A new low-cost version of the abortion pill mifepristone just received federal approval and it's already stirring political controversy.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently granted approval to Evita Solutions for its generic version of mifepristone, a medication used to end early pregnancies up to 10 weeks.

The original version of mifepristone has been available in the U.S. for 25 years and is commonly prescribed alongside another medication, misoprostol, to complete a medication abortion.

Evita "believes that all people should have access to safe, affordable, high-quality, effective, and compassionate abortion care," the company said.

While the approval process for generic drugs is usually routine, this decision quickly caused backlash from anti-abortion groups, The Associated Press reported.

Students for Life Action called the approval "a stain on the Trump presidency and another sign that the deep state at the FDA must go."

Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri wrote in an X post that he had "lost confidence in the leadership at FDA."

The criticism comes as the Trump administration and other health leaders, including U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, face ongoing pressure from anti-abortion groups to revisit the safety of mifepristone.

In a letter sent last month, the two officials said they plan to review the drug's safety record despite decades of data showing it is safe and effective.

The drug was first approved in 2000 and later expanded for use through 10 weeks of pregnancy.

The FDA approved the first generic version in 2019. Under the Biden administration, rules were updated to allow the pill to be prescribed via telehealth and shipped by mail, expanding access to women nationwide.

The latest approval adds another generic option to the market, but it's not expected to change access in states where abortion is still restricted or banned.

Currently, medication abortion accounts for about two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S., The Associated Press said.

Major medical organizations such as the American Medical Association continue to support access to mifepristone, stating that restrictions are not based on scientific evidence.

More information

The Mayo Clinic has more on mifepristone.

SOURCE: The Associated Press, Oct. 2, 2025

Dr. Linda Eckert - Most of the research does not bear out that there's a causal relationship. Causal relationships are quite hard to prove, actually. And the research on Tylenol has been quite reassuring overall. And there was actually many studies, several great studies that have looked at this. And the most recent one that is a very powerful study was done in Sweden, where they looked at over 250,000 individuals. And they also were able to look at siblings, where people had environmental and sibling relationships, genetics in common.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine all have looked very extensively at the data. All have come out quite strongly reaffirming their recommendations that Tylenol really is the best choice for controlling pain and fever in pregnancy.

The landscape of modern medicine has always evolved with science, technology, and social change. But in 2025, the most aggressive force reshaping healthcare delivery has been political. This year, physicians worldwide have felt a tightening grip of political authority around their clinical autonomy. From reproductive care to mental health access, from Vaccine distribution to gender-related treatment policies, medicine is increasingly at the mercy of lawmakers. These aren't peripheral issues-they're core matters of patient care, ethics, and scientific integrity. The medical community is now reckoning with a difficult truth: politics is no longer outside the clinic; it's in the room with the patient.

In the United States, legislative battles around abortion have reached new levels of complexity. Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, over a dozen states have passed or expanded laws that criminalize doctors for performing or even recommending certain reproductive procedures, even in medically urgent situations. In 2025, several high-profile cases have shown physicians facing prosecution for providing standard miscarriage management or ectopic pregnancy care. The legal environment is now so precarious that hospitals in restrictive states often delay critical care while waiting for legal teams to weigh in. This creates moral distress for physicians, many of whom now practice in constant fear of lawsuits or even arrest-just for doing what they were trained to do.

Outside the U.S., similar trends are unfolding. In parts of Latin America and Eastern Europe, governments have tightened control over what is considered "acceptable" reproductive care, often under the guise of protecting national values or traditional family structures. Physicians in countries like Hungary and El Salvador report mounting pressure to withhold information or restrict access to contraception and abortion, even when it goes against clinical guidelines. Meanwhile, international NGOs trying to provide comprehensive reproductive health services are being blocked or defunded. These constraints have created a two-tiered healthcare system-one for those with means to travel and another for those left behind.

One of the most heated and politically charged areas in 2025 has been gender-affirming care. Several countries have enacted legislation banning or severely limiting this type of care for minors, while others are placing restrictions on adult services as well. As doctors, we're taught to respect patients and evidence-but this issue has become increasingly fraught. Some physicians, myself included, have genuine concerns about the long-term impacts of hormone therapy and surgical interventions in adolescents. We've seen cases where patients later regret transitioning or feel they were rushed into decisions without adequate psychological assessment. These concerns are not rooted in hatred, but in caution, ethics, and a responsibility to "do no harm." Yet raising such concerns today often leads to accusations of bias or professional misconduct. Political and institutional forces seem determined to silence even respectful debate within the medical field, leaving many physicians to navigate these dilemmas quietly, without guidance or support.

The politicization of public health has also disrupted our ability to respond effectively to infectious disease outbreaks. In several countries, Vaccine programs have stalled due to partisan interference. In India, for instance, regional governments have delayed the rollout of a new dengue Vaccine due to internal power struggles, despite surging infection rates. In the U.S., routine childhood vaccination rates continue to decline, fueled by political figures who cast doubt on their safety or necessity. Physicians are once again in the position of defending settled science in the face of misinformation, while battling mistrust from patients who view every public health recommendation as a political statement.

Another major impact of politics this year has been on mental health funding and policy. In the wake of post-COVID burnout, economic strain, and social polarization, demand for mental health services has skyrocketed. Yet several governments-particularly in the UK, Italy, and Australia-have cut funding for public mental health programs as part of broader austerity agendas. In practice, this has left general practitioners, emergency room physicians, and pediatricians scrambling to manage complex psychiatric cases without adequate support. Waiting lists have ballooned. Suicide rates have risen in several countries. And physicians are increasingly asked to take on roles they are not fully trained for, simply because the systems meant to support them are collapsing under political pressure.

Even international medical collaboration has suffered. Geopolitical tensions, especially among NATO, BRICS, and non-aligned states, have made global health data harder to access. Projects on infectious disease surveillance, antibiotic resistance, and climate-related health threats have stalled due to nationalism and protectionism. Several governments are now blocking cross-border data sharing unless certain political conditions are met. This slows response time during outbreaks, stifles innovation, and undermines trust among health professionals who once relied on international cooperation to advance their work.

Ultimately, what 2025 has taught us is that medicine cannot remain insulated from politics. Whether we like it or not, our clinical decisions, patient relationships, and professional obligations are now being shaped by external forces-sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly. Physicians must adapt to this new reality. We must stay informed, protect our ethical ground, and advocate where needed. And we must find ways to voice dissent, even within a system that increasingly prefers compliance. The health of our patients-and the integrity of our profession-depends on it.

This summer's blistering temperatures have helped prompt an emergency blood shortage, the American Red Cross has warned.

Heat waves affected almost 100 blood drives last month, either by hurting turnout or forcing the events to be canceled. Since July 1, the national blood supply has fallen by more than 25%, the organization said in a news release.

Blood donations do tend to slow down during the summer because of travel and holidays, but the Red Cross noted that last month's extreme heat contributed to a shortfall of more than 19,000 blood donations in July.

Donated blood is used routinely during operations and childbirths. The Red Cross has said donations help save the lives of women with pregnancy complications, patients with traumatic injuries and people fighting cancer and blood disorders.

“Working with patients who critically need a blood transfusion, I can’t imagine blood not being available for someone I cared about and [who] needed it, especially a new mom or an infant that was needing a transfusion,” Melissa Destross, a registered nurse in the labor and delivery unit at a hospital in Detroit, said in the Red Cross news release. “I’ve seen moms in a hemorrhage situation, post-delivery, have massive blood transfusions, like blood losses over seven liters.”

The Red Cross said type O blood is urgently needed. Type O blood is routinely in short supply because type O positive is the most common blood type, and type O negative is the universal blood type needed for emergency transfusions.

“Type O is especially important for people injured in accidents and other trauma who receive emergency care,” Dr. Barry Siegfried, medical director of the Red Cross Michigan Region, said in the Red Cross news release. “Donors of all blood types can help ensure hospital shelves are restocked to prevent patient care from being impacted.”

People can donate blood by finding a local blood drive or making an appointment at a donation center (which can be found by visiting RedCrossBlood.org or calling 1-800-RED-CROSS).

Those who donate by Aug. 31 will receive a $20 Amazon gift card, the Red Cross added.

More information

The American Red Cross has more on the blood donation process.

SOURCE: American Red Cross, news release, Aug. 6, 2024

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved. 

FRIDAY, Jan. 26, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Among women with multiple sclerosis (MS), underrepresented women are less often employed and privately insured during pregnancy and they have lower median birth weights compared with White women, according to a study published online Jan. 23 in Neurology.

Anne Marie Radzik, from the University of California San Francisco, and colleagues extracted demographic and clinical data from medical records of nine U.S. MS centers for women with MS/clinically isolated syndrome with live births between 2010 and 2021. Data were analyzed from 294 pregnancies resulting in live births: 81 Black, 67 Hispanic, and 146 White mothers.

The researchers found that White mothers lived in areas of higher median Child Opportunity Index relative to underrepresented women (79 versus 22) and were more often employed (84.9 versus 75 percent; odds ratio, 2.57) and privately insured (93.8 versus 56.8 percent; odds ratio, 11.6); more of them received a 14-week ultrasound (98.6 versus 93.9 percent). The mode of delivery differed significantly between the groups; the rate of emergency cesarean deliveries was highest among Black women, while Hispanic women had the highest rates of uncomplicated vaginal deliveries. Median birth weights were lower for babies born to underrepresented versus White women (3,198 versus 3,275 g), and median breastfeeding duration was shorter (4.5 versus 6.0 months). Underrepresented women had a higher median Expanded Disability Status Scale score (1.5 versus 1) before pregnancy.

"To attenuate some of the disparities identified in the current analyses, collaborative care models may help to increase and optimize access to quality prenatal and neurologic care," the authors write.

Several authors disclosed ties to biopharmaceutical companies, including Genentech, which funded the study.

Abstract/Full Text

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

WEDNESDAY, May 24, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- While absolute numbers are small, the rate of acute care related to cannabis use during pregnancy almost doubled after legalization of nonmedical cannabis in Canada, according to a study published online May 23 in CMAJ, the journal of the Canadian Medical Association.

Daniel Thomas Myran, M.D., from the University of Ottawa in Canada, and colleagues assessed whether health service utilization related to cannabis use during pregnancy increased after the legalization of nonmedical cannabis in October 2018 in Ontario, Canada. The analysis included acute care episodes (emergency department visit or admission to hospital) between January 2015 and July 2021.

The researchers found that the mean quarterly rate of acute care for cannabis use during pregnancy increased from 11.0 per 100,000 pregnancies before legalization to 20.0 per 100,000 pregnancies after legalization (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.82), while acute care for mental health conditions decreased (IRR, 0.86) and acute care for noncannabis substance use remained stable. Compared with pregnant people without acute care for cannabis use, those with acute care for cannabis use had greater odds of having received acute care for hyperemesis gravidarum during their pregnancy (30.9 versus 2.5 percent; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 9.73). Furthermore, there were greater odds of newborns being born preterm (16.9 versus 7.2 percent; aOR, 1.93) and requiring care in the neonatal intensive care unit (31.5 versus 13.0 percent; aOR, 1.94) for pregnancies with acute care for cannabis use versus those without acute care for cannabis use.

"Our findings highlight the importance of universal screening and suggest that pregnant people with a history of substance use, mental health conditions, or severe morning sickness may benefit from repeated screening and counselling during pregnancy, without stigma," the authors write.

Abstract/Full Text

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

In election results that showed protecting women's reproductive freedoms matter to a majority of Americans, abortion rights measures passed in seven states and failed in three.

Missouri, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, New York, Maryland and Montana all backed those rights, while such amendments were defeated in Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota, leaving those state bans intact.

Voters in Missouri cleared the way to undo one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans, while Nevada voters also approved a similar measure. However, the Nevada measure will have to be passed again in 2026 for it to take effect, the Associated Press reported.

“Today, Missourians made history and sent a clear message: decisions around pregnancy, including abortion, birth control and miscarriage care are personal and private and should be left up to patients and their families, not politicians,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, told the AP.

The abortion landscape changed dramatically in the summer of 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. That 2022 ruling erased a nationwide right to abortion and cleared the way for state bans to take effect.

Missouri becomes the first state where a vote will undo a ban that’s already in place. Currently, abortion is barred at all stages of pregnancy, except when a medical emergency puts a woman’s life at risk.

Meanwhile, Florida became the first state since Roe v. Wade was overturned where abortion opponents won on a ballot measure. While most voters supported an amendment to make abortion a constitutional right, it fell short of the required 60% for passage. Unlike Florida, most states only require a simple majority for constitutional amendments.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the result is “a momentous victory for life in Florida and for our entire country.”

The defeat makes permanent the removal of Florida as a destination for abortion for women from nearby Southern states with tough bans. The nearest states with looser restrictions are North Carolina and Virginia, the AP reported.

“The reality is, because of Florida’s constitution, a minority of Florida voters have decided Amendment 4 will not be adopted,” Lauren Brenzel, campaign director for the Yes on 4 Campaign, told the AP.

Still, other states guaranteed abortion rights.

Arizona’s amendment will replace a law that bans abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The new measure guarantees the right to an abortion until viability, the AP reported.

In Maryland, the abortion rights amendment won’t make an immediate difference to abortion access because the state already allows it.

Meanwhile, the Colorado measure exceeded the 55% of support required to pass. Besides enshrining access, it also undoes an earlier amendment that barred using state and local government funding for abortion.

And in New York, an equal rights law that will bolster abortion rights also passed. It bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy,” the AP reported.

At this point, 13 states are enforcing bans at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions, the AP reported. Four more bar abortion in most cases after about six weeks of pregnancy -- a time period before most women realize they’re pregnant.

Despite state bans on abortion, a recent report found the number of monthly abortions in the United States has risen slightly, mostly because of the growing use of abortion pills and organized efforts to help women travel for abortion.

More information

The National Library of Medicine has more on abortion.

SOURCE: Associated Press

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

TUESDAY, March 28, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- Adults exposed in utero to the antiemetic Bendectin (doxylamine/pyridoxine/dicyclomine), prescribed during pregnancy in the 1960s, have an increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a study published online March 10 in JNCI Cancer Spectrum.

Caitlin C. Murphy, Ph.D., M.P.H., from the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health, and colleagues examined the association between in utero exposure to Bendectin and the risk for CRC in adult offspring (aged 18 years and older) from the Child Health and Development Studies multigenerational cohort, which included 14,507 mothers and 18,751 liveborn offspring.

Overall, about 5 percent of offspring were exposed to Bendectin in utero. The researchers found that exposed offspring had a higher risk for CRC compared with unexposed offspring (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.38). For offspring exposed and unexposed to Bendectin, the incidence rates of CRC were 30.8 and 10.1 per 100,000, respectively.

"Our findings suggest medications prescribed to pregnant women in the 1960s may, in part, contribute to recent increases in incidence rates of CRC. As the burden of CRC continues to increase in the U.S. and worldwide, well-conducted experimental studies will be critical to clarify these findings and identify mechanisms of risk," the authors write. "Testing for associations with in utero exposure to dicyclomine-containing medications still used during pregnancy may also be warranted."

Two authors disclosed financial ties to the biopharmaceutical industry.

Abstract/Full Text

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

FRIDAY, Jan. 26, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- A higher level of maternal autistic traits is associated with an increased risk for adverse birth outcomes, according to a study published online Jan. 23 in JAMA Network Open.

Mariko Hosozawa, M.D., Ph.D., from the National Center for Global Health and Medicine in Tokyo, and colleagues examined the association between maternal autistic traits and the risk for adverse birth outcomes in a cohort study including mothers of singletons from a nationwide, multicenter prospective birth cohort. Autistic traits were self-reported during the second and third trimesters using the short form of the Autism-Spectrum Quotient Japanese version (AQ-J10) among 87,687 women.

Overall, 2,350 (2.7 percent) of the women had AQ-J10 scores within the clinical range, and 18 (0.02 percent) were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The researchers found that a higher AQ-J10 score was associated with an increased risk for all birth outcomes, including preterm births, moderate-to-late preterm births, very preterm births, and child born small for gestational age (SGA; relative risk per one-standard deviation increase, 1.06, 1.05, 1.16, and 1.04, respectively), after adjustment for maternal and pregnancy-related factors. Higher AQ-J10 scores were associated with an increased risk for all outcomes; women within the clinical range had increased risks for preterm births, moderate-to-late preterm births, very preterm births, and a child born SGA compared with women below the clinical range (relative risks, 1.16, 1.12, 1.49, and 1.11, respectively).

"Health care practitioners should acknowledge the significant perinatal health disparity experienced by women with a high level of autistic traits, particularly those with autistic traits in the clinical range," the authors write.

Several authors disclosed ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

Abstract/Full Text

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Oklahoma meat processor BrucePac is recalling close to 10 million pounds of ready-to-eat meat and poultry that may have been contaminated with the Listeria bacterium.

In an announcement updated this week by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), the meat was produced between mid-June and Oct. 8 of this year and "shipped to other establishments and distributors nationwide then distributed to restaurants and institutions."

"FSIS is concerned that some product may be available for use in restaurants, institutions, and other establishments," the agency said.

All of the recalled meats include establishment numbers 51205 or P-51205 either inside or under the USDA mark of inspection on labeling.

Full information on product labeling and the list of products under recall is still being compiled and will be published when available, FSIS said.

"The problem was discovered after FSIS performed routine product testing of finished product containing [ready to eat] poultry products produced by BrucePac and confirmed those products positive for Listeria monocytogenes," an FSIS statement said. "Subsequent FSIS investigation identified BrucePac RTE chicken as the source."

So far there have been no confirmed reports of illness linked to the consumption of the recalled products.

The new recall follows on headlines generated this year by a massive recall of Boar's Head deli meats, most notably liverwurst, that was found to be contaminated with listeria.

As of Sept. 26, 10 deaths and 59 hospitalizations nationwide had been linked to contaminated Boar's Head products.

Listeria bacteria can cause listeriosis, the third-leading cause of death from food-borne illness in the United States. Symptoms typically include a fever, muscle aches and fatigue. Infection may also cause a headache, a stiff neck, confusion or seizures. Pregnant women may experience pregnancy loss or premature birth.

"Listeria is especially harmful to people who are pregnant, aged 65 or older or with weakened immune systems," the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a news release. "[The] CDC always recommends people at higher risk for listeriosis avoid eating meats sliced at the deli or heat them to an internal temperature of 165°F or until steaming hot before eating."

More information

Find out more about listeria at the Mayo Clinic.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, announcement, Oct. 9, 2024

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

For complete abortion, medication abortion before confirmed intrauterine pregnancy is noninferior to standard, delayed treatment, according to a study published in the Nov. 7 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Karin Brandell, M.D., from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial involving women requesting medication abortion at up to 42 days of gestation with an unconfirmed intrauterine pregnancy on ultrasound examination. Participants were randomly assigned to immediate start of abortion (early-start group; 754 participants) or standard-care treatment delayed until intrauterine pregnancy was confirmed (standard-care group; 750 participants). For the absolute between-group difference, the noninferiority margin was set at 3.0 percentage points.

The researchers found that a complete abortion occurred in 95.2 and 95.3 percent of participants in the early-start and standard groups, respectively (absolute between-group difference, −0.1 percentage points). Ectopic pregnancies occurred in 1.3 and 0.8 percent of participants in the early-start and standard-care groups, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred in 1.6 and 0.7 percent of participants in the early-start and standard groups, respectively, most of which were uncomplicated hospitalizations for ectopic pregnancy or incomplete abortion.

"We found that early start of medication abortion before confirmed intrauterine pregnancy was noninferior to delayed treatment after confirmed intrauterine pregnancy with respect to completing abortion," the authors write.

Abstract/Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) appears to be well tolerated in pregnant women, according to a study presented at AIDS 2024, the 25th International AIDS Conference, held from July 22 to 26 in Munich.

Sinead Delany-Moretlwe, M.B.B.Ch., Ph.D., from the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa, and colleagues reported on maternal safety and pregnancy outcomes among 2,472 participants in the HPTN 084 open-label extension. Pregnancies were categorized by exposure to CAB-LA injections during pregnancy, CAB-LA injections before pregnancy only, and no CAB-LA exposure (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine [TDF/FTC] group).

The researchers identified 351 confirmed incident pregnancies in 334 participants during 3,118 person-years (incidence, 11.3/100 person-years). The median time from last injection to pregnancy detection was eight and 13 weeks among participants with CAB-LA use during or prior to pregnancy, respectively. Participants with CAB-LA use during pregnancy received a median of four injections. No maternal deaths were reported. The incidence of pregnancy-related maternal adverse events was 43.7, 52.9, and 40.0 per 100 person-years among those using CAB-LA during pregnancy, those using prior to pregnancy, or those without CAB-LA exposure, respectively. Across groups, poor pregnancy outcome rates were similar, with negative outcomes reported in 28, 35, and 26 percent of pregnancies with CAB-LA use during pregnancy, prior to pregnancy, or without CAB-LA exposure, respectively. There was one major congenital anomaly (in the group receiving CAB-LA during pregnancy).

"We hope that these findings can fill an important knowledge gap that can help increase access to this highly effective HIV preexposure prophylaxis option among cisgender women before, during, and after pregnancy," Delany-Moretlwe said in statement.

Press Release

More Information

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved. 

Exposure to cold in the Netherlands and to heat in Spain appears to be associated with more psychiatric symptoms among adolescents, according to a study published online Jan. 28 in JAMA Network Open.

Esmée Essers, from ISGlobal in Barcelona, Spain, and colleagues analyzed data from the Dutch Generation R Study and the Spanish Infancia y Medio Ambiente (INMA) Project, which recruited 9,898 women during pregnancy or shortly after birth and 2,270 women during pregnancy, respectively, to examine the association of ambient temperature exposure with internalizing, externalizing, and attention problems in adolescents. The study included 3,934 participants from Generation R and 885 from INMA (mean age at assessment, 13.6 and 14.9 years, respectively).

The researchers found that in Generation R, the mean square-root transformed scores were 2.0 for internalizing, 1.6 for externalizing, and 1.5 for attention problems, while in INMA, these scores were 2.4, 2.1, and 1.5, respectively. Cumulative exposure to cold in the Netherlands was associated with more internalizing problems (e.g., 0.76 higher square-root points at 5.5 degrees Celsius over a two-month exposure). Cumulative exposure to heat in Spain was associated with more attention problems (e.g., 1.52 higher square-root points at 21.7 degrees Celsius exposure over a two-month exposure).

"This study helps quantify the intricate and multifactorial nature of the association of climate change with mental health and can be leveraged to provide evidence for adaption strategies and climate action policies," the authors write.

Abstract/Full Text

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Look up #naturalbirthcontrol on Instagram and TikTok and you ll find thousands of posts produced by young influencers encouraging women to ditch the pill and use other methods to avoid pregnancy mainly by tracking their cycles on their cellphones. Other posts encourage women to avoid pregnancy through fertility awareness, which involves tracking bodily changes as a way to determine if they are fertile or not. Some of the central arguments, which are not supported by science, include that hormonal contraception is unsafe and toxic. Canadian gynecologists say these social media videos, often misleading and created by individuals with large followings and no medical credentials, are reshaping conversations in their clinics, largely among twentysomethings. The physicians who specialize in reproductive health worry the content is connected to a shift in perspectives about effective, safe and long-standing contraceptive methods that have given generations of women and gender-diverse people agency over their reproductive health. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada issued a statement last fall outlining its concerns about social media influencers promoting fertility tracking apps as substitutes for hormonal contraception.The technology has been criticized by medical professionals who say it is not reliable to avoid pregnancy. The SOGC said social-media content is being used to undermine trust in health care providers and treatment options and is creating confusion for patients. It has called mis- and disinformation on women s health a growing threat. Dr. Black says one of the challenges for health care providers is to ensure they address misperceptions that are circulating so patients can make informed decisions based on the best available science. She has now distilled her response to misperceptions into about 15 seconds. Dr. Black debunks myths including that the pill makes people infertile. She knows it is important to counsel patients because if concerns are left unaddressed, individuals may not want to fill prescriptions, even if they leave the clinic with them in hand. Earlier this month, the Center for Intimacy Justice released a report that found tech platforms including Meta, Amazon, Google and TikTok are systematically suppressing sexual and reproductive health information for women and people of diverse genders. Sexual health professionals fear an uptick of non-scientific information shared on social media, particularly among young people, could result in unwanted pregnancies...Read more What do you think about this? Do you agree with Dr. Black? The Globe and Mail

The death toll from listeria linked to tainted Boar's Head deli meats has risen to eight, with five more fatalities reported Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Deaths have now occurred in Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

Cases of bacterial illness tied to the recalled meats continue to mount.

"Since the last update on August 8, 2024, 14 more illnesses have been reported bringing the total to 57," the CDC said in an update. "All 57 people have been hospitalized."

It's now the largest listeria outbreak reported in the United States since one linked to tainted cantaloupes in 2011, the agency added.

Some of the suspect product could still be in family refrigerators, since some of the products had sell dates stretching into October.

"Everyone should check their homes for any remaining recalled Boar’s Head products since they can have long a shelf-life," the CDC said. "Look for 'EST. 12612' or 'P-12612' inside the USDA mark of inspection on the product labels."

On July 30, the recall of Boars Head deli meats broadened to include an additional 7 million pounds of products because they may also have been contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes bacteria.

The expanded recall is part of an ongoing investigation of ready-to-eat foods made at the company's Jarratt, Va. plant.

According to CBS News, records released by the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) showed 69 instances of "noncompliance" noted by the agency at the Jarratt plant over the past year.

According to the FSIS records, mold and mildew were found at sinks used by plant employees to wash their hands, on the outside of steel vats, and in holding coolers between the site's smokehouses.

In other spots around the plant, pooling or leaking water was seen, including one puddle with "a green algal growth" and condensation found to be "dripping over product being held," CBS News reported.

Beyond that, in February FSIS inspectors noted "ample amounts of blood in puddles on the floor" and a "rancid smell" in a cooler used at the plant.

Insect infestations -- flies, "gnat like insects" and "ants traveling down the wall," a beetle and a cockroach -- were all observed by inspectors at the Jarratt plant in June.

In a statement, a Boar's Head spokesperson told CBS News that the company deeply regrets the impact of the recall, and said that said food safety is their "absolute priority."

"As a USDA-inspected food producer, the agency has inspectors in our Jarratt, Virginia plant every day and if at any time inspectors identify something that needs to be addressed, our team does so immediately, as was the case with each and every issue raised by USDA in this report," company spokesperson Elizabeth Ward said.

According to the CDC, "Listeria is especially harmful to people who are pregnant, aged 65 or older, or with weakened immune systems," the agency said in a news release. "[The] CDC always recommends people at higher risk for listeriosis avoid eating meats sliced at the deli or heat them to an internal temperature of 165°F or until steaming hot before eating."

The expanded recall now includes 71 products made between May 10 and July 29 under the Boar’s Head and Old Country brand names. The newly recalled items include meat to be sliced at delis and some packaged meat and poultry products sold in stores. Liverwurst, ham, beef salami, bologna and other products are affected.

The listeria investigation was first announced July 22 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

At the time, the source or sources of the outbreak were unknown.

As FSIS explained, testing first performed in Maryland spotted a sample of Boar's Head liverwurst product contaminated with listeria.

Besides the liverwurst products, some of the other Boar's Head meats that have been included in the recall include certain lots of Virginia Ham/Old Fashioned Ham, Italian Cappy Style Ham, various types of bologna and beef salami, among others.

"The ready-to-eat liverwurst products were produced between June 11, 2024, and July 17, 2024, and have a 44-day shelf life," FSIS noted. Products were shipped to retailers nationwide.

If consumers find they have any of the recalled products in their fridges, they should discard them or return them to the place of purchase.

"Consumers who have purchased these products are also urged to clean refrigerators thoroughly to prevent the risk of cross-contamination," FSIS added.

Deli owners who find they have the products "should clean and sanitize all food and non-food surfaces and discard any open meats and cheeses in the deli," the agency added.

Listeria bacteria can cause listeriosis, the third-leading cause of death from food-borne illness in the United States. Symptoms typically include a fever, muscle aches and fatigue. Infection may also cause a headache, a stiff neck, confusion or seizures. Pregnant women may experience pregnancy loss or premature birth.

More information

Find out more about listeriosis at the CDC.

SOURCE: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, news release, Aug. 29 and Aug. 8, 2024 ; U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), news release, July 30, 2024; CBS News

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved. 

WEDNESDAY, Jan. 4, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration finalized a regulatory change on Tuesday that allows retail pharmacies to offer abortion pills. Before now, patients could only get this two-drug medication through clinics, doctors, and a handful of mail-order pharmacies.

Two companies that make the medication, Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, announced the news after they were notified by the FDA of the change. "At a time when people across the country are struggling to obtain abortion care services, this modification is critically important to expanding access to medication abortion services and will provide health care providers with an additional method for providing their patients with a safe and effective option for ending early pregnancy," Danco said in a statement.

"Today's FDA announcement expands access to medications that are essential for reproductive autonomy and is a step in the right direction that is especially needed to increase access to abortion care," Evan Masingill, the CEO of GenBioPro, which makes the generic version of mifepristone, told The New York Times.

Patients will still need a doctor's prescription to access the drugs, and pharmacies must follow certain rules to dispense the medication.

Abortion pills are used in more than half of U.S. pregnancy terminations, a recent report showed. They are now in even higher demand because of abortion restrictions enacted by states after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists applauded the move. "Allowing for brick-and-mortar pharmacies to join mail-order pharmacies in dispensing mifepristone for reproductive health indications will further improve access for patients," the group said in a statement. "Although the FDA's announcement today will not solve access issues for every person seeking abortion care, it will allow more patients who need mifepristone for medication abortion additional options to secure this vital drug."

Now it is up to pharmacies to decide whether to offer them. They would need to designate an employee to ensure compliance, which could be a barrier, The Times reported. Abortion bans or restrictions in some states would also make it illegal or difficult to offer the pills. Even where the pills are legal, pharmacies may face customer demand and public pressure.

A Danco official said the company expected smaller, independent pharmacies to offer the drug first. Bigger chains would need to implement the companies' requirements that keep confidential the names of providers who prescribe the drugs. That might look like CVS or Walgreens not being able to list a doctor's name in a companywide database but instead restricting that information to the specific store, the Danco official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the company's concerns about threats from abortion opponents, told The Times.

The New York Times Article

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Gravida 1,31 weeks, 26 years, complaints of epigastric pain, bleeding per gum and petechiae hemorrhage for 1 day; high-grade fever for 5 days prior to admission, first seen at antenatal clinic (12 weeks pregnancy), no abnormality detected. Nothing history. 37°c, bp110/80 mmHg, pulse 80/mim and respiratory rate 20/min. Mild dehydration. Liver enlarged 1 cm below the right costal margin with mild tenderness. Fundal height - 31 weeks' gestation, fetal heart rate 144 beats/min, Petechiae1 2 mm d. found on face, forearms and both pretibial areas. Labs: hgb 11.9 g/dl, hematocrit 35%, white blood cells 7,440/mm3 50% neutrophil, 45% lymphocytes; 3% atypical lymphocytes; platelet 10,100 /mm3. Intravenous fluid replacement, under close observation bleeding precaution. After 24h, epigastric pain disappeared, vital signs normal. Hematocrit 30% , platelet 6,320 /mm3. Day 3, gradually recovered and had an itching convalescent rash on both pretibial areas. Hematocrit 31%, platelet 15,000 /mm3. She was discharged day 4. After 1 week, she was healthy and hematocrit 32% with platelet 354,000 /mm3. After that, she had an uneventful antenatal care. At the 39 weeks' gestation, she delivered a healthy female baby weighing 2,630 grams by vaginal route with APGAR scores 9 and 10 at 1 and 5 minutes, respectively. No abnormality in newborn was detected. Most likely diagnosis of this condition?

WEDNESDAY, April 17, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Women who experience any of five major adverse pregnancy outcomes have increased mortality risks, which remain elevated during long-term follow-up, according to a study published online April 15 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Casey Crump, M.D., Ph.D., from the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston, and colleagues examined long-term mortality risks associated with five major adverse pregnancy outcomes in a national cohort study in Sweden. The study included 2,195,667 women with a singleton delivery during 1973 to 2015 with information on pregnancy duration and infant birth weight.

The researchers found that 4 percent of the women died during 56 million person-years of follow-up. Independent associations were seen for all five adverse pregnancy outcomes with increased mortality. Adjusted hazard ratios for all-cause mortality associated with specific adverse pregnancy outcomes were 1.52, 1.41, 1.30, 1.27, and 1.13 for gestational diabetes, preterm delivery, small for gestational age, other hypertensive disorders, and preeclampsia, respectively, across the entire follow-up. After adjustment for shared familial factors in cosibling analyses, these effect sizes were only partially reduced (0 to 45 percent). Further increases in risk were seen for women who experienced multiple adverse pregnancy outcomes.

"Women with adverse pregnancy outcomes need early preventive actions and long-term follow-up for timely detection and treatment of chronic disorders associated with early mortality," the authors write.

Abstract/Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.