Houston Community College workers hope to make about 30,000 face shield a day with industrial 3-D printers and laser cutters.
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo on Thursday signed a waiver to allow HCC to manufacture the shields, designating the work as “essential critical infrastructure.”

“This is a huge deal,” Hidalgo said. “They are working on a prototype right now. But that’s the kind of thing we’re granting a waiver. So, I’m very proud to have granted them the essential critical infrastructure status for them to be able to work toward producing those shields.”

State leaders this week urged schools and colleges to donate or manufacture whatever they could to help healthcare professionals in their fight to treat patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Officials in Harris and Chambers counties have raised alarms that their stocks of personal protective equipment for doctors and first responders are in short supply.

First, let’s note that this increase in Trump’s approval is relatively small, given that we’re in the midst of one of the most monumental crises in American history.

In such extraordinary circumstances, the president’s approval would normally be shooting up. At times like these, Americans are looking for comfort. They want to believe that the president and the government are in control.

When Lyndon B. Johnson took over after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, his approval rating was 78 percent, even though he hadn’t done anything yet. Likewise, Gerald Ford had a 71 percent approval upon taking office during Watergate; it didn’t fall until he pardoned Richard M. Nixon. (We’re using Gallup’s historical data.)….

And after 9/11, George W. Bush’s approval soared to 90 percent. This is the historical pattern: In times of crisis, the president’s approval will go up almost regardless of whether he’s doing a good job or not.

So if in the midst of a public health nightmare and a horrific looming recession, Trump’s approval goes up by a few points, it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of his presidency.

Improvements in Trump’s approval will likely remain relatively constrained compared to those historical standards, because as everyone knows, we’re in a period of intense polarization. There are fewer so-called “real” independents (who don’t actually lean to one party), and nearly all those who do associate with a party will never give thumbs up to a presidential candidate from the other party.....

What’s more, built-in perceptions of Trump will remain. As Aaron Blake notes, the new Post/ABC poll showing Trump’s approval rising also finds a large majority — 58 percent — think Trump reacted too slowly to the crisis. If things go seriously south, then that built-in sense that Trump botched the early response could compound public blame going forward, particularly since he’ll likely keep up with the depraved public spectacles.

Last week saw the largest single-week jump in new unemployment claims in American history — 3.3 million people filed for unemployment, and likely many more than that are now out of work as people are staying home to slow the spread of COVID-19. These numbers reflect overwhelming job losses in service industries like accommodation and food service, which means lower-income workers are already feeling the impact of this crisis in a major way. Secretary Mnuchin may think these numbers “are not relevant,” but for those who were already struggling to make ends meet, this is a very real crisis.

That’s why we have to do whatever is necessary to get the relief the Senate just approved to these families fast — and to keep as many Americans on the payroll as possible.

The President is not responsible for the coronavirus, but he bears full responsibility for the slow and uncoordinated response that has exacerbated both the public health and economic impact on our country. The harsh reality is that at least 3 million people now don’t have jobs because our president didn’t do his job when it mattered.

Nearly every country is facing this pandemic — but not every country has responded the same way. South Korea, among other steps, deployed intensive testing and contact-tracing measures to slow and control the spread of the virus. Donald Trump didn’t do that. He didn’t get ahead of it when he had the chance. And in the absence of an early, aggressive response to flatten the curve, cities and states have been left with no option other than extreme social distancing measures, causing businesses to close and lay off workers. Now we are facing the economic fallout as well as a worsening public health crisis.

The White House’s mindset needs to shift. Effective planning, implementation, and execution are required to address this public health and economic crisis. The Congress is stepping up and doing its job by providing generous and timely unemployment insurance. But once the relief bill is signed into law, Trump will still have to do the hard work to execute it effectively: getting the funds out the door to make those who were laid off financially whole and the small business loans distributed to keep as many people on payroll as possible.

But none of that will ultimately matter if we can’t defeat the coronavirus. We won’t be able to revive the economy and get people back to work without a public health action plan that saves lives and halts the virus as quickly as possible.

A group of Texas abortion providers and abortion rights advocates are suing state officials after Texas opted to include abortions among nonessential surgical procedures that must be deferred or canceled to focus on the coronavirus pandemic.

On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton confirmed that "any type of abortion that is not medically necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother" was included in Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's order that health care providers "postpone all surgeries and procedures that are not immediately medically necessary" to preserve a patient's life or condition.

Paxton noted that violating the order, which lasts until April 21, could result in fines of up to $1,000 or 180 days imprisonment.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday against Abbott, Paxton and other state officials by local providers, as well as Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights, the groups called on a federal judge to block the restriction on abortion. They argued that it "violates Plaintiffs' patients' fundamental constitutional right to decide whether to have an abortion prior to viability."

"The Texas Attorney General's enforcement threats are a blatant effort to exploit a public health crisis to advance an extreme, anti-abortion agenda, without any benefit to the state in terms of preventing or resolving shortages of (personal protective equipment) or hospital capacity," they wrote. "As a result of these threats, this week Plaintiffs have already been forced to turn away patients in need of time-sensitive care."

A group of Texas abortion providers and abortion rights advocates are suing state officials after Texas opted to include abortions among nonessential surgical procedures that must be deferred or canceled to focus on the coronavirus pandemic.

On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton confirmed that "any type of abortion that is not medically necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother" was included in Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's order that health care providers "postpone all surgeries and procedures that are not immediately medically necessary" to preserve a patient's life or condition.

Paxton noted that violating the order, which lasts until April 21, could result in fines of up to $1,000 or 180 days imprisonment.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday against Abbott, Paxton and other state officials by local providers, as well as Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights, the groups called on a federal judge to block the restriction on abortion. They argued that it "violates Plaintiffs' patients' fundamental constitutional right to decide whether to have an abortion prior to viability."

"The Texas Attorney General's enforcement threats are a blatant effort to exploit a public health crisis to advance an extreme, anti-abortion agenda, without any benefit to the state in terms of preventing or resolving shortages of (personal protective equipment) or hospital capacity," they wrote. "As a result of these threats, this week Plaintiffs have already been forced to turn away patients in need of time-sensitive care."