RUTHFULLY YOURS

Federal officials are predicting doom because a Pennsylvania woman became infected with a germ that can’t be stopped by most antibiotics. “The medicine cabinet is empty for some patients,” warned Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Thomas Frieden last week.

You’d think the CDC was finally ready to get serious about drug-resistant infections. Think again. The CDC watched “superbugs” spread across the nation, and dawdled. Centers for Denial and Confusion is more like it.

The Pennsylvania woman’s infection is resistant to a last-resort antibiotic called colistin. This is the first case, as far as we know, of an infection resistant to colistin in the U.S. , but thousands of patients die every year from infections resistant to more commonly used antibiotics.

As antibiotics lose their punch, medical care becomes riskier, especially in hospitals. Patients who need chemotherapy or surgery rely on antibiotics. Without them, even a routine procedure – bypass surgery, or C-section – could turn deadly.

The medical community has struggled with drug-resistance for half a century. There’s no avoiding it. Bacteria naturally evolve to resist weapons we use to fight them.

CRE – carbapenem-resistant infections – have plagued New York-area hospitals for fifteen years. CRE bloodstream infections have a 50% death rate. In 2011, a New York patient transferred to the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., carried the germ with her, starting an outbreak that killed several patients, including a 16-year-old boy. Yet the CDC waited until 2013 to sound the alarm about this “nightmare bacteria.” And has done little since.

Three aggressive steps are needed to protect patients, but the CDC has gotten serious about only one: curbing over-use of antibiotics. The agency is MIA on the need for rigorous cleaning and screening incoming patients for superbugs.

In remarks aimed at Donald Trump, Secretary of State John Kerry said “seeking to rattle people is not objective, number one, most of the time” in foreign policy.

Last week, President Obama said fellow world leaders are “rattled by [Trump] — and for good reason — because a lot of the proposals that he’s made display either ignorance of world affairs, or a cavalier attitude, or an interest in getting tweets and headlines instead of actually thinking through what it is that is required to keep America safe and secure and prosperous, and what’s required to keep the world on an even keel.”

Trump responded at a press conference in North Dakota: “When you rattle someone, that’s good. If they’re rattled in a friendly way, that’s a good thing … not a bad thing.”

On MSNBC Wednesday night, Kerry stressed that he’s “not permitted to get in the middle of the election and I don’t want to.”

“But I can’t help but say that as I meet with my counterparts all around the world and as I engage with other countries, they are very concerned about the quality of what’s happened to America, and it’s a clarity of leadership, if you will,” Kerry said. “And I think the bombast and the dividing language is very hard for some people to digest even as we are working to undo sectarian divisions and old religious overtones to different conflicts. We need our voice to be above reproach and I think, right now, people are really wondering about where we’re heading.”

On Trump saying that rattling other countries is a good thing, Kerry replied that “we’re not doing a Trump hotel business deal.”

“These are dealings between nations based on precedent, based on understandings, based on the trust from one administration to another. This is an ongoing relationship. And when you’re dealing with nuclear weapons and you’re dealing with war and you’re dealing with the life and death choices that the president of the United States have to make everyday, seeking to rattle people is not objective, number one, most of the time,” he said.

Kerry stressed that any president who would rip up the Paris climate accord “would be reckless, counter productive, self-destructive.”

Virginia’s Gov. Terry McAuliffe recently signed an executive order restoring, with the stroke of a pen, the right to vote for all 206,000 Virginia felons who have completed their terms of incarceration and supervised probation. This includes more than 40,000 felons convicted of violent crimes. The order also restores the rights to serve on a jury and to seek and hold public office, and it makes each of them eligible to ask a court to restore their right to own and carry firearms.

The sweeping order has no precedent in Virginia history, and last week Virginia’s Republican House Speaker William J. Howell and Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. and four other state voters filed a challenge to its constitutionality. Their petition asks the Virginia Supreme Court to invalidate the governor’s order before votes are cast in November, lest the validity of the general election be cast into doubt. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the state’s high court issued an order on June 1 calling a special session of the court to hear argument in the case on July 19.

The executive order defies the text of the Virginia Constitution. Article II flatly prohibits all felons from voting, but it grants the governor a narrow power to restore voting rights to deserving felons on an individual, case-by-case basis. Nothing in the constitution gives the governor power to restore political rights en masse to virtually all felons, no matter how heinous or numerous their crimes.

Gov. McAuliffe, a Democrat, has acknowledged that for 240 years none of the state’s 71 other governors exercised wholesale clemency power. In 2010 another Democratic governor, Tim Kaine, expressly declined to issue a blanket restoration order like Gov. McAuliffe’s, concluding that such an order would “rewrite” the law rather than follow it. Three years later, a bipartisan committee convened and headed by Virginia’s then-attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, advised Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell that a blanket order restoring voting rights would be unconstitutional.