Latest news with #AmericanMedicalAssociation
Los Angeles Times
10 hours ago
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
AGs in California and other states lead campaign to defend reproductive rights
Democratic state attorneys general led by those from California, New York, and Massachusetts are pressuring medical professional groups to defend reproductive rights, including medication abortion, emergency abortions, and travel between states for health care in response to recent increases in the number of abortion bans. The American Medical Association adopted a formal position June 9 recommending that medical certification exams be moved out of states with restrictive abortion policies or made virtual, after 20 attorneys general petitioned to protect physicians who fear legal repercussions because of their work. The petition focused on the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology's certification exams in Dallas, and the subsequent AMA recommendation was hailed as a win for Democrats trying to regain ground after the fall of Roe v. Wade. 'It seems incremental, but there are so many things that go into expanding and maintaining access to care,' said Arneta Rogers, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at the University of California-Berkeley's law school. 'We see AGs banding together, governors banding together, as advocates work on the ground. That feels somewhat more hopeful — that people are thinking about a coordinated strategy.' Since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, 16 states, including Texas, have implemented laws banning abortion almost entirely, and many of them impose criminal penalties on providers as well as options to sue doctors. More than 25 states restrict access to gender-affirming care for trans people, and six of them make it a felony to provide such care to youth. That's raised concern among some physicians who fear being charged if they go to those states, even if their home state offers protection to provide reproductive and gender-affirming health care. Pointing to the recent fining and indictment of a physician in New York who allegedly provided abortion pills to a woman in Texas and a teen in Louisiana, a coalition of physicians wrote in a letter to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology that 'the limits of shield laws are tenuous' and that 'Texas laws can affect physicians practicing outside of the state as well.' The campaign was launched by several Democratic attorneys general, including Rob Bonta of California, Andrea Joy Campbell of Massachusetts, and Letitia James of New York, who each have established a reproductive rights unit as a bulwark for their state following the Dobbs decision. 'Reproductive health care and gender-affirming care providers should not have to risk their safety or freedom just to advance in their medical careers,' James said in a statement. 'Forcing providers to travel to states that have declared war on reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ rights is as unnecessary as it is dangerous.' In their petition, the attorneys general included a letter from Joseph Ottolenghi, medical director at Choices Women's Medical Center in New York City, who was denied his request to take the test remotely or outside of Texas. To be certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, physicians need to take the in-person exam at its testing facility in Dallas. The board completed construction of its new testing facility last year. 'As a New York practitioner, I have made every effort not to violate any other state's laws, but the outer contours of these draconian laws have not been tested or clarified by the courts,' Ottolenghi wrote. Rachel Rebouché, the dean of Temple University's law school and a reproductive law scholar, said 'putting the heft' of the attorneys general behind this effort helps build awareness and a 'public reckoning' on behalf of providers. Separately, some doctors have urged medical conferences to boycott states with abortion bans. Anti-abortion groups, however, see the campaign as forcing providers to conform to abortion-rights views. Donna Harrison, an OB-GYN and the director of research at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, described the petition as an 'attack not only on pro-life states but also on life-affirming medical professionals.' Harrison said the 'OB-GYN community consists of physicians with values that are as diverse as our nation's state abortion laws,' and that this diversity 'fosters a medical environment of debate and rigorous thought leading to advancements that ultimately serve our patients.' The AMA's new policy urges specialty medical boards to host exams in states without restrictive abortion laws, offer the tests remotely, or provide exemptions for physicians. However, the decision to implement any changes to the administration of these exams is up to those boards. There is no deadline for a decision to be made. The OB-GYN board did not respond to requests for comment, but after the public petition from the attorneys general criticizing it for refusing exam accommodations, the board said that in-person exams conducted at its national center in Dallas 'provide the most equitable, fair, secure, and standardized assessment.' The OB-GYN board emphasized that Texas' laws apply to doctors licensed in Texas and to medical care within Texas, specifically. And it noted that its exam dates are kept under wraps, and that there have been 'no incidents of harm to candidates or examiners across thousands of in-person examinations.' Democratic state prosecutors, however, warned in their petition that the 'web of confusing and punitive state-based restrictions creates a legal minefield for medical providers.' Texas is among the states that have banned doctors from providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth, and it has reportedly made efforts to get records from medical facilities and professionals in other states who may have provided that type of care to Texans. The Texas attorney general's office did not respond to requests for comment. States such as California and New York have laws to block doctors from being extradited under other states' laws and to prevent sharing evidence against them. But instances that require leveraging these laws could still mean lengthy legal proceedings. 'We live in a moment where we've seen actions by executive bodies that don't necessarily square with what we thought the rules provided,' Rebouché said. Sciacca writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Parents, You're Focusing on the Wrong Part of Your Kid's Screen Use
When it comes to monitoring kids and technology, parents are all doing the best we can. Especially in the summertime when rules fly out the window. However, a new study found that parents may actually be worried about the wrong thing when it comes to kids and screens. A study published June 18 in JAMA, a journal of the American Medical Association, found that the amount of time kids spent on social media, mobile phones, and video games wasn't linked to more internalized symptoms of mental health issues like anxiety and depression. Surprisingly, it also wasn't associated with externalized symptoms of mental health problems like rule breaking, aggression, suicidal behaviors, or suicidal ideation. This sounds good right? The problem is, researchers found that screen addiction was linked to both internal and external symptoms of mental health problems. More from SheKnows PopSockets Partnered With This Celeb-Loved Jewelry Brand to Drop Beach-Chic Limited-Edition Accessories There is a difference; a subtle distinction with big consequences. Yunyu Xiao, lead study author and an assistant professor in the department of population health sciences and department of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, explained addiction as 'excessive use' that interferes with home responsibilities, schoolwork or other activities, per CNN. 'They find a craving for it and cannot stop using it,' he explained. The study found one in two of the young people in the study were on a 'high trajectory of addictive use' for mobile phones, while over 40 percent were on the same path for video games. For the kids with high or increasing use of social media and mobile phones, they were two to three times more likely to engage in suicidal behavior and suicidal ideations than kids on the lower trajectory. These kids also had increased risk of symptoms of mental health problems, with a high use of video games associated with a greater risk of symptoms of mental health problems, suicidal behaviors, and suicidal ideation. It's absolutely heartbreaking! And teens know they need help. In Feb. 2025, SheKnows spoke with teens in New York City about their phone use, and the results were concerning. One 16-year-old named Annabella told us that she spends 12 hours on her phone. 'My friends are on it [their phones], I feel like I couldn't get off it or certain apps, I don't know — I'm just, like, addicted,' Annabella admitted. The Anxious Generation author Jonathan Haidt recommends not giving your child a phone until high school, not allowing social media until 16, and encouraging real-world independence and risk-taking in kids. Ariana Hoet, Ph.D., executive clinical director of children's mental health organization On Our Sleeves, previously told SheKnows that she recommends designated screen-free times every day: during dinner, for example, and powering phones down a couple of hours before bedtime. You should also talk about screens as a family. 'You can talk about what social media platforms you're going to use. Who do you follow? What do you post? And then most importantly, when are the screen-free times? What are other activities you're doing? Who do you go to if you're worried about something?' Dr. Hoet told us. 'You also need to establish the consequences: what happens if these rules are broken?' Dr. Becky Kennedy, psychologist, author, and mom of three previously told SheKnows that screen time isn't inherently bad for kids. It all depends on what the screen time is being used for and if your kids have a healthy balance. She suggests parents define screen time boundaries in advance, encourage kids to learn on their screen before playing, and anticipate the meltdowns around screen time by setting firm boundaries about when to put it up at the end of the day. 'To me, if you're a parent who's just struggling with screen time with your kid, you're probably doing it right. It's a tool we need to use,' she told us. 'It's something I don't think parents need to feel guilty about. It's just something parents need to have a level of mindfulness about relative to making sure we're setting up our home today for success — but that we're also setting up our kids for success long-term.' Look out for these signs that your child might be addicted to cell phones or video games, per the Mayo Clinic: Intense urges for screen time or video games that block out other thoughts. Cutting back on social or recreational activities because of preference for screen time or video games. Feeling irritable, anxiety, or anger when forced to stop playing, even for brief periods of time. Lying to others about the extent of their use. Needing more screen time over time to get the same level of enjoyment. Neglecting their appearance, including lack of interest in grooming or clothing. If you think your child is developing a phone or video game addiction, call their pediatrician and/or therapist for help managing their addiction in a screen-heavy of SheKnows Tween & Teen Slang 2025: A Definitive Guide to 'What the Hellyante' Your Kid Is Saying Right Now Celebrity Parents Who Are So Proud of Their LGBTQ Kids Recent Baby & Toddler Product Recalls Every Parent and Caregiver Should Know About
Scientific American
2 days ago
- Health
- Scientific American
How Supreme Court Trans Health Care Ruling Will Affect Kids
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors in the case US v. Skrmetti. In a 6–3 decision by the conservative supermajority, the court ruled that the state law, called Senate Bill 1 (SB1), does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by discriminating on the basis of sex—despite the fact that the law forbids certain medical treatments for young people based on their assigned sex at birth. Why This Matters The ruling is a major blow to transgender Americans' rights and protections, which have been under attack at the state and federal level. The challenge to Tennessee's SB1 had been brought by three transgender adolescents, their families and a doctor. 'This might seem like a small issue to others but it affects my whole world,' wrote one of the plaintiffs, a then 12-year-old transgender boy, in a declaration submitted to the district court. 'I've gone through a lot to finally get to the happy, healthy place where I am and I desperately hope that doesn't all get taken away from me.' On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. For anyone under the age of 18, SB1 banned medical treatments that aim to alleviate the symptoms of gender dysphoria—a feeling of misalignment between someone's perceived gender and their assigned sex at birth. The law bans gender-affirming medical treatments, including puberty-blocking drugs and hormone therapies. There's no evidence of serious negative effects of these medications, though long-term use of puberty blockers may limit the buildup of bone mineral density. Such medications have also long been used by nontransgender adolescents and children to treat a variety of conditions. Their use for gender dysphoria is currently supported by the American Medical Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and other important medical institutions. Research has shown that young people who experience gender dysphoria are at a high risk of depression and suicide. Those who receive care have better mental health outcomes, including decreased suicidal ideation, multiple studies have found. In contrast, between 2018 and 2022, when states enacted antitransgender laws, suicide attempts among transgender young people increased by as much as 72 percent. In the U.K., a ban on puberty blockers for transgender youth led to a sharp decline in mental health among this group, including increased depression, social isolation, and suicidal ideation, a recent study found. The Decision In the Supreme Court's majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed to 'fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety' of the treatments. Many of those debates have largely been political, not scientific, however. The Court was tasked with deciding whether the law constituted sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause and should thus be subject to a higher level of judicial scrutiny. Plaintiffs argued that SB1 prohibits established medical treatments for some people and allows them for others based on individuals' assigned sex at birth. For example, in Tennessee, a teenager who had been assigned female at birth could not receive testosterone therapy, but a teenager who had been assigned male at birth could. 'The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements,' Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. 'Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us ... but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, 'Tennessee's law expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status.... The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise, inexplicably declaring it must uphold Tennessee's categorical ban on lifesaving medical treatment.... By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.' What the Experts Say The Court's decision means that Tennessee's SB1 and any similar state laws do not merit heightened scrutiny from the judicial system to ensure they are appropriate. 'This is unfortunate because the evidence base regarding gender-affirming care is overwhelming supportive of access to the care,' says Elana Redfield, a LGBTQ+ policy expert at the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles. 'However, the legislature disregarded this evidence and relied instead on misinformation and conjecture when it passed the law—and, one can argue, bias against transgender people.' Redfield notes that the case's outcome doesn't prevent states from passing laws to protect access to gender-affirming care—as 14 states and Washington, D. C., have chosen to do. She adds that the ruling also does not prevent future challenges to antitransgender laws from being brought before the Court on different grounds. Lawrence Gostin, co-faculty director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center, has decried the Court's decision. 'It's jaw-dropping to see a majority of Supreme Court justices turn a blind eye while transgender minors are flatly denied access to health services in consultation with their doctors,' Gostin said in a recent press release. 'The Court is greenlighting red state laws that will deeply affect the lives of marginalized and victimized people seeking healthcare, social acceptance, and dignity. This decision paves the way for additional restrictions on other essential but politically fraught services, notably within sexual and reproductive health.' Last December Scientific American spoke with health policy experts about what was at stake in the US v. Skrmetti case. In January a study of 315 trans youth found that they had better emotional health after taking hormones. See our answers to the questions ' What Are Puberty Blockers, and How Do They Work? ' Explore ' What the Science on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Kids Really Shows.' IF YOU NEED HELP If you or someone you know is struggling or having thoughts of suicide, help is available. Call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 or use the online .
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Health
- Hindustan Times
New study claims parents must worry about ‘addictive use' more than screen time
Parents worldwide remain worried about the number of hours children remain glued to their mobile screens in a day. Now, a new study suggests that longer screen time at age 10 is not associated with higher rates of suicidal behavior. What mattered more is whether the children are getting addicted to their screens or not. The research, published on Wednesday in JAMA journal of the American Medical Association states that the time children spent on social media and video games was not associated with internalizing symptoms of mental health problems (anxiety and depression), CNN reported. The study covered more than 4,000 children across the US over a period of four years, with the participants being in the 9-10 years age group at the beginning, CNN reported. Also read: Trump Mobile: All about president's new mobile service and gold 5G phone The authors found that children, who remain at higher risk for suicidal behaviors, were the ones who told them that their use of technology become 'addictive' over time, The New York Times reported. ( Lead study author Yunyu Xiao, associated with the Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, dubbed addictive use as 'excessive use' which further interferes with home responsibilities, schoolwork and other activities. The ones addicted had a "craving for it and cannot stop using it," the assistant professor said. During the study, this addictive behavior was found to be very common among children, especially in terms of mobile phone usage, where almost half of them had high addictive use. Also, more than 40 per cent were on a high trajectory of addictive use for video games. The study warns that children with high or increasing use of social media and mobile phones were two to three times as likely as other kids to have suicide thoughts or harm themselves. Yunyu Xiao said this was the first study to find out that "addictive use is important, and is actually the root cause, instead of time'. The research asks parents to help prevent screen addiction in their children. For this, kids should be made aware about times when they should use cell phones, video games and other things. Psychologist Jean Twenge said children should be kept away from social media until they turn 15, while parents should avoid giving them internet-enabled phones for as long as possible. In 2023, Gallup reported that US teens were spending 4.8 hours on an average per day on YouTube, TikTok and Instagram.
Indianapolis Star
4 days ago
- Health
- Indianapolis Star
The death penalty is always inhumane. Keep Indiana doctors out of it.
Every execution in Indiana since 1996, including those most recently of Joseph Corcoran and Benjamin Ritchie, has been carefully designed to make the viewer feel good about themselves. They might even mistake the process for a medical procedure, if dropped into the execution room with no context. Lethal injection, which involves an overdose of a sedative drug, was invented to be a 'humane' alternative to hanging, the electric chair, the firing squad and gas chambers, at least for the viewer. Lethal injection also requires participation by doctors, who are protected by a privacy curtain in the execution chamber and the anonymity afforded to them by state law. However, allowing doctors to violate their oath to 'do no harm' and American Medical Association guidelines in this case needs to stop. It creates a far worse precedent than purportedly less humane methods of execution, and paves the way for exceptions to the rule of 'do no harm' in the case of abortion and assisted suicide. Gov. Mike Braun recently pointed out it cost $900,000 for enough of the drug used for lethal injection to execute the last two state death row inmates. 'The same drug they're using to execute people — you can get it for less than $10 from a veterinarian,' State Rep. Bob Morris, R-Fort Wayne, told me in an interview. Morris is a Catholic who led a charge to abolish the death penalty in Indiana earlier this year. 'One of the biggest disturbing things is — if we really do respect life — is we don't even know where this drug even came from,' Morris said. If the high price tag of the 'humane alternative' — which also happens to be used to kill animals — is not convincing enough that either another method or a moratorium needs to take effect, the fact that lethal injection is still botched more than any other form of execution, despite physician participation, should be. This method of execution is unfair to both the doctor and the public, who are presented with a false view of death. Killing another human can never be humane. It is nothing if not a brutal form of justice at its core, something appreciated by the victims of those put to death. The recent nitrogen hypoxia execution of Kenneth Smith in Alabama came much closer to matching this reality. Studies have shown that the death penalty is not an effective form of deterrence, and it certainly doesn't serve any rehabilitative purpose. Physician-assisted suicide is a great example of what happens when this false view of death becomes ingrained in the culture. Eleven states allow physicians to participate in this practice, called 'death with dignity' by supporters. Death can never be dignified. When a man or woman feels like their life has no value, and there is no other release than death, it is a signal that they have been failed by society. There is no greater failure in such a case than the medical professionals who push a sanitized view of death on the most vulnerable. As a state that claims to be resolutely committed to the pro-life cause and defending unborn life, we also need to consider how we can condemn abortionists and demand transparency for violating their oath to do no harm if we not only accept physicians playing the role of prison executioner, but also grant them anonymity in doing so. Abortionists at least can claim to be caring for the pregnant woman when they put to death the innocent child in her womb. Physicians participating in the death penalty cannot claim to be putting the needs of one of their patients above another, because they have no obligation to execute justice on behalf of the state. Briggs: Indiana hides executions. Firing squads would be more honest. During my two years working as a patient care assistant at IU Health University Hospital, I helped care for, and saw doctors and nurses care for, scores of prisoners. Despite the fact many were likely convicted of terrible crimes, they were given the same attention as any other patient. It was an excellent testimony of moral duty and something that stuck with my spirit long after I decided the medical profession was not where I belonged. In a day and age where both political parties seem to endorse a culture of death in some form or another, a better answer to the problems we face is a consistently pro-life mentality. It is clear that the two executions Indiana has carried out in the past six months has led people on both sides of the aisle to recognize a problem. If our state is truly committed to ending its culture of death, physician involvement in the death penalty needs to end.
