"Fight Your Fight Yourself": Trump Scolds Biden After Supreme Court Colorado Ballot Ruling

 Update (1320ET): Former President Trump has responded to the Supreme Court's ruling keeping him on the ballot in Colorado (and therefore, everywhere else).

According to Trump, the decision was "very well crafted," and "will go a long way toward bringing our country together."

PART 1) BREAKING 🔥 Trump speaks from Mar-A-Lago about unity.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to reinstate Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot marks a pivotal moment in legal discourse over presidential powers and eligibility. pic.twitter.com/f2DGWRX6NE

— Joe Rambo (@BrainStorm_Joe) March 4, 2024

Trump also slammed Biden for 'weaponizing' prosecutors against him.

"President Biden... Fight your fight yourself. Don't use prosecutors and judges to go after your opponent... our country is much bigger than that," Trump said, speaking from Mar-a-Lago.

More:

*  *  *

The US Supreme Court has ruled in a unanimous decision that former President Donald Trump will be allowed to remain on primary and general ballots in the 2024 US election, after several states removed the former president under the 14th Amendment.

The decision comes after several states - kicked off by the Colorado Supreme Court - ruled that Trump was disqualified from appearing on ballots, citing an interpretation of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment provision which stipulates that candidates who engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States - which Trump has not been charged with or convicted of - should be prevented from holding office.

Maine’s Democratic secretary of state made a similar decision days later, and a judge in Illinois recently issued a similar ruling to prevent his appearance on ballots, according to the Epoch Times.

This is the first time in US history that the US Supreme Court has considered section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The decision comes after a Sunday announcement that the Court would come to a decision today.

And of course, the left is now trying to discredit the Supreme Court despite the fact that this was a unanimous decision.

CNN isn't taking it so well...

Nor is Colorado's Secretary of State...

As the Epoch Times notes further, Lawyers for the former president asked the nine justices to reverse the Colorado court decision because only Congress can make a determination as who can become president.

The Colorado court’s decision was “the first time in the history of the United States that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major-party presidential candidate,” his lawyers said, concluding that it “is not and cannot be correct.”

After the ruling, President Trump wrote on social media that he is “not an insurrectionist,” adding that President Joe Biden is one. He also noted that he told supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically” during a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, before protesters and rioters entered the U.S. Capitol during the certification of electoral votes for the 2020 election, which forms the basis of the “insurrection” accusations against him.

Justices for the Colorado Supreme Court had argued that they believed President Trump engaged in an insurrection because of his activity before and on Jan. 6, 2021, during the breach of the U.S. Capitol building. The former president, however, was never charged or convicted of insurrection. He was charged by a federal special counsel in connection with the 2020 election, but not for insurrection, rebellion, or related charges.

“President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the majority for the Colorado Supreme Court wrote in its 4–3 ruling.

“Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three.”

Oral Arguments

During oral arguments in front of the justices in early February, at least six of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, appeared to be at least skeptical of some of the claims made by the lawyer representing several Colorado voters who brought the lawsuit against the Republican front-runner.

“It’ll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election,” Chief Justice Roberts said, referring to the potential effect of the Colorado court’s ruling.

“That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”

Justice Clarence Thomas asked the lawyer, Jason Murray, why there weren’t many examples of individual states’ disqualifying candidates under the 14th Amendment after the Civil War.

“There were a plethora of confederates still around, there were any number of people who would continue to either run for state offices or national offices, so it would seem—that would suggest there would at least be a few examples of national candidates being disqualified,” Justice Thomas, a Bush appointee, said.

Justice Elena Kagan, considered a member of the court’s liberal wing, asked the attorney why one state would have power to determine which candidates should be on the ballot for a nationwide election.

“Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation?” she asked the attorney, adding the move would be “quite extraordinary.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-rules-trump-remain-presidential-ballots 

Time To Deep-Six Democrats' Brand Of Democracy

 by Albin Sadar via American Greatness,

The Democrats warn us almost daily that re-electing Donald Trump in 2024 will spell the end of democracy. But, technically, do we even live in a country whose constitution established us as a “democracy?”

When Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was greeted by a woman who asked him point-blank, “Well, doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” Mr. Franklin’s terse response: “A republic, madam—if you can keep it.”

It is significant that Mr. Franklin did not say that the form of government that the Founders created was a democracy. We are, in fact, as most of us know (or should certainly know), a constitutional republic.

We are not a country where 51% of citizens can outvote the other 49%, then tell them what they can and cannot do. We are a representative government with checks and balances built in as guaranteed safeguards against a majority of strong-willed individuals lording it over the meek, timid, and disadvantaged. Both majority and minority have a true say in how every citizen is governed.

The First Amendment guaranteeing free speech has always been key if we hope to “keep the republic.” Once that is co-opted—then controlled and censored—an unsuspecting public will be easily swayed into thinking in line with whatever insures that an elite few can gain and maintain power. Manipulating the masses is the goal.

Election season is always ripe for the misuse of our First Amendment. If the leftist elites who currently control the many facets of our culture—the press, academia, entertainment, business, and, yes, even many religious institutions—continue unabated, the noble idea and ideals upon which America was established will soon become a regrettable lost cause of the past.

Obviously, two powerful forces remain in the battle to control America through the presidency in this year’s election. On one side, the Democrats with their twisted definition of America as a democracy, aided by a Deep State, far-left, globalist, RINO, and woke contingency; on the other, all those pushing back, whether part of the America First and MAGA crowd or the myriad other freedom-loving citizens of all stripes awake to the evil that has accelerated over these past three years.

Since the 2020 presidential contest, which was declared by the powers that be to be “the most secure election in American history,” there is a majority of citizens who have serious doubts about the validity of the result. Another percentage naively believe that that sort of third-world, election-stealing shenanigans could never happen here. And yet another, smaller group knows for a fact that the election was not secure in the least because they themselves were flat out involved in rigging and stealing it. On November 3rd through 6th of 2020, a group of Democrat operatives blatantly and quite effectively ended the concept of free and fair elections, thus negating one of the keystones of self-rule by We the People.

Building upon that 2020 “win,” Democrats and their tyrannical gang have since targeted anyone who stands in the way of their fundamental transformation of this country, President Trump chief among their adversaries. As Trump so often reminds us, the left is not after him; they are after independent, free-thinking, non-compliant Americans. He’s just standing in their way.

And stand he has.

After everything the left has manufactured to take Trump out—every sort of imagined or concocted crime—Trump still stands. And, undeterred, he fights back. He refuses to simply fade away. Democrats and their machine on the left roll out their revenge and retribution daily on Trump because he had the audacity to run for president in the first place. Then to win. Then to win a second time.

From the primary trail over the past several months, Trump has also highlighted that, besides honest elections, another crucial facet necessary for a country to exist as a sovereign nation is a secure border. We can all clearly see what the Biden administration has allowed to transpire at the southern border. Millions of illegal aliens have simply strolled across our wide open borders and are now who-knows-where throughout our country. Does this indicate a government that is concerned about sovereignty or security in any way, shape, or form?

Other traits indicative of the Democrats’ brand of democracy include publicly labeling political adversaries as “domestic terrorists;” using excessive force and exaggerating charges when arresting dissenters; imprisoning protestors, such as those involved on January 6, without charges and due process; championing mob violence and looting from the progressive far left; and so many additional tactics that might more readily apply to fascism than democracy.

All these destructive features touted by the Biden administration help to reveal the democracy to which the Democrats refer. And we need to squelch it sooner rather than later.

November 5th would be just in the nick of time.

*  *  *

Albin Sadar is author of Obvious: Seeing the Evil That’s in Plain Sight and Doing Something About It, as well as the children’s book collection Hamster Holmes: Box of Mysteries. Albin was formerly the producer of “The Eric Metaxas Show.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/time-deep-six-democrats-brand-democracy

Eli Lilly And Company: HSBC raises the target price from USD 710 to USD 880.

 maintains its buy recommendation

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/ELI-LILLY-AND-COMPANY-13401/

Bayer pays $310m for Euro rights to ATTR therapy acoramidis

 Bayer has shored up its near-term pipeline by acquiring European rights to acoramidis from BridgeBio and Eidos Therapeutics, putting some big pharma muscle behind the therapy for transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR CM).

The deal includes upfront and near-term payments of $310 million for exclusive marketing rights to the drug, a small molecule oral transthyretin stabiliser that was filed for EU approval as a treatment for ATTR CM in January.

BridgeBio is also in line for additional undisclosed sales-related milestones and “tiered royalties beginning in the low-thirties percent,” according to Bayer.

A phase 3 readout last July showed that acoramidis outperformed placebo in the prevention of a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related hospitalisation, and change from baseline in the 6-minute walk test and a biomarker called NT-proBNP in ATTR CM.

ATTR is characterised by the formation of amyloid fibril deposits in tissues and organs – in the heart in the case of patients with cardiomyopathy – and, if approved, acoramidis will compete with Pfizer’s $3.3 billion-a-year blockbuster Vyndaqel/Vyndamax (tafamidis), which acts via a similar mechanism and has been approved to treat ATTR cardiomyopathy since 2019.

Acoramidis has also been filed in the US, where commercial rights are currently held by BridgeBio/Eidos, with a decision from the FDA due by 29th November. AstraZeneca has licensed the drug in the Japanese market.

The deal comes as Bayer is in the midst of a top-to-bottom restructuring of its business under new chief executive Bill Anderson, with layers of management stripped out and workforce reductions aimed at speeding up decision-making, boosting efficiency, and improving cash flow generation.

Bayer has also seen some hits to its pipeline of late, most notably the failure of a phase 3 trial of its oral Factor XIa inhibitor asundexian in patients with atrial fibrillation, and mixed data for the drug in ischaemic stroke.

Asundexian is viewed as a successor to the company’s Johnson & Johnson-partnered anticoagulant Factor Xa inhibitor Xarelto (rivaroxaban), its biggest-selling drug, which contributed €3.3 billion in sales in the first nine months of 2023, but is nearing the loss of patent protection. Bayer’s fourth-quarter results will be reported tomorrow.

“Bayer has a clear vision to transform cardiovascular care for patients and acoramidis complements our portfolio in specialty cardiology,” said Juergen Eckhardt, the German group’s head of business development, licensing, and open innovation.

“As a leading player in the field of cardiovascular diseases, we will work to make this new treatment available to patients as soon as possible, after a positive decision by the European authorities,” he added.

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/bayer-pays-310m-euro-rights-attr-therapy-acoramidis

Medicine Has Lost Its Way

 Medical practice has lost its way. Whether the impetus was external or internal, the practice of medicine no longer follows its true ethos. Medical practice must return to its roots, not for ideologic purity but for welfare of patients.

Healthcare (one word) is the system. Health care (two words) refers to a professional care giver’s personal service or work product. For clarity, the latter is medical care.

Proper, correct, ethical medical care is apolitical, non-ideological, and devoid of any value judgment other than the best course of treatment for the individual patient at hand. Care givers treat all who are ill, without regard to race, religion, place of birth, political affiliation, gender preference, or past activities: good doctors treat convicted felons, even terrorists.

Repairing social ills or injustices, past or present, has no place in proper medical practice. Courses in social justice have no place in medical schools. Clinical physicians do not resolve social injustices, practice population medicine, or solve public health concerns. They care for patients retail, one at a time, providing best care for the specific patient at hand.

Proper medical care involves a legally protected fiduciary service contract between patient and provider. Patients have medical autonomy, i.e., sole decision-making authority, and physicians have authority commensurate with their responsibility.

That medical ethos no longer applies to those who practice medicine in the U.S.

The healthcare market has become a federal monopoly: one seller, Washington dictates payments, i.e., supply; as well as a federal monopsony: one buyer, Washington dictates benefits, i.e., demand. Washington is the direct third-party decision-maker for 194 million Americans covered by Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare and EMTALA (Emergency Medical Transport and Labor Act of 1986). Through its insurance regulations, Washington is indirect third-party decision-maker for 139 million privately insured Americans.

Thus, federal government has taken away decision-making capability from both patients and providers. By denying patients’ medical autonomy and taking over physicians’ medical authority, Washington has severed the patient-doctor fiduciary connection – the bedrock of medical ethos.

By custom and law, patients are free to make medical decisions that affect them. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees their right to choose, free from government control. By custom and law, only physicians are allowed to practice medicine, without outside, viz., government, intervention in their decision-making.

Medical ethos is based on a patient-doctor fiduciary relationship. The patient alone has the authority and responsibility to make personal medical choices. The patient temporarily cedes that authority, that agency, to the physician who uses that power exclusively for the benefit of that patient.  Without this fiduciary relationship, surgery–using a sharp knife to cut open a person–would be attempted homicide.

Washington’s actions during the great CoViD scam is the best proof available for how the federal government has destroyed medical ethos. Using a man-made virus as a pretext for existential threat, Washington effectively imposed martial law, suspending the Bill of Rights. By requiring all Americans to accept injections of incompletely tested experimental (never used before) gene therapy–mRNA injections masquerading as a vaccine–Washington took away medical autonomy. Half of medical ethos – gone.

Using greatly exaggerated CoViD danger as justification, federal bureaucrats (many with M.D. after their names) took the practice of medicine away from clinical physicians: the other half of medical ethos. Washington told doctors what they could and could not do for their patients; what drugs, like Ivermectin, were prohibited; and even how to triage critically ill patients. “Crisis standards of care” ordered doctors to care for the underserved in preference to the sickest.

Washington’s censorship during CoViD put another nail in the coffin of medical ethos by preventing the free exchange of information. Reports or recommendations like the Great Barrington Declaration not consistent with the federal narrative were labelled misinformation and suppressed. Doctors cannot practice good medicine without having all the information and all the tools available, not merely what Washington thinks they should have.

The primary reason for widespread dissatisfaction among care providers and the resulting shortage is suppression of medical ethos. Care givers expect three forms of payment for their highly valued services: dollars, respect, and psychic reward. They get none.

By low-balling “allowable reimbursement schedules” (list of payments), Medicaid tells providers their services aren’t highly valued. It is no surprise that nationally, a third of doctors won’t accept these patients for care. In Texas, more than half of all physicians refuse new Medicaid patients.

Today’s physicians would agree with Rodney Dangerfield: “can’t get no respect.” The massive array of regulations that constrain medical practice shows the federal government doesn’t trust doctors’ judgment. In fact, Washington feels it necessary to protect patients from the doctors!

Taking away medical authority denies care providers their psychic reward, what gets a trauma surgeon out of bed at three o’clock in the morning or the nurse caring for a highly contagious patient.

Being blamed for health outcome inequities is another nail in the medical ethos coffin. These differentials in health status are overwhelmingly due to socioeconomic factors such as poverty, unhealthy diet, crowded sometimes unsanitary living conditions, and poor education, not because of purported systemic racism among healthcare workers.

There is no medical ethos without medical autonomy, without physicians’ authority and absent the fiduciary connection.

Medical ethos can be restored. In fact, it is quite straightforward. Return decision-making authority where it belongs and thus allow restoration of fiduciary relationship.

Eliminate third-party decision-making authority by repealing the rules and regulations that restrict patients’ freedom to make medical decisions and to spend their own money.

Return medical authority to clinical doctors. Bureaucrats, whether government or insurance, should never tell physicians what they can and cannot do for their patients. In medicine, one-size-fits-all produces bad outcomes. In particular, the FDA, CDC, and NIH should never limit doctors’ options. Most assuredly, Washington must never coerce media into restricting what data the public can see. Censorship in the name of preventing dissemination of so-called misinformation is the death knell of good medical science and will offer harm rather than good health to patients.

Deane Waldman, M.D., MBA is Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Pathology, and Decision Science; former Director of the Center for Healthcare Policy at Texas Public Policy Foundation; former director, New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange; and author of 12 books including the multi-award winning Curing the Cancer in U.S. Healthcare: StatesCare and Market-Based Medicine. 

https://www.realclearhealth.com/blog/2024/03/04/medicine_has_lost_its_way_1015762.html

EPA Has Miscalculated a Major Water Pollution Problem

 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is racing to place new limits on certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in water systems. However, in their unwavering haste, they ignore the science, the available data, and the Americans in our communities who will shoulder the massive costs. The EPA must hit the brakes on these regulations and fast.

PFAS are a vast group of man-made chemicals that break down exceptionally slowly because they are resistant to heat, water, and oil. PFAS chemicals have been used for decades for various industrial and consumer products, including upholstery, electronics, metal plating, etc. The two chemicals the EPA is preparing to regulate are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and they are no longer produced in the United States. However, they have recently been a topic of public concern, especially in regards to drinking water contamination. The historic widespread use of PFOA and PFOS, combined with their incredibly resilient structure, has caused them to linger at low levels in the environment and in the American population’s blood system.

The EPA estimates that drinking water may only account for 20 percent of the PFOA/PFOS exposure. While some studies suggest PFAS chemicals are everywhere and that some can lead to increased health risks, many scientists claim the science is uncertain. However, the EPA proposes a new maximum contaminant level (MCL) for these PFAS compounds to be four parts per trillion, the lowest level of reliable detection. For reference, with that limit, an individual would have to drink 2.5 liters of water daily for seventy years with PFAS chemicals found at that MCL level to experience possible detrimental effects due to long-term exposure.

These are historically low levels of detection. Plus, the health benefits of limiting PFOA/PFOS to these levels are still being studied and are widely considered uncertain. However, the costs of implementing new levels of PFAS removal are better known. The EPA’s estimated annual price tag to meet the new MCLs for PFAS chemicals is a costly $772 million to $1.2 billion, but the American Water Works Association conducted a study with Black and Veatch, and their findings estimated the cost to be over $3.8 billion annually. Small water systems and disadvantaged communities will pay the highest price for these regulations.

For the City of Columbia, South Carolina, implementing this new MCL limit would require adding new treatment capabilities estimated to cost the municipality $150 million. On top of that, the additional operation and maintenance costs would be $20 million annually, increasing annual treatment costs from $17 million to $37 million. Columbia’s water system is expansive, but the system’s revenue will not be able to cover these extreme upgrades to be in compliance. Therefore, ratepayers – the citizens of Columbia – will have to help foot this hefty bill.

Per the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA must follow the science and analyze the costs and benefits when implementing new regulations. The gravity of the impact of PFOA/PFOS chemicals at the observed low levels is still unknown, so the EPA’s new hazard index lacks basis and relies on inconsistent data. It is also proven that PFAS levels in Americans have been dropping dramatically for the past two decades and are expected to decline even further without any EPA limits. The EPA must learn more from continued monitoring to base its regulations on science.

If the EPA continues to ignore the science, they must look more closely at the cost-benefit analysis. Even with the record $50 billion federal investment in drinking water provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, drinking water systems will struggle to finance and implement this rule – especially systems serving small, rural and disadvantaged communities. This federal investment only covers $9 billion of PFAS associated costs. The remaining funds are intended to help municipalities struggling to comply with other unfunded mandates like the recent Revised Lead and Copper Rule, which is estimated to cost more than $90 billion nationally.

We must prioritize public health and balance the real costs associated with these regulations. Our water systems are working hard daily to protect the public. And with our citizens coming out of a pandemic and experiencing a fragile economy, meeting these new standards will cost an arm and a leg and deprive our water systems of resources that could be used for additional maintenance and improvements.

We are Mayors, not environmental experts. However, it seems clear that the science is not there, the benefits do not outweigh the costs, and most importantly, the EPA is forcing local communities to carry the burden.

We have shared the impact these limits will have on our communities. Together, we ask the EPA to slow down and not place maximum contamination levels on PFAS chemicals that will cost our citizens billions.

Daniel Rickenmann is mayor of Columbia, SC, Deborah Robertson is mayor of Rialto, CA, Christina Muryn is mayor of Findlay, OH and Steve Williams is mayor of Huntington, WV.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/03/04/epa_has_miscalculated_a_major_water_pollution_problem_1015770.html

Independent Work Offers Hope for Financial Security for Women 50+

 New polling from Independent Women’s Voice finds that 89% of women want policymakers to find financial solutions for people who can’t find new work but can’t afford to retire. One way to help these forgotten women with real financial fears is to clear bureaucratic hurdles that restrict flexible work and entrepreneurship.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration is about to make these fears worse and even more justified through onerous regulations on small business owners and increased restrictions or outright bans on independent contracting, to name a few.

Self-employed individuals in California who’ve lost their livelihoods due to AB5 (Assembly Bill 5) know all too well how anti-independent contractor policies disproportionately harm Americans closer to retirement age. On March 11, 2024, California’s cautionary tale will spread to all 50 states when new draconian, anti-choice regulations from the Department of Labor (DOL) restrict independent contracting nationwide.

Mirroring AB5’s strict “ABC” worker classification test, the new DOL rule, which imposes a six-factor worker classification test under the Fair Labor Standards Act, could impact more than 64 million Americans who choose self-employment as a career or a side gig.

Just as with AB5, older professionals will find themselves directly in the crosshairs of the DOL rule, given they are more reliant than ever on self-employment to address workforce challenges such as ageism.

A licensed pharmacist with a doctorate, Nancy Hall enjoyed a thriving, decades-long independent career inspecting pharmacies across California. Hall, in her sixties, lost her career overnight after AB5 was implemented in January 2020.

“I was gainfully supporting myself pre-Social Security,” said Hall, “and then AB5 struck and forced me to start taking withdrawals out of my IRA and take my Social Security retirement benefits four years early. This cost me compound interest and big reductions in Social Security. More importantly, it took away my ability to work flexibly part-time. I tried to get other jobs but I struggled to get hired because of my age.”

Although age discrimination in the workplace should be unlawful, many older workers say they’ve experienced it, according to a 2023 AARP survey.

Freelance writer JoBeth McDaniel recalls being told by a university administrator a few years ago that he would not hire anyone older than 34.

“He was in his 50s and he claimed anyone that age would be inept at new technology, except for him, of course,” said McDaniel. “I have friends who are struggling in retirement because they lost good jobs at age 50 and could never find another career position despite years of job searching.”

A 2017 field study bears this out. Conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the study revealed a 47% lower callback rate for older female applicants than young female applicants aged 29 to 31 years. For sales jobs, the callback rate was 36% lower for older female applicants.

Because independent contracting is vital to keeping pre-retirement women attached to the workforce, it defies logic that legislators insist on stifling the very independent career opportunities that help these women supplement their income, stay active, and maintain a sense of purpose.

Instead, lawmakers should protect worker freedom and flexibility for all independent professionals. This means eschewing the approach of AB5 and the forthcoming DOL rule. And it also means making it easier for Americans to start and run their own small businesses by decreasing barriers to entrepreneurship and work.

As Patrice Onwuka, director of the Center for Economic Opportunity at Independent Women’s Forum, testified before a Congressional committee, many of these barriers are government-imposed:

“Too many Americans face obstacles to building capital associated with high startup costs to launch a business,” she said, “not to mention credentialing challenges including occupational licensing and the unique challenges military spouses face in meeting each state’s requirements for a given occupation. All this unnecessary red tape can make business ownership a challenge for Americans of both sexes and any age. Restricting the use of independent contractors will only make it harder for women to start and run businesses and support themselves and others.”

If policymakers want to get serious about offering hope to the 89% of women who want pathways to greater financial security, they should focus on making it easier, not harder, to work independently. This holds particular benefit for many women who are approaching retirement age, who may find it hard to find or keep a traditional 9-to-5 job. The Biden administration shouldn’t forget women in this predicament, but instead, offer them real solutions. 

Karen Anderson is a visiting fellow at Independent Women’s Voice (iwv.org) and the founder of Freelancers Against AB5.

https://www.realclearhealth.com/blog/2024/03/04/independent_work_offers_hope_for_financial_security_for_women_50_1015754.html