a few days. Kerala’s experience is that using antivirals not specific to Nipah might have helped some people infected near the end of the outbreaks in 2018 (R. Chandni et al. Clin. Infect. Dis. 71, 152–157; 2020) and 2023. More research is needed, as is wider distribution of general antivirals.

The development of monoclonal antibodies from Nipah survivors in Kerala is also a priority. These will be specific to the local variant and could be given to people with early symptoms and to high-risk contacts, such as frontline health-care workers, potentially saving lives. The International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh, in Dhaka is already studying about 50 survivors of Nipah.

According to Gavi, the vaccine alliance, several candidate vaccines for Nipah are in clinical trials, including one based on messenger RNA, one based on a viral vector and one containing the protein subunit of Hendra virus, which closely resembles Nipah.

Because Nipah is an RNA virus that is prone to mutate, studying the virological factors contributing to severity is important for monitoring its pandemic potential. It is also crucial to study variation in immunological mechanisms known to affect people’s susceptibility to Nipah. Hospital camera footage in Kerala revealed that some individuals were not infected despite close, unprotected contact with someone who was.

But prevention is always better than treatment. Public-awareness campaigns are a first step to preventing the spillover of Nipah from bats to humans. These should happen wherever fruit bats could serve as natural viral reservoirs. In Kerala, we are teaching people not to eat bat meat, fallen fruits or the nectar of banana flowers, which could contain bat saliva. In Bangladesh, spillover was attributed to people eating date-palm sap contaminated with bat secretions, but this was not the case for the 2023 outbreak in Kerala. People also need to be made aware that destroying bat habitats during a Nipah outbreak can cause infected animals to migrate to human-populated locations and increase the chance of human–bat interactions.

After the 2018 outbreak, the Keralan government developed a system to detect infections early, by analysing samples from people suspected to have Nipah; to contain outbreaks; and to save lives by treating symptoms. It is also establishing a research centre to investigate spillover mechanisms. But the wider world must take note. The past few years have made it clear that bolstering countries’ defences against viral diseases benefits us all.

Source : Nature

The post Nipah Virus is Deadly — but Smart Policy Changes Can Help Quell Pandemic Risk appeared first on Policy Print.

Meta is facing a review into its policies on manipulated content and artificial intelligence-created “deepfakes”, after the company’s moderators refused to remove a Facebook video that wrongfully described US president Joe Biden as a paedophile.

The Silicon Valley company’s Oversight Board, an independent Supreme Court-style body set up in 2020 and consisting of 20 journalists, academics and politicians, said on Tuesday it was opening a case to examine whether the social media giant’s guidelines on altered videos and images could “withstand current and future challenges”.

The investigation, the first of its kind into Meta’s “manipulated media” policies, has been prompted by an edited version of a video during the 2022 midterm elections in the US. In the original clip, Biden places an “I Voted” sticker on his adult granddaughter’s chest and kisses her on the cheek. In a Facebook post from May this year, a seven-second altered version of the clip loops the footage so it repeats the moment when Biden’s hand makes contact with her chest.

The accompanying caption calls Biden “a sick paedophile” and those who voted for him “mentally unwell”. The clip is still on the Facebook site. Although the Biden video was edited without the use of artificial intelligence, the board argues its review and rulings will also set a precedent for AI-generated and human-edited content. “It touches on the much broader issue of how manipulated media might impact elections in every corner of the world,” said Thomas Hughes, director of the Oversight Board administration. “Free speech is vitally important, it’s the cornerstone of democratic governance,” Hughes said. “But there are complex questions concerning what Meta’s human rights responsibilities should be regarding video content that has been altered to create a misleading impression of a public figure.” He added: “It’s important that we look at what challenges and best practices Meta should adopt when it comes to authenticating video content at scale.” The board’s investigation comes as AI-altered content, often described as deepfakes, is becoming increasingly sophisticated and widely used.

There are concerns that fake but realistic content of politicians, in particular, could influence voting in upcoming elections. The US goes to the polls in just over a year. The Biden case surfaced when a user reported the video to Meta, which did not remove the post and upheld its decision to leave it online following a Facebook appeals process. As of early September, the video had fewer than 30 views and had not been shared. The unidentified user then appealed against the decision to the oversight board.

Meta confirmed its decision to leave the content on the platform was correct. The Biden case adds to the board’s growing number of investigations into content moderation around elections and other civic events. The board this year overturned a decision from Meta to leave up a Facebook video that featured a Brazilian general, whom the board did not name, following elections potentially inciting street violence. Previous assessments have focused on the decision to block former US president Donald Trump from Facebook, as well as a video in which Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen threatens his political opponents with violence.

Once the board has completed its review, it can issue non-binding policy recommendations to Meta, which must respond within two months. The board has invited submissions from the public, which can be provided anonymously. In a post on Tuesday, Meta reiterated that the video was “merely edited to remove certain portions” and therefore not a deepfake caught by its manipulated media policies. “We will implement the board’s decision once it has finished deliberating, and will update this post accordingly,” it said, adding that the video also did not breach its hate speech or bullying policies.

Source : Financial Times

The post Facebook Video of Biden Prompts Probe Into Meta Content Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

On October 4, 2023, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a “safe harbor” policy for companies that voluntary self-disclose violations identified during the M&A process.

US Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, announcing the policy in a speech before the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics, said the safe harbor will apply to companies that self-report potential violations of an acquisition’s target business when disclosed within six months of the deal’s closing. The six-month safe harbor will apply to misconduct discovered pre- or post-acquisition. Reporting companies will have one year from the date of the closing of the deal to “fully remediate the misconduct,” according to Monaco, who also said that both the six-month and one-year deadlines could be “extended” by DOJ prosecutors, depending on the specific “facts, circumstances, and complexity of a specific transaction.”

The policy will allow acquiring companies that voluntarily self-disclose misconduct to avoid potential federal charges or regulatory scrutiny. “Going forward, acquiring companies that promptly and voluntarily disclose criminal misconduct within the safe harbor period; cooperate with the ensuing investigation; and engage in requisite, timely, and appropriate remediation, restitution, and disgorgement … will receive the presumption of a declination,” Monaco said.

The safe harbor policy will be applied across the DOJ, Monaco said, and each part of the DOJ — including individual US Attorney’s offices and DOJ components such as the Criminal Division and National Security Division (NSD) — “will tailor its application of this policy to fit their specific enforcement regime and will consider how this policy will be implemented in practice.” Monaco reiterated the DOJ’s goal of incentivizing compliance and deterring and penalizing repeat bad actors, with a special focus on recent corporate enforcement actions, particularly in the convergence of corporate crime and national security. To meet these goals, Monaco announced 25 new corporate crime prosecutors in the NSD, including NSD’s first chief counsel for corporate enforcement, Ian Richardson.

The safe harbor policy was previewed by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Marshall Miller during a talk at the Global Investigations Review annual meeting on September 21, 2023. In those remarks, Miller said the safe harbor is consistent with the DOJ’s continued emphasis on voluntary self-disclosure. “Acquiring companies should not be penalized when they engage in careful pre-acquisition diligence and timely post-acquisition integration to detect and remediate misconduct at the acquired company’s business,” he said.

The safe harbor policy will apply only to criminal conduct discovered in arm’s-length M&A transactions and will not apply to misconduct that was otherwise required to be disclosed or was already known to the department. As a further incentive to self-disclose misconduct identified in due diligence, the DOJ announced that the presence of aggravating factors at the target company will not affect the acquiring company’s ability to receive a declination. While treatment of the target entity may hinge on whether aggravating factors exist, Monaco indicated that in the absence of aggravating factors, the acquired target entity may also qualify for a potential declination. In addition, misconduct disclosed under the new policy will not be factored into future recidivist analysis for the acquiring company.

The DOJ’s focus on M&A, and its efforts to reward acquiring companies that self-disclose, is not new. For example, in 2012, the DOJ released A Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, in which it encouraged acquiring companies to, among other things: conduct thorough risk-based Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and anti-corruption due diligence on potential new business acquisitions; conduct an FCPA-specific audit of all newly acquired or merged businesses as quickly as practicable; and disclose any corrupt payments discovered as part of due diligence of newly acquired entities or merged entities.

The FCPA resource guide provided that the DOJ and US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would give meaningful credit to companies that undertake these actions; as a result, in appropriate circumstances, the DOJ and SEC may decline to bring enforcement actions.

The DOJ Criminal Division’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs guidance, published in 2017 and revised most recently in March 2023, has also always emphasized the importance of pre-M&A due diligence. And likewise, in the context of civil healthcare fraud matters, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General has long considered successor ownership, and the mitigation of a predecessor’s misconduct, in determining whether to require integrity obligations.

While not a seismic shift in DOJ focus or practice, much like other recent updated DOJ guidance, the safe harbor policy reflects an expansion and standardization of preexisting policies and underscores the DOJ’s focus on rewarding voluntary self-disclosure of potential violations. Acquiring companies across industries should take note of the DOJ’s continued focus on M&A due diligence and, in particular, the more refined timing principles that the DOJ has set out by establishing the safe harbor period for identification, disclosure, and remediation of misconduct. Acquiring companies should ensure that their diligence processes are robust and designed to uncover misconduct. Recognizing that criminal misconduct is often well-concealed, it is imperative that acquiring companies undertake immediate post-acquisition  integration so that should issues be detected through the integration process, acquiring companies have the opportunity to evaluate them and consider disclosure and remediation during the safe harbor period.

Source : GOODWIN

The post DOJ Announces Safe Harbor Policy for M&A Self-Disclosures appeared first on Policy Print.

Five years ago, when leaders of the two Koreas exchanged a historic handshake in Pyongyang, the Korean people looked on with hope, wishing that this masterpiece of diplomacy may finally put an official end to the seven-decade-long war on the peninsula. 

But as time surges forward, the once-celebrated inter-Korean agreement stands vulnerable, overshadowed by North Korea’s escalating nuclear threats, and its leader, Kim Jong Un reinforcing ties with his fellow authoritarian leader Vladimir Putin of Russia. Now, South Korea grapples with a growing divide on whether to uphold that deal.

The debate is set to intensify on the back of  former South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s  attendance of the commemorative event of the fifth anniversary of the September 19 Pyongyang Joint Declaration in Seoul on Tuesday.  

“The [current] government and the ruling party have expressed their intentions to reconsider or possibly scrap the military agreement,” Moon said at the event. “However, it’s crucial to note that the inter-Korean military agreement has been instrumental in preventing military confrontations between the two Koreas.”

Moon’s comments are largely seen as a warning against the administration of President Yoon Suk Yeol for its hardline policy on North Korea.

“It would be irresponsible to remove the last safety pin in place,” Moon added. “As relations between the two Koreas deteriorate and military tensions escalate, it’s imperative for both sides to uphold the agreement.”

His remarks may potentially improve  public opinion of South Korea’s progressives before the general election in April. Should that happen, it would conversely work against Yoon’s hardline policy on Pyongyang. 

Under the 2018 inter-Korean military deal, the two Koreas agreed to “end hostility” and to “take substantial steps to make the Korean Peninsula a permanent peace zone.” 

“Military accords should be honored and respected to the fullest extent to ensure dialogue continues and to prevent dire consequences,” Moon said. 

The former president was supported by key officials from his administration – his foreign minister Kang Kyung-wha and unification minister Kim Yeon-chul at the event.

South Korea’s progressives see consistent engagement with North Korea as a potential catalyst for altering Pyongyang’s hostile behavior and its actions of violating human rights. They believe that integrating North Korea into the international stage would foster transparency, open avenues for dialogue, and gradually shift the North’s stance towards global norms and values.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have long protested against what it defined as far-fetched engagement, saying that excessive aid to North Korea despite its continued provocations would only foster its nuclear ambitions. The conversative Yoon administration is thus adopting a hawkish policy on North Korea, aimed at pressing Pyongyang to forfeit its nuclear weapons.

The ongoing debate is set to gain its momentum, as Yoon’s Defense Minister nominee Shin Won-sik has opined about his inclination to scrap the inter-Korean military deal last week.

Some analysts consider the deal invalid, with North Korea returning to its brinkmanship diplomacy after its high-stakes summit with the United States collapsed in Hanoi February 2019. For instance, in November 2019, North Korea fired coastal artillery near the maritime buffer around the border island of Changlin-do. 

In May 2020, North Korea fired gunshots towards a South Korean guard post at the inter-Korean border, and in September 2020, a South Korean civilian was shot dead at the maritime border by the North and subsequently incinerated.

Further complicating matters is North Korea’s amplified nuclear and missile threats. The threats are expected to further intensify with Putin vowing to aid North Korea in developing its satellite technology. 

Rocket technology can be used for both launching satellites and missiles. For that reason, the UN bans North Korea from launching a ballistic rocket, even if it claims to be a satellite launch. 

South Korea’s internal disagreement surrounding its North North Korea policy could potentially undermine that of the allies. The lack of a unified stance – be it hardline or dovish policy – risks disabling Seoul and Washington to form a coherent strategy that could be implemented in the long-term.

Experts, however, noted that the main reason for this policy inconsistency is due to Kim Jong Un’s altered stance on his diplomacy after the fallout in Hanoi in 2019. 

“North Korean inconsistency is what leads to South Korea having to change its policy. If Pyongyang had continued to engage post-Hanoi summit, I think that both, Moon first, and Yoon now would have probably sought to try to accommodate this. Alas, this hasn’t been the case,” said Ramon Pacheco Pardo, Professor of International Relations at King’s College London and the KF-VUB Korea Chair at the Brussels School of Governance of Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

“Likewise, I think that it was domestic instability in North Korea in the late 2000s, due to Kim Jong Il’s health condition, and then the transition process to Kim Jong Un, [being] the main reason behind the end of the inter-Korean engagement. So liberals and conservatives may not fully agree on how to approach North Korea, but I actually think that Pyongyang is the main reason why Seoul changes its policy.”

Source : Rfa

The post South Korea Presidents Clash Over North Korea Policy appeared first on Policy Print.