ReportWire

Tag: health and medical

  • First US senator to give birth in office offers heartfelt Mother’s Day message: ‘You’re what keeps this country strong’ | CNN Politics

    First US senator to give birth in office offers heartfelt Mother’s Day message: ‘You’re what keeps this country strong’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the first sitting US senator to give birth while in office, offered a heartfelt Mother’s Day message on Sunday, celebrating moms nationwide for “growing the next generation for our nation.”

    “Hang in there, sister. We’re in this together, and nobody has perfect work-life balance, everybody struggles, and so do the best that you can,” the Democrat told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

    “You’re what keeps this country strong.”

    Duckworth and her husband, Bryan Bowlsbey, are the parents of two daughters, Abigail and Maile. Abigail was born while Duckworth was serving in the US House as a Chicago-area congresswoman.

    In 2018, after giving birth to Maile, Duckworth became the first US senator to cast a vote on the floor with her newborn by her side.

    Her vote came just one day after the Senate changed long-standing rules to allow newborns on the chamber floor during votes. The rule change, voted through by unanimous consent, was done to accommodate senators with newborn babies and lets them bring children under 1 year old onto the Senate floor and breastfeed them during votes.

    “It feels great,” Duckworth told reporters at the time. “It is about time, huh?”

    The Illinois Democrat on Sunday spoke about Democratic efforts to pass legislation to address rising child care costs.

    “Families spend as much as a quarter to half of their income on child care, and there’s no way for working families to survive under those burdens,” Duckworth said.

    “We keep trying,” she added when asked by Bash about finding bipartisan solutions.

    Duckworth is a retired Army lieutenant colonel who was a helicopter pilot during the Iraq War. She was the first female double amputee from the war after suffering severe combat wounds when her Black Hawk helicopter was shot down.

    Duckworth served in the Obama administration as an assistant secretary of Veterans Affairs. She was first elected to the US House in 2012 and the Senate four years later.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former first lady Rosalynn Carter has dementia, Carter Center says | CNN Politics

    Former first lady Rosalynn Carter has dementia, Carter Center says | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Rosalynn Carter, the former first lady of the United States and wife of former President Jimmy Carter, has dementia, the Carter Center announced on Tuesday.

    “The Carter family is sharing that former First Lady Rosalynn Carter has dementia. She continues to live happily at home with her husband, enjoying spring in Plains and visits with loved ones,” the center announced. Additional details about Carter, 95, were not immediately provided and the Center said it did not expect to comment further.

    The Center said that, in sharing news of Carter’s diagnosis, it helped to “increase important conversations at kitchen tables and in doctor’s offices around the country.” As first lady, Carter made mental health advocacy her platform and formed a presidential commission on the matter during her time in the White House, a legacy that continues today.

    President Carter, 98, began home hospice care in February after a series of short hospital stays.

    The Bidens have “stayed in touch” with the former president’s team to “ensure that their family knows that they are certainly in the president and first lady’s thoughts,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at a Tuesday press briefing.

    At an event in Norcross, Georgia, last week honoring the former president, President Carter’s former UN ambassador, Andrew Young, described the former president to WSB-TV as being in good spirits during a visit with him last month.

    “They’re coming to the end,” the Carters’ grandson, Jason Carter, said at the event. “He’s going to be 99 in October, but right now, it’s sort of the perfect way for them to spend these last days together at home in Plains. They’re together, and they’ve been together for 70-plus years.”

    Rosalynn Carter traveled across the country and the world as first lady in support of breaking mental health stigmas.

    “Since 1971, Rosalynn had been a champion of mental health issues, and her leadership in this cause continues even now,” President Carter wrote in “White House Diary,” an annotated account of his time in the White House published in 2010.

    Carter continued, “She mounted a worldwide crusade to reduce the stigma associated with mental illness and helped persuade the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control to include mental health on their agendas.”

    Dementia is a broad term for an impaired ability to remember, think and make decisions, according to the CDC. People with dementia may have trouble with memory, attention, communication, judgment and problem-solving, and visual perception beyond typical age-related vision changes.

    Dementia is not a normal part of aging, according to the National Institute on Aging, but about one-third of all people age 85 and older may have some form of dementia.

    This story has been updated with additional background information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • These 5 states will be the first to kick residents off Medicaid starting in April | CNN Politics

    These 5 states will be the first to kick residents off Medicaid starting in April | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Millions of Americans are at risk of losing their Medicaid coverage in coming months, but residents in Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, New Hampshire and South Dakota will be the first to bear the brunt of the terminations.

    States have been barred by Congress from winnowing their Medicaid rolls since the Covid-19 pandemic began. That prohibition ends on Saturday, and some states are moving much more swiftly than others to kick off those deemed ineligible for the public health insurance program for low-income Americans.

    That worries advocates, who say speed will result in eligible residents being incorrectly terminated. Also, it could hamper shifting those who no longer qualify to other types of coverage.

    “This is the fable of the tortoise and the hare,” said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families. “Taking time is absolutely going to result in a better outcome for eligible children and families to remain covered. So speed is a big concern.”

    The five states will start cutting off coverage in April, followed by 14 more states in May and 20 additional states plus the District of Columbia in June. All states must complete their redeterminations over the next 14 months.

    Around 15 million people could be dropped from Medicaid, according to various estimates, though several million folks could find coverage elsewhere. Others may still be eligible but could be terminated for procedural reasons, such as not completing renewal forms. Those at risk include at least 6.7 million children, according to a Georgetown analysis.

    Medicaid enrollment has ballooned since March 2020, when lawmakers passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which prevented states from involuntarily removing anyone from coverage. In exchange, Congress boosted states’ federal Medicaid match rates by 6.2 percentage points.

    The provision was initially tied to the national public health emergency, but lawmakers changed that as part of the federal spending bill that passed in December. In addition to being able to start conducting terminations in April, states will receive an enhanced federal match through the rest of this year, though it will phase down over time.

    More than 92 million Americans were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program in December, up 31% since February 2020, according to the most recent data available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

    Reviewing the eligibility of all those enrollees will be a monumental task for state Medicaid agencies, many of which are also contending with slim staffing. To gear up, they are hiring new employees, temporary workers or contractors or bringing back retirees, according to a recent survey conducted by Georgetown and the Kaiser Family Foundation.

    Most states can automatically renew coverage for at least some of their enrollees using other data, such as state wage information. But agencies must get in touch with others in their Medicaid programs, which proved challenging even prior to the pandemic. Most states are using multiple methods to update enrollees’ contact information, including working with insurers that provide Medicaid coverage to residents.

    If notices sent by mail are returned, states must make good faith attempts to contact enrollees through at least two other methods before cutting them off. And states have to adhere to additional requirements to continue to qualify for the enhanced match. If they don’t, CMS also could suspend their terminations, require they take corrective action or impose monetary penalties.

    Of the roughly 15 million people who could lose Medicaid coverage, about 8.2 million will no longer qualify, according to a Department of Health and Human Services analysis released in August. Some 2.7 million of these folks would qualify for enhanced federal subsidies for Affordable Care Act policies that could bring their monthly premiums to as low as $0.

    Some 6.8 million people, however, will be disenrolled even though they remain eligible.

    Though the federal government has given states more than a year to conduct the eligibility reviews and terminations, some plan to move much more quickly.

    Idaho, which has been monitoring enrollees’ eligibility throughout the pandemic, plans to complete its reevaluations by September, which it touts as one of the fastest timelines in the country.

    Of the nearly 450,000 Idahoans in the program, about 150,000 of them either don’t qualify or haven’t been in touch with the state in the past three years. The state began sending notices in February to those who face termination. People have 60 days to respond before they are removed.

    Those that are not eligible have 60 days from their termination date to enroll in Idaho’s state-based Obamacare exchange, Your Health Idaho. The exchange receives information nightly from the state Medicaid agency about residents who no longer qualify for public coverage but may be eligible for federal subsidies for Affordable Care Act policies.

    The exchange is reaching out to those folks weekly while they still have Medicaid and then every 15 days during the two-month special enrollment period via various methods, including mail, email and text messages, said Pat Kelly, Your Health Idaho’s executive director.

    The exchange works with 900 agents, brokers and enrollment counselors who can help folks sign up for policies. And it plans to start an advertising campaign this month highlighting the hefty subsidies.

    “We have to really help Idahoans know and understand that low-cost options are available, and most importantly, that it’s comprehensive health insurance that they can get for $0 a month,” Kelly said.

    Still, advocates in Idaho are concerned that the state’s push to unwind quickly will result in eligible residents losing coverage.

    Many people are not aware that they once again need to prove that they qualify, and the state agency is understaffed and underfunded, said Hillarie Hagen, health policy associate at Idaho Voices for Children. Renewal letters may not make it to enrollees, and those who need help may not be able to get through to customer service.

    “We are very concerned about families, and particularly children, losing health coverage without their knowledge – that they will find out when they show up to the doctor,” Hagen said.

    Aware that many people don’t know they’ll have to renew their eligibility, Arizona’s Medicaid agency last summer sent text messages and letters and made robocalls to enrollees, asking them to update their contact information. It is also working with community partners, health care providers, pharmacies and insurers. And it’s ramping up another text campaign since the prior one was so successful, said Heidi Capriotti, public information officer for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.

    While the state can automatically redetermine the eligibility of about 75% of its Medicaid participants, it still has to connect with about 670,000 residents who could lose coverage because they are no longer eligible or they haven’t responded to the agency’s requests. The state plans to take 12 months to assess whether its enrollees still qualify.

    South Dakota will start terminating Medicaid enrollees in April, though some low-income adults may become eligible again in July, when the state’s Medicaid expansion program begins.

    Voters approved the broadening of Medicaid to low-income adults at the ballot box in November, over the objections of the Republican governor and legislature.

    Nearly 152,000 residents were enrolled in Medicaid in January, an increase of more than 30% from March 2020, according to the state’s Department of Social Services. But more than 22,000 people appear to be ineligible currently.

    The agency said in an FAQ that it will prioritize reviewing folks who are most likely to be ineligible because they no longer meet a coverage group or their income has increased, among other reasons.

    Those who are not eligible will be disenrolled with 10-days’ notice. If they appear eligible for expansion in July, they’ll receive a notice about it when they are terminated and sent a reminder in June. The agency is encouraging any enrollees who are determined to be ineligible to reapply after Medicaid expansion takes effect.

    But that three-month gap can wreak havoc on low-income residents’ health, said Jen Dreiske, deputy director of South Dakota Voices for Peace, which is working with the state’s immigrants and refugees to inform them of the unwinding. These folks may have to go without their heart medication or their cancer treatment. They may also be afraid to go to the doctor because of the cost.

    “Why can’t we just wait until July 1?” Dreiske said. “Our concern is that people are going to get sick or die because they’re not going to be able to access the health care that they so desperately need.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The invention that changed music forever | CNN Business

    The invention that changed music forever | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    “Do you believe in life after love?” Cher used to sing. And if you’ve ever heard that song, you might now have an earworm in your head.

    The singer’s 1998 comeback track marked the first prominent use of a technology called “Auto-Tune”, a pitch correcting software that has since changed the music industry.

    Auto-Tune alters the pitch of a singing voice to make everyone sound perfectly in tune. When used properly, it’s subtle enough that it can’t be detected.

    But Cher’s producers played with the idea of cranking it up to 11, creating the now-familiar effect that is part human synthesizer, part robotic voice.

    Andy Hildebrand, the inventor of autotune, told CNN: “My thinking was, ok, I’ll put that setting in the software. But I didn’t think anyone in their right mind would ever use it.”

    Thus was born the “Cher effect”, and one of the biggest hits of the 1990s.

    The invention that changed the world of music

    How does one invent Auto-Tune? By analyzing seismic data while looking for oil, of course.

    That’s Hildebrand’s previous job: “Oil companies would detonate charges in the ground or in the water, and then they have sensors analyze the reflections to spot the oil,” he explains.

    That technology was bought by American oil giant Halliburton in 1995 and it’s helped internal production in the U.S. soar from 30 to 60 percent, netting the company about $1 billion a year.

    “It uses the same science of digital signal processing,” says Hildebrand, a long time musician who then applied that science to singing.

    It took him just a month to create it. “Before Auto-Tune, studios would do pitch correction by having the singer repeat a phrase over and over and over. They would do 100 takes and then patch them together to make one piece of music that sounded in tune.”

    Auto-Tune does all that at the push of a button.

    A magic button that makes everyone sing in perfect key was, unsurprisingly, an instant hit with the industry: “Within a year we had sold to every major studio in the world, and that was a year or two after Cher did her song ‘Believe’”, Hildebrand recalls.

    Here are his tasting notes on that song: “I thought it was really cool! Even if they used a bad setting, or what I call bad setting since I didn’t design it to be used like that: it makes this robotic effect because it changes the pitch instantly from note to note.”

    But the jury is still out on whether Auto-Tune was a boon for the music industry, or a disaster: in 2010, Time magazine included it in the list of The 50 Worst Inventions, calling it “a technology that can make bad singers sound good and really bad singers sound like robots.”

    Indie band Death Cab for Cutie showed up at the 2009 Grammys wearing blue ribbons to “raise awareness against Auto-Tune abuse”, and fervent Auto-Tune critic Jay-z released a song in 2009 entitled D.O.A. – Death of autotune.

    Britney Spears notoriously fell into an Auto-Tune controversy in mid-2014, when a vanilla recording of her 2013 song Alien was leaked and compared, rather unfavorably, to the autotuned version on the album Britney Jean.

    But what does its inventor think? “Singers learn about how it works and they kind of like it, but they have a love-hate relationship with it: they don’t want to let others know that they need it.”

    It seems that Auto-Tune might be to music what Photoshop is to photography: everybody uses it, but no one’s too keen to admit it.

    After having sorted singing – “music’s second most popular instrument” – Hildebrand is now going after the first: guitars.

    “It doesn’t sound anything like a vocal correction, but it keeps the guitar perfectly in tune,” he says.

    Next up, your heartbeat: “There’s a new kind of device called the embedded defibrillator: it’s a pacemaker implanted in the chest that monitors heartbeat irregularities and releases energy pulses to correct anomalies. The problem is that sometimes the software fails to detect the heartbeat, and we’re hoping to fix that.”

    The technology, in the form of an algorithm, will soon be embedded into these pacemakers.

    And we have a feeling it might not even stop there.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP battle brews over defense bill as McCarthy under pressure to appease the right on social issues | CNN Politics

    GOP battle brews over defense bill as McCarthy under pressure to appease the right on social issues | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House GOP leaders are confronting a legislative landmine over a massive defense bill as right-wing lawmakers are pushing for a slew of hot button amendments that could put moderate Republicans in a complicated position and threaten Democratic support for the must-pass bill.

    The lawmakers are demanding amendment votes this week on a wide-range of controversial issues – everything ranging from abortion to transgender rights to diversity programs at the Pentagon – and are even privately warning that they could scuttle the defense bill on the first procedural vote if they don’t get their way.

    The move has once again put the focus on House Speaker Kevin McCarthy as he tries to navigate the unyielding demands from members on his far-right while pushing legislation that many of his most vulnerable members are eager to tout back home. If he caters to the whims of members of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, he could win over more far-right Republicans but could jeopardize support from Democrats and moderate Republicans, both of which will be essential to getting the bill through the chamber.

    Yet the votes could even put the White House in a jam as a group of lawmakers from both parties are pushing to halt President Joe Biden’s move to transfer cluster munitions to Ukraine.

    Even though the House Armed Services Committee sent its bill to the floor on a bipartisan vote, the top Democrat on that panel warned that his support would be in jeopardy if the final bill includes some of these controversial amendments, particularly around abortion.

    “The committee did a good job of presenting a bipartisan bill,” Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the committee’s top Democrat, told CNN. “But I am worried that the full House Republicans are not going to do that, that they’re going to push this bill too far into an extreme anti-inclusion direction that makes it difficult to support.”

    The House Rules Committee will meet Tuesday afternoon to decide which of the over 1,500 amendments that have been submitted will actually be made in order, with the GOP leaders hoping to pass the final bill by the end of this week.

    But even the House Rules Committee has become a wild card for the National Defense Authorization Act. Republicans can only afford to lose two votes on the committee on a party-line vote, and McCarthy placed three far-right members on the panel in exchange for becoming speaker. At least one of the conservative lawmakers on the panel, Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, told CNN he plans to oppose the rule, citing concerns that the bill does not go far enough to target “woke” Pentagon policies, and won’t receive the amendment votes to change that.

    GOP Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, one of the other far-right members on the panel said in a statement to CNN, “While this NDAA makes some improvements, there are still glaring issues at the DOD that it needs to address in order to receive my support” when asked how he plans to vote on the rule.

    “The Department of Defense’s transformation into a social engineering experiment wrapped in a uniform is the single greatest threat to this nation’s ability to defend itself – and Republicans are complicit,” Roy added. “Year after year, Republicans pass an NDAA that propagates the cultural rot at DOD while massive defense contractors get rich.”

    Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, the other conservative on the committee, has not returned a request for comment about how he plans to vote, though a Republican source said they’re not as worried about Massie breaking ranks.

    While drama isn’t new in fights over the NDAA, which has been passed by Congress every year for the last six decades, this level of acrimony is something of a departure for what is a typically bipartisan affair. After receiving heat for the debt ceiling deal, McCarthy is under increasing pressure to cater to his right flank, ratcheting up concerns about the ability for lawmakers to reach a compromise that both chambers can agree on.

    GOP Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who represents a swing district and has long been pushing her Republican colleagues to soften their stance on abortion, told CNN, “I don’t anticipate the NDAA not passing but the GOP has an opportunity to show it can be compassionate and pro-woman, and I hope they don’t drop the ball.”

    Aside from amendments that target culture war issues, Democratic Rep. Sara Jacobs of California and GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who both serve on the Armed Services Committee, are also planning to offer an amendment aimed at stopping President Joe Biden’s cluster munition transfer to Ukraine. If it comes to the floor, the vote would reveal how much support Biden’s move has in the House.

    “Cluster munitions are unpredictable weapons that maim and kill indiscriminately, wreaking havoc on civilian populations and undermining economic rebuilding and recovery for decades,” Jacobs told CNN. “This amendment sends a strong message to the world that we will stand by our values and our commitment to protect civilians.”

    Gaetz voiced a similar refrain on Twitter.

    “These cluster bombs will not end the war in Ukraine and will not build a more stable country. Children will be left without limbs and without parents because of this decision if we do not work together in a bipartisan fashion to stop it,” Gaetz tweeted Monday.

    And while the version of the NDAA that passed out of the Armed Services Committee included more funding for the war in Ukraine, GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and others are pushing to roll that funding back.

    The NDAA, which outlines the policy agenda for the Department of Defense and the US military and authorizes spending in line with the Pentagon’s priorities, passed out of the House Armed Services committee with overwhelming bipartisan support, even though some controversial GOP amendments – including on banning drag shows on military bases and reinstating troops who refused to comply with the Pentagon’s vaccine mandate – were adopted.

    Some of the amendments that will take center stage on the floor this week include prohibiting gender transition surgeries and treatments from Gaetz, eliminating any offices of diversity, equity and inclusion within the armed forces and Department of Defense from a number of members including Norman, and prohibiting the Department of Defense from “purchasing and having pornographic and radical gender ideology books in their libraries” from GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado.

    While a handful of Republicans do not believe those amendments go far enough, others warned their colleagues not to jeopardize the future of this crucial legislation as the $858 billion defense package boasts measures that modernize the US military, increase its readiness to counter foreign adversaries like Russia and China, and increase support for servicemembers and their families.

    “We need to get the NDAA passed. … It’s not something to ever put at risk and national security needs to be a priority for each and every one of us. If we don’t have world peace, we have nothing,” Rep. Jen Kiggans, a freshman Republican from a Virginia swing district, told CNN. “And we do that through providing the budget that the military needs. … So, it’s a responsibility.”

    GOP Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who serves on the Armed Services committee and represents a district Biden won in 2020, told CNN, “I hope smart, common sense amendments are passed.”

    “The committee passed a bill near unanimously with only one dissenting vote, and it will take bipartisanship to get it also through the Senate,” Bacon told CNN.

    While the markup process of the NDAA touched on hot button issues, ultimately members on the committee came together to pass a package that most could support.

    Reflecting on the markup process, one GOP staffer told CNN, “People were pushing for DoD funds to be used for supporting war fighters over wokeness.”

    Those clashes, however, have only seemed to foreshadow the floor flights to come.

    “I think in committee, we tried to craft a bipartisan bill that would be able to get through the Senate and I’m hopeful that’s what everyone will try and do on the floor as well,” Jacobs told CNN. “But I think we’re already seeing the extreme Republicans try and put some poison pills in there that will make it very hard for Democrats to vote for the bill.”

    Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California, who told CNN he was “proud” to be the only member to vote against NDAA in committee because he needed to see “greater investment” in the Pacific region, called out the amendments that “hurt diversity and inclusion, education, and do nothing to strengthen our national security.”

    “I plan to vote no when it comes to the floor and encourage my colleagues to do the same,” Khanna added.

    One Democratic aide claimed, “Republicans are trying to hijack NDAA to make it a culture war battle.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FDA requires medical devices be secured against cyberattacks | CNN Business

    FDA requires medical devices be secured against cyberattacks | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    The Food and Drug Administration will now require medical devices meet specific cybersecurity guidelines after years of concerns that a growing number of internet-connected products used by hospitals and healthcare providers could be hit by hacks and ransomware attacks.

    Under FDA guidance issued this week, all new medical device applicants must now submit a plan on how to “monitor, identify, and address” cybersecurity issues, as well as create a process that provides “reasonable assurance” that the device in question is protected. Applicants will also need to make security updates and patches available on a regular schedule and in critical situations, and provide the FDA with “a software bill of materials,” including any open-source or other software their devices use.

    The new security requirements came into effect as part of the sweeping $1.7 trillion federal omnibus spending bill signed by President Joe Biden in December. As part of the new law, the FDA must also update its medical device cybersecurity guidance at least every two years.

    A 2022 report released by the FBI cited research finding 53% of digital medical devices and other internet-connected products in hospitals had known critical vulnerabilities. The report listed a number of medical devices that are susceptible to cyber attacks, including insulin pumps, intracardiac defibrillators, mobile cardiac telemetry and pacemakers.

    “Malign actors who compromise these devices can direct them to give inaccurate readings, administer drug overdoses, or otherwise endanger patient health,” according to the FBI report.

    In 2021, a group of researchers investigating software used in medical devices and machinery used in other industries found over a dozen vulnerabilities that, if exploited by a hacker, could cause critical equipment such as patient monitors to crash.

    The FDA has faced criticisms over the years for not doing enough.

    A 2018 report from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General said the FDA was not adequately protecting devices from getting hacked.

    “FDA had plans and processes for addressing certain medical device problems in the postmarket phase, but its plans and processes were deficient for addressing medical device cybersecurity compromises,” the report said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • There aren’t enough facilities to treat all kids hooked on opioids | CNN Politics

    There aren’t enough facilities to treat all kids hooked on opioids | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    After writing several previous newsletters on the stunning rise in opioid overdoses in the US, including among adolescents, I thought it was worth taking a look at what happens after an overdose, particularly for adolescents.

    I talked to Dr. Sivabalaji Kaliamurthy about what he’s encountering. A child and adolescent addiction psychiatrist who is board certified in general psychiatry, child psychiatry and addiction psychiatry, Kaliamurthy is also the director of the addiction clinic at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC.

    He told me that his clinic, which he set up in early 2022, has gone from getting one or two opioid use referrals per month to eight or more per month now, a year later.

    He particularly wanted to discuss some major news: The opioid overdose antidote naloxone, sold as Narcan, got approval from the US Food and Drug Administration on March 29, the day we talked, to be sold over the counter.

    Excerpts from our conversation, edited for flow, are below.

    WOLF: What is your reaction to Narcan being available over the counter?

    KALIAMURTHY: When I do an evaluation (of a patient), regardless of the substance use, you’re always talking about naloxone, brand name Narcan. …

    The message that I present parents with is always that it’s kind of like having a fire extinguisher at home. You hope you never need to use it, but you’re glad that you have it if you need to use it.

    Access is important. There are some controversies around increasing access to naloxone and fears that this may encourage more substance use. We have scientific research looking into this very specific question.

    And overall, there’s one study that came out this month that found that across 44 states where they increased access to naloxone for adolescents, it did not increase the rates of substance use in this population. And in some states, it actually decreased opioid use among adolescents. …

    The FDA approved the over-the-counter sale of naloxone, specifically the brand Narcan, because of how easily it can be administered. Naloxone also comes in other formulations, like injections, but Narcan is a nasal spray. We’re hoping that it will be out later this summer.

    The challenge remains how much is it going to cost? On average, it can cost anywhere between $50 to $100 right now. If it becomes over-the-counter, we don’t want insurances to stop covering [it].

    It will be interesting to see how the manufacturer goes about introducing it over the counter.

    WOLF: You said it’s like a fire extinguisher. Should everybody have it, or just people whose kids have demonstrated addictive behavior?

    KALIAMURTHY: Everyone should have it. Naloxone is not a treatment; it is more of an antidote. It reverses opioid overdoses, and the person who has the opioid overdose is never the one who’s going to use it somewhere in the community.

    WOLF: I’ve reported on a surge in overdoses. What are you seeing at Children’s?

    KALIAMURTHY: We are seeing an increase in the number of kids presenting to the hospital after experiencing an opioid overdose, and in general, opioid overdose deaths in the DMV (Washington, DC, Maryland, Virginia) region have significantly increased in the last two years. That aligns with a national trend we are seeing with regards to opioid overdoses.

    WOLF: Is there a profile for who these kids are? Do they share any traits?

    KALIAMURTHY: Yes. Let me talk about the kids we do see for opioid-related concerns first.

    At Children’s National, children often present after experiencing an overdose or having a medical complication because of using these M30, or the fake Percocet pills. We’ve had kids come in following conditions such as preliminary hemorrhage, where they were bleeding into their lungs, and overdose is not the only concern.

    Apart from that, we also have had kids presenting actively using these pills. They haven’t overdosed yet but they’re asking for help to stop using these pills.

    Some things that we have noticed, and this is the trend across the DMV region … the kids who are presenting to treatment, these are kids who are motivated to stop – they predominantly identify as Hispanic in ethnicity. Most of them have Medicaid for insurance.

    A lot of them, you know, they come to us – the average age is about 16, 16½ and their first use of opioids, these pills, was about a year ago. So the average first use was about 15 to 15½ years of age. They are really struggling, and they want to get better.

    KALIAMURTHY: Another common trait: cannabis use is quite common in this population. Pretty much every patient that I’ve come across started off around age 12 using cannabis products. This includes the flower and bud, vapes or edibles. Soon they transition to using the M30 pills.

    There are various different reasons, one of which is just access. A lot of other kids are using it. They’re using it in schools. They try it, they like it, and then it escalates and they stop using other substances.

    Most of these kids start off with crushing and try it nasally by snorting it and then they transition to smoking. What they do is they put these pills on a piece of aluminum foil, heat it up and inhale the fumes that come up. We haven’t had anyone come in who reported using any of these pills intravenously.

    WOLF: How is treatment for adolescents different than treating adult users who are seeking help?

    KALIAMURTHY: We have to take into consideration their developmental age and the psychological development that’s happening in adolescence, which is very different from adults.

    Oftentimes, this is the first point of entry into opioid use for these kids. Fentanyl, which is one of the most powerful opioids of abuse out there, is the first point of entry into opioid use for these children.

    Where for adults, they might have been prescribed pain medications. Or they might have started on opioids through other routes and might have used less potent products before transitioning to fentanyl.

    KALIAMURTHY: Historically, adolescents were not always the most motivated to seek treatment for substance use. What we would see was they would start off with experimenting, there would be a problem, it would take a few years and they’re adults by the time they’ve entered treatment and they’re trying different things to treat themselves before they enter treatment.

    With adolescents, now we are seeing that they can tell that they need help, and they are motivated and they are entering treatment.

    We have to take into account the presence of parents or guardians, how the school system interacts with them, what else do they do in their communities. There’s an increased association of violence and legal trouble that some of these patients end up in that we need to address while treating them. And these are some differences when it comes to treating adolescents versus adults.

    WOLF: One local community’s opioid response coordinator stressed to me that lack of availability of treatment is a real problem. Is that something that you agree with?

    KALIAMURTHY: Absolutely. That is a real problem at this point, because there is a huge discrepancy between the number of kids who need treatment and the available resources.

    The challenge is we can limit access and prevent these kids from getting the pills. But then you have a huge population of kids who are dependent on these pills, who can’t tolerate withdrawal symptoms, who have what we call opioid use disorder. That is going to perpetuate the problem if we’re not treating them. We need to do more in terms of increasing access to care for these kids.

    WOLF: Can you illustrate that capacity issue for me, through numbers or data? Or is it more anecdotal?

    KALIAMURTHY: Treatment is across different realms.

    For example, when a child is using these pills, and they have a problem with substance use, they need to go and be evaluated by a professional who has expertise in both addressing and evaluating mental health and addiction problems. And we don’t have very many people being able to do that.

    KALIAMURTHY: The first-time response is usually a counselor or social worker, sometimes physicians.

    But generally, there’s very little expertise in the pediatric health space with regards to addressing substance use-related problems. Screening is the point of entry.

    KALIAMURTHY: Then, say they need detox beds. Once they’ve entered treatment, we want to help them get through those initial days when their body is kind of adjusting to not using these pills, and we refer to that as detox.

    At Children’s National Hospital, when the kids come to the emergency room, we are not able to admit them for detoxes all the time. Sometimes we do end up admitting them.

    This depends on the availability of beds. The number of pediatric beds is very small to begin with. And beds may not always be available when somebody presents to the emergency room detox.

    And then there’s who is on call? Who’s available to treat these kids? I spoke about the lack of expertise in general, across the pediatric health space, so all that will determine whether a child is able to get access to detox services.

    That’s the detox part of treatment, which can be anywhere between two to five days.

    Detox doesn’t always mean somebody needs to be admitted. I also do outpatient detox where we are helping kids stop by providing them with medications and guiding their parents or guardians and the child on how to go through detox.

    KALIAMURTHY: Once you go through detox, depending on the extent of the problem, a child may require admission to a rehabilitation facility for anywhere between a month to six months.

    When we look at the number of facilities in the DMV region that provide this kind of rehab, I don’t think Virginia has any, DC doesn’t have any, Maryland has two. One is Sandstone Treatment Center, which is a private institution. The other is a treatment center, which is closer to Baltimore. There’s a limitation on who they can take.

    WOLF: Let me interrupt you. In a region that has millions of people, there are only two facilities that will take adolescents for one to six months’ treatment for substance use?

    KALIAMURTHY: Yes. For substance use.

    WOLF: Is that just a function of there’s more demand for those kinds of facilities among older people who are more likely to face addiction problems? Is that something the system is pivoting to address right now?

    KALIAMURTHY: It’s unclear. The system wants to help, but the challenge is historically adolescents are not always the most eager and motivated to get help.

    When we look at treatment programs, that didn’t exist in the past. They often relied on the judicial system, where some of these kids might have been mandated to treatment.

    Now we know that substance use disorders are chronic disorders and mandates don’t always work. Courts have stopped mandating treatment, because it’s like you mandate it for a month and then they come out and then what happens? There’s a lot of issues with mandating treatment.

    Now, most of the programs that were present prior to the pandemic also shut down during the pandemic because the needs also declined.

    This is not financially lucrative. That’s one reason why they’re having a huge issue with finding systems and having the county or the state take over with regards to creating the system.

    WOLF: I cut you off there. You were moving from the one-to-six-month facility to the next step in the process.

    KALIAMURTHY: So the next step is really engaging these kids in treatment. Not all kids require one to six months. Some kids might be OK with just completing detox and engaging in regular outpatient level of care. This might involve what we call intensive outpatient combined with medication.

    Which is where I would come in. A lot of what I do is provide medications for addiction treatment. These medications, the first part is for the detox to help with the child’s symptoms, but once you go through withdrawals, you can still have significant cravings to go back to using.

    The challenge, again, is the number of facilities. There are more options for intensive outpatient, but again, they are packed. The wait times to get in are longer now, and some of them are just virtual-only options, which may be good for some kids, but some kids might need more inpatient help.

    KALIAMURTHY: After this step, we have regular outpatient therapy and recovery support services, which is also lacking.

    The recovery support services are services which help kids get back on track academically. Catch up with your credit, get up on your grades and form a healthy, functioning resume. Get help finding part-time jobs. Keep these kids engaged in activities outside of school so that they are less likely to go back to the path that they were on which led to the substance use.

    WOLF: What’s your message to parents who are trying to keep an eye on their kids?

    KALIAMURTHY: Let’s look at the national-level data that we have collected up to 2021. Substance use is actually on the decline.

    Which is interesting because what is happening is that even though substance use among kids is on the decline – that’s both in middle school and high school – the substances that kids are using have become so much more potent.

    Take cannabis, which if you measure the potency by the percentage of THC content, has gone up significantly. The average THC percentage in the ’60s and ‘70s was like 2-5%. And now it’s like 20-25%. And kids are more likely to use what they call the concentrates, which is like 80% or more THC.

    When I talk to parents, the first thing I’m telling them about is the landscape of different substances that are out there, and kids are more likely to start off with cannabis or alcohol before they transition to the M30 pills.

    KALIAMURTHY: If you think about modifiable and non-modifiable risks, some risks just cannot be changed. These are things like genetics, family history and also if a child has a history of any traumatic experiences. Those are not things you can necessarily change. There are modifiable risk factors, like if a child has ADHD, they’re more likely to be at risk for developing substance use problems.

    If there are untreated mental health conditions, such as depression, anxiety, they’re more likely to have problems. We know that. The kids who identify as LGBTQ+, they also tend to have more risk factors in terms of initiating substances that transition into a problem.

    But also, we need to rethink how families address substances in the household. Kids learn by modeling they see from adults in their life and also the direct conversations we have. What are their values as a family around use of substances? These are not just legal and illegal – all substance use can have some harm. And early initiation is going to lead to more likelihood of having a problem.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice Department asks Supreme Court to intervene in abortion drug ruling | CNN Politics

    Justice Department asks Supreme Court to intervene in abortion drug ruling | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court Friday to intervene in an emergency dispute over a Texas judge’s medication abortion drug ruling, requesting that the court step in now rather than wait for an appeal to formally play out at the federal appellate level.

    The case is the most important abortion-related dispute to reach the high court since the justices overturned Roe v. Wade last term. It centers on the scope of the US Food and Drug Administration’s authority to regulate a drug that is used in the majority of abortions today in states that still allow the procedure.

    Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in the filing that it “concerns unprecedented lower court orders countermanding FDA’s scientific judgment and unleashing regulatory chaos by suspending the existing FDA-approved conditions of use for mifepristone.”

    She said that if the ruling were allowed to stand it would “inflict grave harm on women, the medical system, the agency, and the public.”

    Danco, a manufacturer of the drug, also asked the justices to step in on an emergency basis before Friday, with an attorney for the company saying in its filing that leaving the lower court opinion in play will “irreparably harm Danco, which will be unable to both conduct its business nationwide and comply with its legal obligations under the FDCA nationwide.”

    “The lack of emergency relief from this Court will also harm women, the healthcare system, the pharmaceutical industry, States’ sovereignty interests, and the separation-of-powers,” the attonrey, Jessica L. Ellsworth, told the justices.

    The clock is ticking. If the Supreme Court does not step in, the district court’s ruling, as amended by a subsequent appeals court opinion, will go into effect at midnight CT, and access to the drug, Mifepristone, will be restricted while the appeals process plays out.

    Both the government and Danco are asking the court to freeze the lower court opinion, or alternatively, agree to take up the case themselves and hear arguments before the summer recess, a very expedited time frame.

    The controversy began when US District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a broad ruling that blocks the FDA’s 2000 approval of the drug, as well as changes the FDA made in subsequent years to make the drug more accessible.

    Late Wednesday, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals froze part of the ruling. The court said the drug, that was approved in 2000, could stay on the market, but agreed with Kacsmaryk that access could be limited.

    The appeals court ordered a return to the stricter, pre-2016 FDA regime around the drug, which prevents mailing the pill to patients who obtained it through telehealth, or virtual visits with their providers rather than traveling to a clinic or hospital to obtain the drug in person.

    The restrictions also affect the instructions on the label for the medication, shortening the window of obtaining the pill to seven weeks into pregnancy as opposed to 10. It’s possible however that even with the ruling in effect, some providers could go “off-label” and continue to prescribe mifepristone up until 10 weeks. Mifepristone is one of the drugs used for an abortion via medication as opposed to surgery.

    Prelogar, the solicitor general, argued in her filing to the Supreme Court that the FDA’s expert judgment should not be challenged.

    “FDA has maintained that scientific judgment across five presidential administrations, and it has modified the original conditions of mifepristone’s approval as decades of experience have conclusively demonstrated the drug’s safety,” she wrote, reminding the justices that currently, “more than half of women in this country who choose to terminate their pregnancies rely on mifrepristone to do so.”

    She highlighted a key threshold issue in the case, arguing that the doctors opposed to abortion who are behind the suit do not have the legal right to be in court. That is because, she said, they neither “take nor prescribe” the drug, and the FDA’s approval “does not require them to do or refrain from doing anything.”

    CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck, who is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said the 5th Circuit’s ruling “froze the craziest, most harmful parts of Kacsmaryk’s ruling,” but that access to mifepristone is still significantly limited.

    “The panel ruled that the challenge to the 2000 approval of mifepristone itself is likely time-barred, so it froze that part of the ruling,” he wrote on Twitter. “But it *didn’t* freeze Kacsmaryk’s block of the 2016 and 2021 revisions that (1) make mifepristone available up to 10 weeks; and (2) by mail.”

    Medication abortion has emerged a particularly heated flashpoint in the abortion legal battle since the Supreme Court last year overturned the Roe v. Wade precedent that protected abortion rights nationally.

    In November, anti-abortion doctors and plaintiffs brought the lawsuit challenging the FDA’s 2000 approval of the drug and targeting how the agency has since changed the rules around its use in ways that have made the pill easier to obtain.

    A split 5th Circuit panel said in its order that it was reinstating the approval of the drug because of certain procedural obstacles the plaintiffs face in challenging it. But the appeals court said that the abortion pill’s defenders had not shown that they were likely to succeed in defeating the plaintiffs’ claims against the FDA’s more recent regulatory actions toward mifepristone.

    The appellate order was handed down by Circuit Judges Catharina Haynes, a George W. Bush nominee, and Kurt Engelhardt and Andrew Oldham, both Donald Trump nominees. Haynes, however, did not sign on to some aspects of the order.

    The FDA approved mifepristone after a four-year review process. It has shown to be a safe and effective way to terminate a pregnancy in the two-plus decades it’s been on the market. But anti-abortion doctors and medical associations allege that the agency ran afoul of the law by not adequately taking into account the drug’s supposed risks.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas sends ban on gender-affirming care for minors to governor’s desk | CNN Politics

    Texas sends ban on gender-affirming care for minors to governor’s desk | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Texas legislature Wednesday night voted to ban gender-affirming care for most minors, sending a bill to the governor’s desk that, if enacted, would put critical health care out of reach for transgender youth in America’s second-most-populous state.

    Senate Bill 14 would block a minor’s access to gender reassignment surgeries, puberty blocking medication and hormone therapies, and providing this care to trans youth would lead to the revocation of a health care provider’s license.

    The legislation was held up for days by protests and procedural delays by Democrats in the House. House Republicans approved an amendment that makes minor exceptions for children who had begun receiving non-surgical gender-affirming care before June 1, 2023, and underwent 12 or more sessions of mental health counseling or psychotherapy six months prior to beginning prescription drug care.

    Children to whom those exceptions apply can continue their care but must “wean” off from the treatment with the help of their doctor. The Senate vote to agree to that change was the last step required for final passage.

    “Here in Texas, we will protect our kids! Thank you to everyone who supported and helped pass my bill. I look forward to @GovAbbott’s signature soon,” bill sponsor state Sen. Donna Campbell tweeted after the Senate’s vote.

    If signed by Abbott, the ban will take effect September 1.

    Gender-affirming care spans a range of evidence-based treatments and approaches that benefit transgender and nonbinary people. The types of care vary by the age and goals of the recipient, and are considered the standard of care by many mainstream medical associations.

    Though the care is highly individualized, some children and parents may decide to use reversible puberty suppression therapy. This part of the process may also include hormone therapy that can lead to gender-affirming physical change. Surgical interventions, however, are not typically done on children and many health care providers do not offer them to minors.

    Some Republicans have expressed concern over long-term outcomes of the treatments. But major medical associations say that gender-affirming care is clinically appropriate for children and adults with gender dysphoria – a psychological distress that may result when a person’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth do not align, according to the American Psychiatric Association.

    If Abbott signs the bill, it would make Texas the fifteenth state to restrict access to gender-affirming care for trans youth this year. Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill banning the care in his state Wednesday and Oklahoma placed their own care ban on the books at the beginning of May. Around 125 bills that target LGBTQ rights, especially health care for transgender patients, have been introduced nationwide this legislative session, according to data compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ron DeSantis praised Anthony Fauci for Covid response in spring 2020 for ‘really doing a good job’ | CNN Politics

    Ron DeSantis praised Anthony Fauci for Covid response in spring 2020 for ‘really doing a good job’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis is attacking former President Donald Trump for “turning the country over to [Dr. Anthony] Fauci in March 2020” but DeSantis was praising the chief public health official at the same time in previously unreported quotes, saying Fauci was “really, really good and really, really helpful” and “really doing a good job.”

    In other comments, the Florida governor said he deferred to Fauci’s guidance on COVID-19 restrictions and later cited his guidance when communicating the policies he was putting in place early in the pandemic in the state of Florida.

    “You have a lot of people there who are working very, very hard, and they’re not getting a lot of sleep,” DeSantis said on March 25, 2020, at a briefing on Florida’s response. “And they’re really focusing on a big country that we have. And from Dr. Birx to Dr. Fauci to the vice president who’s worked very hard, the surgeon general, they’re really doing a good job. It’s a tough, tough situation, but they’re working hard.”

    In one of his first appearances as a candidate for the Republican nomination for president, DeSantis attacked Trump for following Fauci’s guidance during the Covid pandemic. Fauci served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases until retiring in 2022. He played a key early role in crafting the administration’s response to the pandemic, but often was criticized and sidelined by then-President Trump.

    “I think [Trump] did great for three years, but when he turned the country over to Fauci in March of 2020 that destroyed millions of people’s lives,” DeSantis said last Thursday. “And in Florida, we were one of the few that stood up, cut against the grain, took incoming fire from media, bureaucracy, the left, even a lot of Republicans, had schools open, preserved businesses.”

    “If you are faced with a destructive bureaucrat in your midst like a Fauci, you do not empower somebody like Fauci. You bring him into the office and you tell him to pack his bags: You are fired,” DeSantis said Tuesday at one of his first campaign events in Iowa.

    Bryan Griffin, a spokesman for DeSantis, told CNN he initially followed guidance from Fauci but changed course and didn’t look back.

    “Like most Americans, the governor initially assumed medical officials were going to serve the interests of the people and keep politics out of their decision making. When it became clear that this wasn’t the case, the governor charted his own course and never looked back,” Griffin told CNN in an email. “Governor DeSantis would’ve fired Anthony Fauci.”

    In a news conference on Tuesday, DeSantis also acknowledged mistakes early in the pandemic.

    “And what I’ve said about it is it was a difficult situation and we didn’t know a lot,” he said. “So I think people could do things that they regret. I mean I’ve said there are things we did in those first few weeks that I pivoted from.”

    Though Fauci did help craft the administration’s Covid response, Trump was often critical of Fauci as he attacked his own administration’s pandemic guidelines. Trump began criticizing Fauci early in spring 2020, retweeting calls to fire him in April of that year and in May blasting comments Fauci made against reopening schools. In July 2020, the White House’s deputy chief of staff for communications, Dan Scavino, posted a cartoon on Facebook that showed Fauci as a faucet flushing the American economy for his COVID guidance.

    In spring 2020, Fauci was provided with around-the-clock security after he began receiving escalating threats after his providing guidance to Trump for the country to remain as locked down as possible to help control the spread of the virus, which to date has claimed more than a million lives in the US.

    DeSantis, like Trump, later broke with Fauci over reopening Florida in July 2020, but he didn’t begin regularly harshly criticizing Fauci until spring 2021.

    Trump urged reopenings by May 2020 and DeSantis was one of the first to put in place plans to do so – for which Trump praised the Florida governor at an October 2020 rally.

    Last week, DeSantis’ campaign’s rapid response account and a spokesperson also shared a video from a Republican congressman that attacked Trump for praising Fauci, which used comments from March and February 2020, the same time DeSantis himself was praising Fauci.

    But DeSantis’ attacks rewrite history, according to a CNN KFile review of public appearances by DeSantis in 2020 as Trump began harshly criticizing Fauci much earlier than DeSantis. And in at least 10 different instances at press briefings in April and March, DeSantis cited Fauci or mentioned his guidance when discussing his own support for restrictive policies like closing beaches and putting in place curfews.

    Speaking at a news briefing on March 21, 2020, DeSantis made similar comments praising Fauci.

    “The president’s task force has been great,” DeSantis said. “I mean, you’ve called, you know, we’ve talked Dr. Fauci number of times, talked to, you know, the surgeon, US surgeon general number of times, VP, you know, they’ve been really, really good and really, really helpful.”

    At other press briefings in March 2020, DeSantis also cited Fauci’s guidance on mobile testing, individual testing, and how long the timeline on COVID might be.

    “I would defer to people like Dr. Fauci,” DeSantis said on March 14, 2020. “I think Dr. Fauci has said nationwide, you’re looking at six to eight weeks of where we’re really gonna be having to dig in here.”

    On March 25, 2020, DeSantis cited Fauci’s guidance on isolating.

    “So please, please if you’re one of those people who’ve come from the hot zone, Dr. Fauci said yesterday, you know, you have a much higher chance being infected coming out of that region than anywhere else in the country right now. So please, you need to self-isolate. That’s the requirement in Florida.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elizabeth Holmes could be released from prison two years earlier than expected | CNN Business

    Elizabeth Holmes could be released from prison two years earlier than expected | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Disgraced former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes could be out of prison nearly two years earlier than expected, according to the projected release date posted by the Bureau of Prisons.

    Holmes reported to a Texas prison camp in late May after being sentenced to 11 years and three months in prison at the end of last year. The Bureau of Prisons online database now reports, however, that Holmes’ expected release date is December 29, 2032 – which would take roughly two years off of her full sentence.

    The discrepancy appears to be due to how the Bureau of Prisons calculates its estimated release date.

    A spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons told CNN that the agency cannot comment on the conditions of any individual inmate, but said that inmates can earn Good Conduct Time (or GCT) that is calculated into their projected release date. Qualified inmates are currently eligible for up to 54 days of GCT time for each year of the sentence imposed by the court.

    Moreover, inmates have other ways of earning time credits while incarcerated, the spokesperson said, pointing to a range of other factors that could go into calculating the agency’s estimated release date, including an inmate’s participation in various prison programs. These factors that go into calculating an estimated release date are not unique to Holmes’ case, but standard for inmates.

    Holmes is currently serving out her sentence at Federal Prison Camp Bryan, a minimum security federal prison camp that is approximately 100 miles from Houston. Her request to remain free on bail while she fights to overturn her conviction was denied by an appellate court in May.

    Holmes was once an icon in the tech world, serving as a poster child for the limitless ambitions and potential of Silicon Valley. She is now one of the rare tech executives to be serving prison time after being convicted early last year on multiple charges of defrauding investors while running Theranos.

    Theranos was valued at $9 billion at its peak – making Holmes a paper billionaire. The company began to unravel after a Wall Street Journal investigation in 2015 reported that Theranos had only ever performed roughly a dozen of the hundreds of tests it offered using its proprietary technology, and with questionable accuracy. It also came to light that Theranos was relying on third-party manufactured devices from traditional blood testing companies rather than its own technology.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Iowa Supreme Court deadlocks on 6-week abortion ban and leaves block in place | CNN Politics

    Iowa Supreme Court deadlocks on 6-week abortion ban and leaves block in place | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Abortion will remain legal in Iowa for up to 20 weeks after the state Supreme Court on Friday declined to lift a block on a six-week ban.

    In a 3-3 decision, the state’s high court could not reach a consensus on whether it should overturn a lower court decision to strike down Iowa’s restrictive “fetal heartbeat” law, which was passed in 2018. The law sought to prevent doctors from performing an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant.

    Calling the case “extraordinary,” Justice Thomas D. Waterman explained in an order that lifting the block would be akin to bypassing the state legislature.

    “When the statute was enacted in 2018, it had no chance of taking effect,” Waterman wrote, noting that its supporters anticipated a legal challenge at a time when federal protections for abortion rights remained in effect. “To put it politely, the legislature was enacting a hypothetical law. Today, such a statute might take effect given the change in the constitutional law landscape. But uncertainty exists about whether a fetal heartbeat bill would be passed today. To begin, a different general assembly is in place than was in place in 2018, with significant turnover of membership in the intervening three election cycles.”

    Ruth Richardson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood North Central States, called the ruling an “enormous win” that “means that Iowans will be able to control their bodies and their futures.”

    Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, said her office was reviewing legal options.

    “To say that today’s lack of action by the Iowa Supreme Court is a disappointment is an understatement,” Reynolds said in a statement. “Not only does it disregard Iowa voters who elected representatives willing to stand up for the rights of unborn children, but it has sided with a single judge in a single county who struck down Iowa’s legislation based on principles that now have been flat-out rejected by the US Supreme Court.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Arkansas sues TikTok, ByteDance and Meta over mental health claims | CNN Business

    Arkansas sues TikTok, ByteDance and Meta over mental health claims | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The state of Arkansas has sued TikTok, its parent ByteDance, and Facebook-parent Meta over claims the companies’ products are harmful to users, in the latest effort by public officials to take social media companies to court over mental-health and privacy concerns.

    All three lawsuits claim the companies have violated the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and seek millions, if not billions, in potential fines. The suits were filed in Arkansas state court.

    The complaints come amid mounting pressure in Washington on TikTok for its ties to China and as states have grown more aggressive in suing tech companies broadly, particularly on mental health claims. Suits by school districts or county officials in California, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Washington state have targeted multiple social media platforms over addiction allegations.

    The suit against Meta particularly zeroes in on the company’s impact to young users’ mental health, alleging that Meta’s implementation of like buttons, photo tagging, an unending news feed and other features are addictive and “intended to manipulate users’ brains by triggering the release of dopamine.”

    In a statement, Meta’s global head of safety, Antigone Davis, said the company has invested in “technology that finds and removes content related to suicide, self-injury or eating disorders before anyone reports it to us.”

    “We want to reassure every parent that we have their interests at heart in the work we’re doing to provide teens with safe, supportive experiences online,” Davis said in the statement. “These are complex issues, but we will continue working with parents, experts and regulators such as the state attorneys general to develop new tools, features and policies that meet the needs of teens and their families.”

    The remaining two suits, both naming ByteDance and TikTok as defendants, target TikTok’s alleged shortcomings in content moderation and also reiterate claims about TikTok’s alleged threat to US national security.

    The first suit alleges that TikTok has misled users by identifying its app as suitable for teens on app stores because of the “abundant” presence of content showing profanity, substance use and nudity. The suit further alleges that TikTok’s Chinese sister app, Douyin, does not make such content available within China.

    “TikTok poses known risks to young teens that TikTok’s parent company itself finds inappropriate for Chinese users who are the same age,” the complaint said. “Yet TikTok pushes salacious and other mature content to all young U.S. users age 13 and up.”

    The second suit against ByteDance and TikTok accuse the companies of having made misleading statements about the reach of Chinese government officials and their purported inability to access TikTok user data. TikTok has migrated US user data to servers operated by the American tech giant Oracle and has established organizational controls intended to prevent unauthorized data access. But, the suit alleges, that does not mean the data is necessarily protected.

    “Neither TikTok’s data storage practices, nor its data security practices, negate the applicability of Chinese law to that data or to the individuals and entities who are subject to Chinese law and have access to that data, or the risk of access by the Chinese Government or Communist Party,” the complaint said.

    The suit also claims TikTok has misrepresented its approach to privacy and security by omitting the potential risks of Chinese government access from its privacy policies and in its statements to app store operators.

    TikTok and ByteDance didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    In a statement announcing the lawsuits, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the suits reflect a “failed status quo.”

    “We have to hold Big Tech companies accountable for pushing addictive platforms on our kids and exposing them to a world of inappropriate, damaging content,” Sanders said. “These actions are a long time coming. We have watched over the past decade as one social media company after another has exploited our kids for profit and escaped government oversight.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • HHS secretary says ‘everything is on the table’ amid calls to ignore medication abortion ruling | CNN Politics

    HHS secretary says ‘everything is on the table’ amid calls to ignore medication abortion ruling | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra on Sunday said “everything is on the table” following a Texas federal judge’s ruling to suspend the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the medication abortion drug mifepristone.

    In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” the secretary would not say whether he believes the FDA should ignore the ruling and keep the drug on the market, but he maintained that the Biden administration is considering all options.

    “We want the courts to overturn this reckless decision,” Becerra said, adding that there was a “good chance” of Supreme Court intervention but declining to say how, exactly, the administration will handle the ruling in the interim.

    “Everything is on the table. The president said that way back when the Dobbs decision came out. Every option is on the table,” the secretary told Bash, referring to last year’s Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.

    Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in a separate appearance on “State of the Union,” did not back away from her call Friday on CNN for the ruling to be ignored, saying that if it was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, “it would essentially institute a national abortion ban.”

    “I do not believe that the courts have the authority over the FDA that they just asserted, and I do believe that it creates a crisis,” she told Bash.

    Ocasio-Cortez called the ruling “an extreme abuse of power” and said there was precedent for the executive branch ignoring court rulings.

    “I do think that when it comes to gaming out what the very real possibilities are in the coming days, weeks and months, this is not just about speculation, but this is about preparation. And the reality of our courts right now is very disturbing,” she said.

    Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas warned in a separate interview with Bash on Sunday that House GOP appropriators could defund certain FDA programs if the ruling is ultimately ignored.

    “The House Republicans have the power of the purse, and if the administration wants to not lead this ruling, not live up to this ruling, then we’re going to have a problem,” the second-term lawmaker said. “And it may come a point where House Republicans on the appropriation side have to defund FDA programs that don’t make sense.”

    US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk on Friday issued a ruling to halt the decades-old approval of mifepristone, but he paused the ruling from taking effect for a week so it could be appealed, a process that is underway.

    “This is not America,” Becerra said Sunday. “What you saw is that one judge in that one court in that one state, that’s not America. America goes by the evidence. America does what’s fair. America does what is transparent, and we can show that what we do is for the right reasons. That’s not America.”

    Within an hour of the ruling Friday, a different federal judge ruled in favor of 17 Democratic-led states and Washington, DC, looking to expand access to the abortion pill, allowing them to keep the drug available.

    Becerra on Sunday touted the proven safety of the drug, a factor that Kacsmaryk questioned in his ruling. He confirmed that the Department of Justice had already filed its appeal and is waiting for its day in court.

    Still, Becerra had little to say about what tangible preparations the administration would take to secure access to abortion should the drug no longer be available after the weeklong pause.

    “Well, [women] certainly have access today, and we intend to do everything to make sure it’s available for them not just in a week but moving forward, period,” Becerra told Bash when asked if women would have access to the medication after this week.

    The Justice Department and Danco, a mifepristone manufacturer that intervened in the case to defend the approval, have both filed notices of appeal. Attorney General Merrick Garland and Danco said in statements that in addition to the appeals, they will seek “stays” of the ruling, meaning emergency requests that the decision remains frozen while the appeal moves forward.

    They’re appealing to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which is sometimes said to be the country’s most conservative appellate court. Yet some legal scholars are skeptical that the 5th Circuit, as conservative as it is, would let Kacmsaryk’s order take effect.

    “I got to believe that, Dana, an appeals court, the Supreme Court, whatever court has to understand that this ruling by this one judge overturns not just access to mifepristone, but possibly any number of drugs,” Becerra said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elizabeth Holmes reports to prison | CNN Business

    Elizabeth Holmes reports to prison | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Elizabeth Holmes reported to prison on Tuesday, capping off a stunning downfall for the disgraced founder of failed blood testing startup Theranos.

    Holmes was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison last November, after she was convicted months earlier on multiple charges of defrauding investors while running the now-defunct startup.

    Her request to remain free on bail while she fights to overturn her conviction was denied by an appellate court earlier this month. Judge Edward Davila, who presided over her trial, ordered Holmes to turn herself in to the Bureau of Prisons by May 30 to begin serving her sentence.

    Holmes arrived Tuesday at Federal Prison Camp Bryan in southern Texas, a minimum security federal prison camp that is approximately 100 miles from Houston, where she grew up before moving to California to attend Stanford.

    “We can confirm Elizabeth Holmes has arrived at the Federal Prison Camp (FPC) Bryan in Bryan, Texas, and is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,” a spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons said in a statement provided to CNN.

    Her ex-boyfriend and former Theranos COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani was also convicted of fraud, and reported to prison in California last month to begin serving out his sentence.

    Holmes was once an icon in the tech world, serving as a posterchild for the limitless ambitions and potential of Silicon Valley. Now, she and Balwani are the rare tech executives tried for, and convicted on, fraud charges.

    Holmes dropped out of Stanford at the age of 19 to focus full-time on Theranos, a startup that claimed to have invented technology that could accurately test for a range of conditions using just a few drops of blood. Theranos raised $945 million from an impressive list of investors and was valued at some $9 billion at its peak – making Holmes a paper billionaire. She graced magazine covers and engaged in public speaking events wearing a black turtleneck that invited comparisons to the late Apple CEO Steve Jobs.

    Her company began to unravel after a Wall Street Journal investigation in 2015 reported that Theranos had only ever performed roughly a dozen of the hundreds of tests it offered using its proprietary technology, and with questionable accuracy. It also came to light that Theranos was relying on third-party manufactured devices from traditional blood testing companies rather than its own technology.

    Theranos ultimately dissolved in September 2018.

    Dawn breaks at the Federal Prison Camp where Elizabeth Holmes, the former founder and CEO of Theranos, is expected to arrive to begin her 11 year sentence for fraud relating to the defunct company Tuesday, May 30, 2023, in Bryan, Texas.

    Holmes and Balwani were first indicted together nearly five years ago on the same 12 criminal charges. Their trials were severed after Holmes indicated she intended to accuse Balwani of sexually, emotionally and psychologically abusing her throughout their decade-long relationship, which coincided with her time running the company. (Balwani’s attorneys have denied her claims.)

    This month, Davila ordered Holmes and Balwani to pay restitution of roughly $452 million to victims of their crimes.

    Before her sentencing was announced in November, a tearful Holmes spoke to the court in San Jose, California.

    “I loved Theranos. It was my life’s work,” she said. “The people I tried to get involved with Theranos were the people I loved and respected the most. I am devastated by my failings.”

    She went on to apologize to the employees, investors and patients of Theranos.

    “I’m so, so sorry. I gave everything I had to build our company and to save our company,” she said. “I regret my failings with every cell in my body.”

    – CNN’s Brad Parks contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Iowa House passes 6-week abortion ban in special session called by GOP governor | CNN Politics

    Iowa House passes 6-week abortion ban in special session called by GOP governor | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Iowa’s state House passed a bill Tuesday night that would ban most abortions in the state as early as six weeks into pregnancy, acting quickly in the special session ordered by GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds with the sole purpose of restricting the procedure in the state.

    The bill now heads to the Senate, where it must earn approval before it can move to Reynold’s desk for her signature.

    Senate File 579 prohibits physicians from providing most abortions after early cardiac activity can be detected in a fetus or embryo, commonly as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant.

    The bill includes exceptions for miscarriages, when the life of the pregnant woman is threatened and fetal abnormalities that would result in the infant’s death. It also includes exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rapes reported within 45 days and incest reported within 140 days.

    The state House voted 56-34 largely along party lines to advance the measure following a roughly 12-hour day that saw the measure move through rounds of consideration and debate. Debate in the state Senate continued late into Tuesday night.

    The bill would immediately take effect with Reynolds’ expected signature.

    However, while the bill language makes clear it is “not to be construed to impose civil or criminal liability on a woman upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of the division,” guidelines on how physicians would be punished for violating the law are left up to Iowa’s board of medicine to decide – leaving the potential for some vagueness in how the law ought to be enforced in the interim.

    “There may or may not ever be rules promulgated,” said Iowa Senate President Amy Sinclair, a Republican, amid several questions from Democrats on the floor. There were no legal penalties for physicians added in the bill, she said.

    “As far as clarity, this is about as clear as mud,” Democratic state Sen. Molly Donahue said on the floor.

    Reynolds last week called for Iowa’s legislature to convene for the special session “with the sole purpose of enacting legislation that addresses abortion and protects unborn lives,” weeks after Iowa’s Supreme Court declined to lift a block on the state’s 2018 six-week abortion ban, deadlocking in a 3-3 vote whether to overturn a lower court decision that deemed the law unconstitutional.

    The new bill and its 2018 predecessor are nearly identical, though the latter was not enacted immediately, granting the board of medicine time to flesh out how it planned to administer the law.

    Democratic backlash to the bill and Reynolds’ special session grew throughout the day, with state House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst saying in a statement, “Women are not free when they cannot make their own healthcare decisions. And after today, women won’t be free.”

    Iowa’s Senate Democratic Leader Pam Jochum said in a statement that her Republican colleagues were “ignoring Iowans in their rush to pass an extreme ban” and that “their actions today threaten the health and futures of all Iowa women.”

    “This extreme Republican power grab infringes on the personal freedom of every Iowa woman and girl. There are women alive today who will not be alive in six months because of this law,” Jochum added.

    Iowa’s position as the first-in-the-nation caucus state for the coming GOP presidential primary has thrust its state politics onto the national stage, with Republican candidates jockeying for the favor of its voters.

    Former Vice President Mike Pence posted his support of the bill on Twitter Tuesday night, writing, “Grateful to see Iowa Republicans and Governor @KimReynoldsIA Standing For Life! Pro-Life Americans are Cheering You On!”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Witness says Rep. Ronny Jackson handcuffed and ‘briefly detained’ during rodeo while trying to assist with medical emergency | CNN Politics

    Witness says Rep. Ronny Jackson handcuffed and ‘briefly detained’ during rodeo while trying to assist with medical emergency | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas was handcuffed and placed on the ground face-first by local law enforcement while he was trying to assist a teenage girl in medical distress at a rodeo over the weekend, according to a witness who spoke to CNN.

    In a Facebook post, Linda Dianne Shouse, a home healthcare and traveling nurse, said her 15-year-old relative was “seizing due to possible hypoglycemia” Saturday night at the White Deer rodeo, about 45 miles northeast of Amarillo, Texas. Jackson represents the Amarillo area and was an attendee at the rodeo.

    Shouse said she and another family member, who is also a nurse, were attending to the girl when Jackson, who is an ER physician, stepped in to assist. Shouse said she didn’t know Jackson was a congressman at the time but told CNN they were all working together to help the teen girl.

    “We were just waiting for EMS to get there. The police came up, the deputies, highway patrol, and everyone was just screaming, ‘Get back, get back, get back,’” she said during an interview.

    Shouse said she was pushed back and then punched in the chest by a woman and said she saw a law enforcement official screaming in Jackson’s face, telling him to “Get the f**k back.”

    “He was trying to tell them that he was a doctor and probably trying to tell him who he was, to be honest. And they were screaming that they did not effing care who he was,” she said. “And the next thing I knew, they had him on the ground, grabbed him by the shirt, threw him on the ground, face first into the concrete and had him in cuffs.”

    Shouse said once they realized Jackson was a congressman and doctor, they uncuffed him and started apologizing.

    “We had the scene under control. We were just ready to give a report to EMS and get the patient out of there. And that’s not what happened,” Shouse said, recalling what she described as a “loud, chaotic” situation. “She wound up going eventually, but whenever you have someone laying there – when it could be neurological – time is on your hands.”

    In a statement provided to CNN, a spokesperson for Jackson said the congressman was “briefly detained” while trying to help the teenager. When Jackson approached the scene, a relative of the girl, who is a nurse, was assisting the 15-year-old. Jackson asked if the relative needed any help, and she said she did, according to the statement.

    “While assessing the patient in a very loud and chaotic environment, confusion developed with law enforcement on the scene and Dr. Jackson was briefly detained and was actually prevented from further assisting the patient,” the spokesperson said.

    His office believes he was detained for a matter of minutes. Jackson was released immediately when officers realized that he was tending to the medical emergency, the spokesperson said. Jackson’s office did not deny he was handcuffed during the incident.

    According to the Texas Tribune, Carson County Sheriff Tam Terry said in a statement that one person was “temporarily detained” at the rodeo on Saturday night and his department was “reviewing the incident.”

    CNN has reached out to Sheriff Tam Terry of Carson County for further comment. CNN has also reached out to the Texas Department of Public Safety.

    Jackson previously served as the White House physician for Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. He retired from the US Navy as a rear admiral in 2019 and was elected in 2020 to represent the 13th Congressional District in Texas.

    Shouse said the girl is back in her hometown and undergoing further evaluation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate votes to end Covid-19 emergency, 3 years after initial declaration | CNN Politics

    Senate votes to end Covid-19 emergency, 3 years after initial declaration | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would end the national Covid-19 emergency declared by then-President Donald Trump on March 13, 2020.

    The final vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan, 68-23. The joint resolution, which cleared the House earlier this year, now heads to President Joe Biden’s desk.

    The vote comes on the heels of two other successful efforts led by Republicans in approving legislation rescinding Biden administration policies.

    A White House official said in a statement to CNN that while the President “strongly opposes” this bill, the administration is already winding down the emergency by May 11, the date previously announced for the end of the authority.

    Still, the official noted, if the Senate passed the measure and it heads to Biden’s desk, “he will sign it, and the administration will continue working with agencies to wind down the national emergency with as much notice as possible to Americans who could potentially be impacted.”

    The White House said in January that Biden “strongly opposes” the GOP resolution to end the Covid-19 emergency, according to its statement of administration policy, but did not threaten a veto.

    While the lack of an explicit veto threat left the possibility of Biden signing the measure a clear, if not likely, option, Biden’s ultimate decision to sign the bill marked another moment where House Democrats have privately voiced frustration that the lack of clarity – or outright messaging mishap – from the White House left lawmakers in a lurch.

    House Democrats largely voted against the bill when it was brought to the floor in February except for 11 Democrats who joined Republicans in support. A separate White House official noted that the Senate vote comes after several weeks when the Biden administration has had time to accelerate its wind-down efforts – and just a little over a month before they’d announced the emergency would end.

    But it also comes after the administration drew blowback from House Democrats after sending what lawmakers viewed as mixed signals over how the president planned to respond to a Republican-led resolution that would block a controversial Washington, DC, crime bill, which opponents criticized as weak on crime. The president ultimately did not veto the measure.

    The measure was able to succeed in the Senate by a simple majority through the Congressional Review Act, which allows a vote to repeal regulations from the executive branch without breaking a filibuster at a 60-vote threshold that is required for most legislation in the chamber.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Americans hold mixed views on getting back to ‘normal’ after Covid-19, new polling shows | CNN Politics

    Americans hold mixed views on getting back to ‘normal’ after Covid-19, new polling shows | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Three years after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, Americans’ views of the disease’s impact have stagnated into a complex set of mixed feelings, recent polling suggests, with few believing that the pandemic has ended but most also saying that their lives had returned mostly – if not entirely – to normal.

    The US Senate passed a bill last week that would end the national Covid-19 emergency declared in March 2020. The US House approved the measure earlier this year, and the White House has said President Joe Biden will sign it despite “strongly” opposing the bill. The administration had already planned to wind down the emergency by May 11.

    In a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey about the Biden administration’s original plan to end the public health emergency by May, 59% of Americans said they expected the decision to have no impact on them or their family, with the remainder about evenly split between the 20% who thought it would have a positive effect and the 21% who thought the impact would be negative.

    Only 24% of Americans personally feel that the pandemic is over, a recent Monmouth University poll found, with 20% saying it will end eventually and 53% saying that it’ll never be over. Those numbers were very similar to Monmouth’s polling last fall, suggesting that a sense of some lingering abnormalcy may well be the new normal.

    Relatively few Americans say either that their lives have completely returned to a pre-pandemic normal or that their lives are still completely upended by it. The Monmouth poll found a 69% majority saying that their daily routine was at least mostly back to what it was pre-pandemic – but only about a third, 34%, say that things were completely the same as they were three years ago. Another 20% said things were partially back to normal, and 11% that they were still not normal at all.

    Declaring to pollsters that the pandemic is over may be something of a political statement for ordinary Americans as well. Republicans were 17 points likelier than Democrats to say that their own routines were mostly back to normal, the Monmouth poll found, and 28 points likelier to say that the pandemic had completely ended.

    The results of the Monmouth survey echo a February Gallup poll that found 33% of Americans saying that their life was completely back to pre-pandemic normal, 20% saying that they expected it would eventually return to normal and nearly half that their life would never fully return to the way it was pre-pandemic. Gallup also found that views about the pandemic’s trajectory were nearly unchanged from their polling in October, when 31% thought normalcy had completely returned.

    “The 47% who don’t foresee a return to normalcy may be getting used to a ‘new normal’ that, for some, means occasional mask use, regular COVID-19 vaccines and avoidance of some situations that may put them at greater risk of infection, particularly at times when COVID-19 infections are spiking,” Gallup’s Megan Brenan wrote.

    About half of Americans, 48%, are continuing to mask up in public on at least some occasions, the Monmouth poll found, though only about 21% said they do so most or all of the time. In KFF polling from earlier this year, 46% of Americans said they’d taken some form of precautions – including mask-wearing or avoiding large gatherings, travel or indoor dining – over the winter due to news about the triple threat of Covid-19, the flu and RSV.

    In KFF’s latest poll, just over half the American public said they’d been boosted against Covid-19, but only 23% reported receiving the latest bivalent version of the booster vaccine.

    At the broader societal level, in a CNN poll last fall, more than 6 in 10 Americans said they believed the pandemic had permanently reshaped multiple aspects of the American landscape, from healthcare (66%) and education (63%) to the economy (61%) and the way most people do their jobs (69%).

    But while the public sees the pandemic’s effects as far-reaching and ongoing, they’re also not top of mind. In a Quinnipiac University survey released last week, fewer than 1% of Americans picked Covid-19 as “the most urgent issue facing the country.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge who suspended abortion pill failed to disclose interviews that discussed social issues | CNN Politics

    Judge who suspended abortion pill failed to disclose interviews that discussed social issues | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The federal district judge who first suspended the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the so-called abortion pill mifepristone failed to disclose during his Senate confirmation process two interviews on Christian talk radio where he discussed social issues such as contraception and gay rights.

    In undisclosed radio interviews, Matthew Kacsmaryk referred to being gay as “a lifestyle” and expressed concerns that new norms for “people who experience same-sex attraction” would lead to clashes with religious institutions, calling it the latest in a change in sexual norms that began with “no-fault divorce” and “permissive policies on contraception.”

    Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointed federal district judge, made the unreported comments in two appearances in 2014 on Chosen Generation, a radio show that offers “a biblical constitutional worldview.” At the time, Kacsmaryk was deputy general counsel at First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit religious liberty advocacy group known before 2016 as the Liberty Institute, and was brought on to the radio show to discuss “the homosexual agenda” to silence churches and religious liberty, according to the show’s host.

    Federal judicial nominees are required to submit detailed paperwork to the Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of their confirmation process, including copies of nearly everything they have ever written or said in public, in order for the committee to evaluate a nominee’s qualifications and personal opinions. Neither interview is listed in the paperwork Kacsmaryk provided to the Senate during his judicial nomination process, which first began in 2017.

    The radio interviews were not included in the 22 media works Kacsmaryk disclosed, which included three radio appearances and 19 written pieces.

    A spokesperson for Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CNN the interviews weren’t in their archived files from Kacsmaryk’s confirmation, which included all paperwork submitted for his nomination.

    In a statement sent to CNN, Kacsmaryk said he did not locate the interview when searching for media to disclose and he did not recall the interview.

    “I used the DOJ-OLP manual to run searches for all media but did not locate this interview and did not recall this event, which involved a call-in to a local radio show,” he told CNN. “After listening to the audio file supplied by CNN, I agree that the content is equivalent to the legal analysis appearing throughout my SJQ and discussed extensively during my Senate confirmation hearing. Additionally, the transcript supplied by CNN appears to track with the audio and accurately recounts my responses during the phone call—when quoted in full.”

    The Washington Post reported last week that Kacsmaryk removed his name in 2017 from a pending law review article criticizing protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions during his judicial nomination process, a highly unusual move for a judicial nominee.

    Kacsmaryk did not respond to the Post’s request for comment, but a spokesperson for his old employer First Liberty claimed Kacsmaryk’s name had been a “placeholder” on the article and that Kacsmaryk had not provided a “substantive contribution,” despite the final version being almost identical to the one submitted under Kacsmaryk’s name according to the Post.

    Kacsmaryk later submitted supplemental material in 2019 to the committee to reflect interviews and events he participated since in 2017, but neither of the 2014 radio interviews were included.

    Democratic senators grilled Kacsmaryk on his positions on abortion and LGBTQ rights during both his nomination hearing and in written questions in 2017.

    While Kacsmaryk worked at First Liberty, one of his colleagues, general counsel Jeff Mateer, was also nominated for a federal judgeship. But Mateer came under scrutiny in 2017 for comments unearthed during his confirmation process in which he once compared the US to Nazi Germany on Chosen Generation – the same radio program Kacsmaryk appeared on and whose interviews he did not disclose.

    Mateer’s nomination was later rescinded; Kacsmaryk was later confirmed in 2019.

    The interviews were shared by Kacsmaryk’s employer, the Liberty Institute, at the time on social media. A guest from First Liberty appeared once a week, according to the show’s radio host in the broadcast and archives available online.

    In one interview from February 2014, in response to a question on the “homosexual agenda,” Kacsmaryk expressed concerns that new social norms surrounding “same-sex marriage” and “people who experience same-sex attraction” would lead to clashes with religious institutions.

    “I just want to make very clear, people who experience a same-sex attraction are not responsible individually or solely for the atmosphere of the sexual revolution,” Kacsmaryk said. “You know it. It’s a long time coming. It came after no-fault divorce. It came after we implemented very permissive policies on contraception. The sexual revolution has gone through several phases. We just happen to be at the phase now where same sex marriages is at the fore.”

    “But through that progression or regression, I think you can see five areas where there will be a clash of absolutes between the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage and the revisionist, redefined vision of marriage that you saw in last term’s Supreme Court opinions,” he said before outlining those areas as over tax exempt statuses, adoption services, federal government programs, and discrimination at universities.

    He appeared on the program to discuss the federal government’s view of same-sex marriage and opponents of it following the court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. The host suggested opponents of same-sex marriage could be viewed as “hostile” enemies of the government in line with al-Qaeda, which Kacsmaryk agreed with.

    “Yeah, and I can speak from immediate firsthand experience,” he said, citing his work formerly in the Justice Department. “That is very much in vogue now in the federal government to characterize opposition to same sex marriage and related issues as irrational prejudice at best and a potential hate crime at worse,” he continued.

    “It really has infused the entire federal service top to bottom as the administration has declared that they will join this culture war, that there’s one side that is destined to win and that you’re on the wrong side of history in the federal government if you are on an opposing side,” he added.

    Kacsmaryk also appeared on the program in July 2014 to discuss an executive order signed by then-President Barack Obama that banned federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity which did not exempt faith-based groups.

    Kacsmaryk linked changes in Democrats’ views on the issue of religious freedom to the “emergence of this very powerful constituency in the LGBT community,” which he said the Obama administration made campaign promises to fulfill. Kacsmaryk said religious organizations entering into contracts with the federal government would have risk under the executive order and face a “real burden” for dissenting from “the new sexual orthodoxy” on gay rights.

    The new rules, Kacsmaryk suggested, were poorly written and didn’t differentiate between gay people who lived “celibate” lives and those who made being gay “a lifestyle,” in a discussion of how religious groups would comply with the new rules.

    “If you look at the letter that was issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, they point out that the category sexual orientation is problematic because it’s not defined,” he said. “Most Abrahamic faith traditions will draw a distinction between someone who experiences the same sex attraction but is willing to live celibate and somebody who experiences the same sex attraction and makes it a lifestyle and seeks to sexualize that lifestyle. Those are two different categories that most Abrahamic faith traditions recognize.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link