Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 915)
US

texas abortion law upheldA federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Texas could immediately begin enforcing its new late-term abortion ban, complete with health standards all but seven clinics can meet.

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans stayed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, who ruled in August that part of the law requiring Texas clinics to spend millions of dollars on hospital-level upgrades was less about safety than making access to abortion difficult.

The court said that during the time it considers the overall constitutionality of Texas’ sweeping 2013 late-term abortion ban, which Republican Gov. Rick Perry and other conservatives say is designed to protect women’s health, Yeakel’s ruling that suspended the requirement to meet certain standards is overturned.

The state of Texas in its appeal had asked the appeals court to let it enforce the law during that process and now they have it,  allowing state health officials to move the rules on hospital-level upgrades into place. The upgrades include mandatory operating rooms and air filtration systems and would likely close more than a dozen clinics across Texas that are unable to meet the basic minimum standards. That means only abortion facilities will remain open in the Houston, Austin, San Antonio and the Dallas-Fort Worth areas.

Meanwhile, some clinics have already closed after another part of the 2013 law required doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Proponents of the law argue that plastic surgeons and other relatively minor procedures are required to meet such a standard, but the powerful abortion industry has put women’s health at risk just to make money financing fetal fatalities.

That portion of the Texas abortion law has already been upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit and is no longer in contest, in fact, the state is now seeking a second outright reversal.

Democrat gubernatorial nominee Wendy Davis became an abortion celebrity after she put on a nearly 13-hour filibuster last summer that temporarily blocked the law in the state Senate. PPD learned that the filibuster had been staged as a political stunt far ahead of the bill’s debate as part of an effort to turn Texas Blue (Democratic). However, her opponent in November is Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose office is leading the fight to defend the popularly supported law.

Abbott is the clear favorite to become the next governor of Texas in November, as much of Davis’ past was called into question and her working class, single mom hero story fell apart. The Texas Governor race is race rated “Safe Republican” by PPD’s 2014 Governor Map Predictions model.

Clinics call the measure a backdoor effort to outlaw abortions, which has been a constitutional right since the Roe v. Wade ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.

Attorneys for the state — and now several federal judges — have disagreed with the opposition’s assertion that women would be burdened by fewer abortion facilities, saying nearly 9 in 10 Texas women would still live within 150 miles of a provider.

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that

Politics

leon panetta

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. (Photo: AP)

In the second time in under a month, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is making headlines by laying blame for the collapse of Iraq and the rise of ISIS at Obama’s feet. In his upcoming memoir, Worthy Fights, to be published on October 7, 2014, Panetta writes that President Obama’s failing to secure a 2011 deal that would’ve left U.S. troops in Iraq was a case of intentional sabotage, leaving the Iraqi people at the mercy of the Islamic State.

Panetta, who served as CIA director and defense secretary during the negotiations, also took to “60 Minutes” at the end of September to make the case against the president’s decisions in the region. Excerpts on the Baghdad talks were published by Time Magazine.

“To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them,” Panetta writes. “Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized. To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country.”

The White House has long-argued that the talks broke down when the Iraqis would not agree to give U.S. soldiers immunity. However, during the Bush administration the Iraqis made the same initial demand, but ultimately caved to U.S. pressure. Critics say that the president didn’t get the concession because he didn’t try. Now, Panetta has added his name to that growing bipartisan group of critics.

“We had leverage. We could, for instance, have threatened to withdraw reconstruction aid to Iraq if al-Maliki would not support some sort of continued U.S. military presence,” Panetta explains. “My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we’d seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S. Iraq’s stability was not only in Iraq’s interest but also in ours.”

Despite claiming he privately and publicly advocated in favor of a plan to leave a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military, the president wasn’t interested in hearing worse-case scenarios..

“Under Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy did her best to press that position, which reflected not just my views but also those of the military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs. But the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated,” he added. “Flournoy argued our case, and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.”

Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pounced on the White House with Panetta’s version of events, a version they have been arguing for years is what they saw happen first hand. Panetta’s remarks follow similar criticism by former Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who said U.S. officials took their hands off the steering wheel under the Obama administration.

“We could have gotten that agreement if we had been a little more persistent, flexible, and creative. But what really cost us was the political withdrawal,” Crocker told Defense One in a recent interview. “We cut off high-level political engagement with Iraq when we withdrew our troops.”

In a joint statement from the two GOP senators, they argued that the president had been misleading the American people all along.

“The latest statements by two of the most respected national security officials to serve under President Obama definitively refute the falsehood that this administration has told the American people for years about their efforts to leave a residual force in Iraq,” the senators said in a statement. “As we have said all along … the Obama Administration never made a full effort to leave a residual force in Iraq.”

As Crocker recalls, the administration didn’t simply withdrawal U.S. troops too early, but also abandoned them diplomatically.

“There were no senior visits, very few phone calls. Secretary of State John Kerry made one visit prior to this current crisis, mainly to lecture the Iraqis on how bad they were being for facilitating Iranian weapon shipments to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,” Crocker said. “And we left them to their own devices, knowing that left to their own devices, it would not work out well.”

Since the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq, critics have argued the foreign policy failure was avoidable, while Democrats and presidential allies refuse to acknowledge the validity of such speculation. However, as he plainly made clear in his memoir, Panetta has no doubt that the politically motivated decision to pull out of Iraq far earlier than military advisors suggested is the case of the current crisis.

“To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country,” he wrote.

In the second time in under a

Politics, Video

In an interview on Fox and Friends, former President George W. Bush told said America has learned the “lesson” that Iraq wasn’t ready to be abandoned. According to a new survey, the former commander-in-chief may just be right.

In a new poll, Americans say they now support U.S. ground troops in Iraq to deal with the ISIS threat, believe airstrikes alone will not be enough to defeat the terror army. But Americans’ perceptions of the U.S. military’s effectiveness under President Obama was sadly low, with more believing it has declined since 2008 than increased. Among veterans and active military, the perceptions are even worse.

Since leaving office, Bush has been adamant about not criticizing President Obama, who was forced to make the decision to launch airstrikes in Iraq — and now Syria — in a new war against the Islamic State.

When asked if the Iraqi people have already failed to seize the opportunity to build a new country, Bush, who is always the optimist, gave a very characteristic answer.

“It’s not over,” he said.

He also said, however, that U.S. airstrikes are showing the Iraqi people still need more help to defeat ISIS.

“The Iraqi people obviously are going to have to make a decision as to whether or not they want to live in peace,” President Bush said. “They’re not ready to do it on their own, and that’s the lesson we’ve learned recently.”

In 2007, after just receiving polling results from White House advisors that showed a surge-like strategy would be the least unpopular action he could take, the president delivered a prophetic warning about what would happen if U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq too early. He said at the time this would risk “mass killings on a horrific scale” and potentially draw U.S. troops back into the country to confront a threat even greater than the one we face now.”

Unfortunately, particularly for those who sacrificed life and limb for U.S. gains in Iraq, the president’s predictions have now come to fruition.

“I know the nature of the enemy,” the former president responded when asked how he knew what would happen.

“Anybody who kills 3,000 innocents and beheads people because of their religion or because of their point of view is dangerous.”

He said an effective strategy to confront the threat of Islamic extremism is long-term and “takes time,” then went on to warn against what he called “impatience” among some in the American public, presumably the American Left.

“Americans have got to understand that the lesson of 9/11 is still important today as it was right after 9/11,” he said. “And that is the human condition elsewhere matters to our national security.”

Bush also said he agreed with Obama’s military advisers — who the current president overruled — that the U.S. should have left a residual force when it pulled out at the end of 2011.

But, again, he refused to condemn President Obama, saying he’s not going to “second-guess our president.”

“I understand how tough the job is.”

Fox & Friends After The Show-Show Interview

In an interview on Fox and Friends,

Economy

weekly jobless claims

The Labor Department reported Thursday that first-time weekly jobless claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly fell last week, while the prior week was revised up 2,000 more applications than previously reported.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted 287,000 in the week ending Sept. 27, while economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims rising to 297,000 last week.

Claims have fallen steadily since the nation emerged from the 2007-09 recession and are currently lower than they were before the country’s economic crisis began. However, many economists note that eligibility is shrinking along with the labor market, as chronically low labor force participation rates and employment-to-population ratios show there are too many long-term unemployed workers to keep the rolling average up.

The four-week moving average of claims, which is widely considered to be a better gauge of labor market conditions because it irons out week-to-week volatility, also fell 4,250 to 294,750.

The Labor Department said there were no special factors influencing the state level data.

The data has no bearing on the government’s September jobs report to be released Friday, a well-scrutinized Bureau of Labor Statistic monthly employment report, because the hiring survey was conducted earlier in the month. Economists expect companies stepped up the pace of hiring last month, adding 215,000 workers to payrolls. While the number is above 200,000, it is still shy of the 250,000 jobs needed to keep pace with population growth.

The jobless claims report showed the number of people still receiving benefits after an initial week of aid dropped 45,000 to 2.40 million in the week ended Sept. 20.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that first-time

Polls

us troops in iraq

Voters now support boots on the ground in Iraq if necessary to defeat ISIS, but Americans’ perceptions of U.S. military might and troop morale has tanked under President Obama.

By a 52-42 percent margin, voters okay U.S. troop deployments in Iraq if airstrikes aren’t enough to defeat the terror army, though a whopping 78-percent majority approves of U.S. airstrikes. However, voters by a 57 – 24 percent margin believe defeating ISIS cannot be defeated with airstrikes alone, which represents an increase of 6 points since mid-September. Further, a 55-percent majority says President Obama hasn’t been aggressive enough in the effort to defeat ISIS, and don’t believe he has a clear strategy for winning.

Voters side with House Speaker John Boehner, among other critics, who say the president when he gave away the battle plan and folded immediately on ground troops. “I would never tell the enemy what I was willing to do or unwilling to do,” the speaker said. A majority — 54 percent — called it “crazy” for Obama to announce U.S. strategy to the enemy, 34 percent say it was “smart” to let Americans know the plan. Not surprisingly, considering they are the only voting bloc with experience, 60 percent of veterans say it was “crazy.”

Sadly, 32 percent of voters think the U.S. military has become less effective under Obama, as opposed to 17 percent who say it has become more effective. A significant 47 percent say there’s no difference. However, among veterans and those currently serving in the military, the people who would actually know, a larger 43 percent say less effective, while just 21 percent say more effective. Roughly a third — 32 percent — say it’s about the same now as before.

Despite that sentiment, voters still show support for ground operations, which suggests they simply don’t feel safe under Obama’s policy. Nearly 8 in 10 American voters — 79 percent — are concerned about ISIS hitting the homeland, even more than those worried about the Ebola virus (31 percent). It is worth noting that the poll was taken as the news of the first-ever Ebola virus started to make headlines.

Overall, 74 percent of voters say Obama has been week on radical Islam, ten times the 7 percent who say he’s been too tough. Even 60 percent of Democrats say Obama has not been tough enough on radical Islam, while 70 percent of independents and a striking 91 percent among Republicans agree. Voters continue to disapprove of the job Obama’s doing as president — 39  – 53 percent among likely voters — though those ratings are lower on foreign policy (35 – 55 percent disapprove), terrorism (41 – 53 percent disapprove), Iraq (38 – 53 percent disapprove) and Syria (34 – 54 percent disapprove).

These putrid numbers are actually representative of a bump in support since Obama gave the order to launch “targeted” strikes against ISIS positions in Iraq and Syria, though they are likely to tick down if reports keep demonstrating the strategy is not working.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,049 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from September 28-30, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Voters now support boots on the ground in

News, Politics, Video

 

A new political ad starring Elbert Lee Guillory, a black Louisiana State Senator, has just moved to the top of PPD’s list of best political ads of 2014. In the spot, which topped Republican Senate candidate in Oregon Monica Wehby’s “Trust,” Guillory gives a stunningly honest interpretation of the relationship between black voters and the Democratic Party.

And incumbent Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu was the unfortunate star of the production.

“You are not Mary’s cause and you are certainly not her charity. You are just a vote – nothing less, nothing more,” Guillory says in a somber yet authoritative and convincing tone.” You are just a means to an end, so that she remains in power.”

Elbert Guillory, a former Democrat who captured national headlines during the summer of 2013 with a viral YouTube video “Why I Am a Republican,” announced in August that he would serve as honorary chairman of the Free At Last PAC. According to the group’s website, the PAC was formed by several community leaders “as an effort to support black Republicans who run for federal office and also to educate black Americans about the values of the Republican Party.”

“I believe that the values of the black community and the values of the Republican Party are one in the same,” said Guillory. “But somehow the Democrat Party has created the illusion that their agenda is what’s best for black people, and we intend to shine the light of truth on that falsehood.”

Elbert Guillory Ad Attacks Mary Landrieu

Elbert Guillory, a Louisiana State Senator who recently made national news with a YouTube video “Why I Am a Republican”, has announced today that he will serve as honorary chairman of the Free At Last PAC. (Photo: YouTube)

In a recent interview, Guillory said every six years Landrieu comes back to black precincts for her “one-night stand” with black voters before vanishing, leaving impoverished black communities with nothing but empty promises. To be fair to Landrieu, according to Guillory, she is simply carrying on with what has become a decades-long tradition in the Democratic Party — making promises to black voters they can’t keep just to stay in power.

“They tell us the schools are going to get better, they never do,” he says as a matter of fact. “Then, she disappears until she comes back six years later for her next one-night stand. She has done absolutely nothing for our community, not about jobs, not about safety and not about education. She has done absolutely nothing.”

When asked what drove him to turn away from the Democratic Party and Mary Landrieu, in particular, he pulled no punches.

 

“She promises she will turn our community into the Garden of Eden, and I am tired of it.”

He also recently gave a speech at the DC March for Jobs, an anti-amnesty rally jointly organized by the Black American Leadership Alliance and various Tea Party-aligned groups, regarding the negative impact amnesty will have on the black community. Democrats, of course, support the president’s plan to grant some ten million illegal immigrants amnesty, which economists largely agree will disproportionately hurt minority communities. He says black voters simply don’t hear these facts because Republicans have been derelict in their minority outreach efforts.

“I recently attended the Republican Study Committee, as a guest of Chairman Scalise, and couldn’t help but realize that I was the only black person in the room,“ said Guillory. “I thought, how can this be? What would Frederick Douglass think about this? We need to do something about this. We need more Black conservatives in congress.”

Sen. Landrieu is already facing an uphill battle for reelection this cycle and, after spending months rated a “Toss-Up” by PPD’s 2014 Senate Map Predictions model, now is slightly favored to lose her seat. Her opponent, Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy, leads Landrieu in the likely runoff election by various margins in recent polls. She trails Cassidy by over 5 points on the PPD average of Louisiana Senate polls.

Guillory’s web video now has over 800,000 views.

A new political ad starring Elbert Lee

World

Islamic State infographic

What You Need To Know About The Islamic State. (Courtesy of: Infographic World)

The Islamic State, otherwise known as ISIS and ISIL, is a hardline Sunni jihadist group with past ties to al Qaeda in Iraq. The group has conquered large areas of territory in Iraq and Syria, and has announced it intends to reestablish the caliphate and has declared its leader, the shadowy Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as the caliph.

Cash flows in to the terror army to the tune of at least $1 million each day, while they have already seized U.S. weapons during its advances on Mosul and other major cities in Iraq. With an estimated $2 billion cash-on-hand, the Islamic State is an extremely well-funded terrorist group that poses a major threat of international crisis for the U.S. and the world. Learn about their rise to power and the toll they’ve taken thus far by viewing the infographic below courtesy of Infographic World.

What You Need To Know: Islamic State Infographic
Courtesy of: Infographic World

What you need to know about the

Polls

rights for illegal immigrants

President Obama announced Tuesday his administration will be providing lawyers for many illegal immigrants who flooded across the southern border last summer. However, voters strongly oppose the government affording benefits and the same degree of legal rights for illegal immigrants available to legal U.S. citizens.

A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 68 percent of likely voters say the new illegal immigrants should not have the same legal rights, protections and benefit eligibility as legal citizens. A whopping 71 percent say illegal newcomers should not be eligible for government services and benefits, while just 16 percent say they are entitled to taxpayer-funded government assistance.

At the height of the border crisis, the president’s critics charged his failure to enforce immigration law and executive action to enact large portions of the so-called Dream Act created the border crisis, while the Democrats argued that violence in Central America created a refugee crisis. A leaked 10-page report conducted on July 7 by the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), which is headed up by the DEA and includes the Department of Homeland Security, sided with the president’s critics.

“Of the 230 migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or “permisos” to UAC (unaccompanied children) and adult females OTMs (other than Mexicans) traveling with minors,” the report said.

Violence in Central America, which is nothing new, had zero to do with the flood of illegals across the border, the report concluded.

Meanwhile, 63 percent of voters believe the report and the president’s critics, saying they think the availability of government money and services encourages and incentivized illegal immigrants to the United States. On the other hand, just 21 percent believe that government assistance is not an incentive for illegal immigration.

Further, 38 percent now say some of this year’s wave of illegal immigrants have been moved by the federal government to their state, while 15 percent say their state hasn’t received any of these illegals. However, nearly half — 46 percent — of voters say they don’t know. The Obama administration flat-out refuses to response to media requests to make this information public, and has been stonewalling PPD for months on a FOIA request filed in July.

The Department of Homeland Security loads up buses and charters plains filled with illegal immigrants, who are then being moved to regions across the U.S. without telling local and state officials beforehand.

Most voters continue to say the president wants illegal immigrants to stay in this country despite the vast majority of Americans supporting their quick deportation. Just 30 percent of likely voters approve of the Obama administration’s handling of the thousands of illegal immigrant children who have entered the country this year, with the majority of that number expressing only soft support.

As was the case in August, the vast majority of voters — 62 percent — oppose the president’s plan to unilaterally grant amnesty to upwards of 8 million illegal immigrants and say Congress should challenge him in court if he does. A supermajority of voters say securing the border to prevent future illegal immigration should come before amnesty is granted for illegal immigrants already in this country, while just 26 percent believe amnesty should come first.

President Obama decided to break his promise to grant amnesty to illegals by the end of summer through executive order, and will now wait until after the 2014 midterm elections.

The survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted on August September 29-30, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.

President Obama announced Tuesday his administration will

News, US

texas liberians ebola

Pedestrians walk outside Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2014. A patient in the hospital is showing signs of the Ebola virus and is being kept in strict isolation with test results pending, hospital officials said Monday. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Tom Frieden insinuated Tuesday that the first-ever individual to test positive for Ebola in the U.S. is not an American citizen. The patient — who is a male — arrived in Texas on Sept. 20 to visit family living in the U.S. from Liberia earlier this month and allegedly showed no symptoms while on the plane.

“It is certainly possible that someone who had contact with this individual, a family member or other individual, could develop Ebola in the coming weeks,” Frieden said Wednesday at a news conference. “But there is no doubt in my mind that we will stop it here.”

But North Texas is home to a Liberian community approximately totaling 10,000 members, and they’re not buying into the CDC’s optimism.

Stanley Gaye, the president of the Liberian Community Association of Dallas-Fort Worth, said the risk of exposure to the virus has spread throughout their country is higher than officials are letting on. A combination of flaws in the travel procedures and frequent gatherings, which are characteristic of the Liberian culture, have made for a dangerous combination.

“We’ve been telling people to try to stay away from social gatherings,” Gaye said at a community meeting Tuesday evening.

“We need to know who it is so that they (family members) can all go get tested,” Gaye told The Associated Press. “If they are aware, they should let us know.”

The association’s vice president is attempting to prevent alarm in the community while encouraging individuals to visit a doctor. But she expressed concern some potentially infected members may avoid taking the necessary steps.

“We don’t want to get a panic going,” said vice president Roseline Sayon. “We embrace those people who are coming forward. Don’t let the stigma keep you from getting tested.”

Passengers leaving Liberia must pass through a screening procedure health officials and airport authorities characterized as “rigorous.” CDC officials are present to aid staff at Monrovia’s airport, where plastic buckets filled with chlorinated water for hand-washing are placed throughout the airport. Passengers are questioned about recent travel history, but no real system to verify those answers is in place.

However, the procedural checks, as we’ve learned from the Texas case, offer no guarantee that an infected individual won’t get through the imperfect series of checks. Even more concerning, according to Binyah Kesselly, chairman of the Liberia Airport Authority’s board of directors, airport officials have no way of preventing someone not showing symptoms from boarding a plane.

Further, while passengers are checked as they board the passenger aircraft, it takes approximately two days to reach the United States from Liberia depending on the destination, at which point the passengers are not forced to pass through further screening upon entering the country. In the two-day period, a previously cleared passenger may have become symptomatic and no one he or she had contact with on the plane or on the trip from the airport, would ever know.

This is the danger facing the Lebanese community, Gaye and their other leaders, as well as the entire country.

Ebola symptoms include fever, muscle pain, vomiting and bleeding, but they can appear as long as 21 days after exposure to the virus. The disease is not contagious until symptoms begin, and it takes close contact with bodily fluids to spread. But the U.S. doctor exposed to the virus in Sierra Leone, who is now under observation at the National Institutes of Health in Washington D.C., wasn’t even assigned to the Ebola ward. According to officials, it was during the period before the patient determined they were symptomatic that the doctor was exposed and infected.

Liberia is one of the three hardest-hit countries in the epidemic, along with Sierra Leone and Guinea.

Liberian community leaders in North Texas are

News, US

CDC Dr Tom Friedman Ebola

Director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Dr. Tom Frieden speaks during a news conference after confirming that a patient at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital has tested positive for Ebola, the first case of the disease to be diagnosed in the United States, announced Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2014, in Atlanta. The person, an adult who was not publicly identified, developed symptoms days after returning to Texas from Liberia and showed no symptoms on the plane, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (AP Photo/John Bazemore)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed on Tuesday that a patient being treated at a Dallas hospital has tested positive for Ebola. The patient marks the first-ever case of Ebola diagnosed in the United States. Health officials said the patient — who is a male — arrived in Texas on Sept. 20 to visit family living in the U.S. from Liberia earlier this month and showed no symptoms while on the plane.

Though he would not released the patients nationality, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden insinuated that the individual is not an American citizen.

“The bottom line here is that I have no doubt we will control this importation, or this case of Ebola, so that it does not spread widely in this country,” Frieden said at a news conference. “It is certainly possible that someone who had contact with this individual, a family member or other individual, could develop Ebola in the coming weeks, but there is no doubt in my mind that we will stop it here.”

U.S. health officials stressed that they have been preparing since summer in case an individual traveler arrived here unknowingly infected. The CDC has been telling hospitals what infection-control steps they must take to prevent the virus from spreading in health facilities.

Passengers boarding planes in the outbreak zone are checked for fever, however, as was the case with this individual, symptoms can begin up to 21 days after exposure. The CDC also stressed that Ebola isn’t contagious until symptoms begin, and it takes close contact with bodily fluids to spread.

“Ebola is an easy virus to kill. You can kill it when you wash your hands,” Friede said. “It’s serious only because the stakes are so high.”

Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas officials said in a statement Monday that an unnamed patient had been tested for Ebola and had been placed in “strict isolation” due to the patient’s symptoms and recent travel history.

Presbyterian Hospital says it’s taking measures to keep its doctors, staff and patients safe, and state health officials say no other cases are suspected in Texas.

The hospital had announced a day earlier that the patient’s symptoms and recent travel indicated a case of Ebola, the virus that has killed more than 3,000 people across West Africa and infected a handful of Americans who have traveled to that region.

The CDC has said 12 other people in the U.S. have been tested for Ebola since July 27, but all of these tests came back negative.

Four American aid workers who have become infected while volunteering in West Africa have been treated in special isolation facilities in hospitals in Atlanta and Nebraska. Dr. Kent Bradley, the 33-year-old Christian doctor and missionary from Texas, was cured from Ebola after receiving an experimental serum that witnesses say had a dramatic and almost immediate impact on his grave condition. However, he only received the serum, which was limited on availability, after he first passed on the dose opting instead to give it to another.

Another U.S. doctor was exposed to the virus in Sierra Leone and is now under observation in a similar facility at the National Institutes of Health. The patient, who was not identified, arrived at NIH’s Clinical Center about 4 p.m., NIH said in a statement on its website.

Friedman said that options to administer an experimental serum are being discussed now with hospital officials.

The U.S. has only four isolation units of this kind, but the CDC is attempting to ensure media that any hospital can safely care for someone with Ebola.

Ebola symptoms can include fever, muscle pain, vomiting and bleeding, and according to the CDC can appear as long as 21 days after exposure to the virus.

Jason McDonald, spokesman for the CDC, said health officials use two primary guidelines when deciding whether to test a person for the virus.

“The first and foremost determinant is have they traveled to the region (of West Africa),” he said. “The second is whether there’s been proximity to family, friends or others who’ve been exposed.” he said.

Meanwhile, Director Friedman said the U.S. has the potential to stop the spread of the virus, because of two infrastructure-related factors.

“Those are strong health care infection control that can stop the spread of Ebola and strong public health care functions,” he added. “We are stopping this in its tracks.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe