Arizona’s Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, was honored for her decades of work to raise funding and awareness about Alzheimer’s at the 11th annual Great Ladies Symposium, hosted by the . The organization has helped raise more than $2.5 billion for public and private research efforts. 

O’Connor, an ADDF honorary board chair, and her family were recognized along with other “extraordinary Alzheimer’s advocates” at the event. More than 200 supporters tuned in to learn about the latest developments in Alzheimer’s drug discovery and celebrate the honorees, who raised more than $460,000 this year. 

Now, suffering from the disease herself, O’Connor, 91, was unable to attend the virtual event. Family, friends and colleagues accepted the award for her and talked about her legacy, including as caregiver to her husband.

O’Connor’s late husband, John, also had Alzheimer’s. O’Connor, who was appointed to the high court in 1981, stepped down from the bench in 2006 to care for him. In 2018, she announced she was in the early stages of the brain disorder. 

Sons talk of struggle with both parents afflicted

Two of her three sons, Jay and Scott, accepted the Great Ladies Award on O’Connor’s behalf. They spoke about how torn she felt upon leaving the bench, and the toll of being a caretaker to a loved one who has the disease.   

“When she rose to the court, she felt she owed it to the country to do the best as the first woman on the court. She’d had a tremendous sense of obligation and guilt to take care of dad. But she couldn’t do both and it was crushing her,” Scott said. 

A family intervention then occurred, he said. Family members continued to carry on her efforts to advance research. 

“We need to find a treatment or cure, and ADDF is playing an invaluable role in finding the most promising avenues for research,” Jay said. 

Arizona-raised with a pioneering spirit

O’Connor’s accomplishments during her lifetime were also highlighted at the event. Her official biographer, Evan Thomas, talked about her life and her pioneering spirit. 

“It’s commonplace now to have women in government, but in 1981 when she came on court, she was still unusual. This was before Sally Ride was an astronaut or Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State,” Thomas said. “She wasn’t chief justice, but she was the center of that court. It was often called the O’Connor court because of her personal power and her ability to compromise and get along with sometimes difficult people. 

“She could be tough. All through her life, she was challenged because she was a woman in a man’s world as she was growing up. But she could also be warm.” 

Also honored was a leading Alzheimer’s advocate and international interior designer Thomas Pheasant who received the second annual Estelle Gelman Award at the event. 

Past recipients of the awards include former First Lady Nancy Reagan, basketball coach Pat Summitt, and Washington Capitals team member and Stanley Cup winner T.J. Oshie, who’s father died of Alzheimer’s last month. 

Current research and treatments 

At the annual symposium, experts detailed research and promising treatments. ADDF is helping fund 20 percent of all treatments for Alzheimer’s currently in clinical trials.

The foundation also seed-funded research for the first diagnostic test for Alzheimer’s. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the test, called Amyvid, in 2012. Amyvid is the first project the organization funded to receive FDA approval but many more are now in or advancing toward human clinical trials, organization officials said. 

To view the event in its entirety, visit:

About the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation

Founded in 1998 by Leonard and Ronald Lauder, the foundation’s mission is to rapidly accelerate the discovery of drugs to prevent, treat and cure Alzheimer’s disease. Through the generosity of its donors, the ADDF has awarded more than $168 million to fund over 650 Alzheimer’s drug discovery and biomarker programs and clinical trials in 19 countries. To learn more, please visit: 

The post Sandra Day O’Connor honored for raising funding, awareness for Alzheimer’s research appeared first on �鶹��ýӳ��.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule any day on the status of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), an Obama-era policy that  shields from deportation millions of those whose parents brought them to the United States at a young age. President Trump’s Administration the program early in his term, arguing that such sweeping immigration policy should be the domain of Congress, not solely the Executive Branch.

In 2017, when the administration announced its intention to terminate DACA, President Trump issued a regarding his decision: “I do not favor punishing children, most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents. But we must also recognize that we are a nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws.”

Details of the case

The case before the court is Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, and justices will determine if the administration followed correct protocol and procedure in terminating the program. This includes proper justification for the decision and adequate adherence to the processes in place.

, a DACA recipient and the founder and CEO of Aliento AZ, a DACA advocacy group and , there are “three to four likely scenarios.”

The “worst case-scenario for DACA recipients” is that the Supreme Court not only rules that the president followed proper procedure, but that the program itself was unconstitutional. This means that “it can set a precedent for other programs in the future,” says Montoya.

A more likely equally distressing outcome for DACA recipients is that the president’s termination of the program was justified and that the court will allow a “phase-out” of the program.

Another possibility is that the Supreme Court sends the case back down to lower courts. While not ideal for proponents of the program, it does mean that it would continue to be litigated and thus avoid an immediate termination.

“One of the deepest fears” among “DACA-mented” individuals is that the program could be terminated “on-the spot.” However unlikely, it is still within the realm of possibility.

Whatever the outcome, it is sure to be one of great importance.

Luis Acosta’s story

Luis Acosta, a public affairs professional, had the opportunity to share his story as an immigrant and DACA-recipient.

“My family came to the United States when I was two-years old,” says Acosta, “Growing up during S.B. 1070 and the Sheriff [Joe] Arpaio raids, you learn to hide.” 

Acosta was able to go public about his DACA status when he served as Arizona’s director for the Mike Bloomberg for President campaign earlier this year and was, featured in a campaign video on immigration policy.

The focus of his career has been working internally within organizations “to help them draft and create pragmatic policy that’s really going to push everybody forward in a positive direction.”

For him, this moment is a crossroads. A program “that has given so many opportunities just in the state of Arizona” is now at risk of termination. There are “roughly 30,000” DACA-mented people in the state. Each and everyone of them is worried that once again they will have to go into hiding.

There are “countless people in Arizona who have been nothing but stand-up citizens, and now their lives are being left in limbo,” Acosta says.

Economic impact

Glenn Hamer, president and CEO of the Arizona �鶹��ýӳ�� of Commerce and Industry, believes that keeping the DACA program in place is “the right thing to do morally. You start there.” But, he says, you cannot neglect the enormous positive economic impact immigrants—particularly DACA recipients—have in Arizona.

“These are people who are going to university. They’re working. They’ve been in the military,” Hamer said. “They’re all contributing to a better Arizona and to a better America.”

The U.S. �鶹��ýӳ�� of Commerce has also made clear: “Ending DACA would be a nightmare for Dreamers. A nightmare for businesses. A nightmare for America’s economy.”

According to a compiled by the U.S. House Committee on Small Business, “DACA enrolled and eligible immigrants contribute roughly $2 billion each year in state and local taxes.” Deporting DACA recipients could “cost $60 billion and reduce economic growth by $280 billion.” This means that it could cost the United States “over $460 billion in economic output over a decade.”

What’s next?

There is one sure path to comprehensive immigration reform that all sides seem to agree on: bipartisan cooperation in Congress. Despite the hyper-polarization of the current world, polls show a glimmer of hope for proponents.

According to a by Gallup, an all-time high of 55% of Americans believe that immigrants “mostly help” the economy. Furthermore, over 80% of Americans favor a path to citizenship for undocumented people currently living within the United States. Better yet for DACA proponents, a revealed that 83% of Americans favor the DACA program specifically.When President Trump approved the winding down of the program in 2017, he also made clear that he would favor congressional action to renew the program. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, then-White House press secretary, that the president wanted “DACA made permanent as part of ‘comprehensive’ immigration legislation.”

The post Supreme Court set to rule on DACA fate appeared first on �鶹��ýӳ��.