Tagged Women’s Health

Must-Reads Of The Week From Brianna Labuskes

On this Friday the 13th, we’re wrapping up another week dominated by the upcoming battle over the next Supreme Court justice and the administration’s scramble to reunite separated families — not to mention new efforts to chip away at the health law.

Don’t feel overwhelmed. Here are some of the best stories on all that news and more.

The battle brewing over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh highlights the political complexities of the upcoming midterms. In the Senate, where the battleground favors conservatives, the vote is an albatross around vulnerable red-state Democrats’ necks. But in the lower chamber, the fights are being waged in swing suburban districts around the country, giving Democrats the chance to appeal to independents and moderate Republicans.

The New York Times: Who Might the Court Fight Help in the Midterms? Democrats. and Republicans.

However, Democrats — in what even they say is a classic problem with the party — can’t seem to focus their message. Yes, they’re talking health care (threats to not only abortion but the health law itself). But they’re also focusing on presidential power and unions and LGBTQ rights and … the list goes on.

Politico: Dems Pitch Mixed Messages in Supreme Court Fight

(On that note, my favorite quote of the week comes from Politico’s coverage of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer trying to get his people in line: “I’ll be 71 years old in August, you’re going to whip me? Kiss my you know what,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) when asked if Schumer can influence his vote.)

States are also scrambling to make sure they don’t have any centuries-old laws on the books banning abortions … just in case.

The Associated Press: States Brace for Abortion Fights After Kavanaugh Nomination

Even though the government missed the court-ordered deadline, officials have announced that all “eligible” children under age 5 have been reunited with their families. That still leaves 46 “ineligible” kids, plus thousands of older ones still in custody.

The New York Times: U.S. Says It Has Reunited Half of All Migrants Under 5, With Rest ‘Ineligible’

And somehow Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar has become the public face (and punching bag) of this crisis.

Politico: How the New Face of the Migrant Crisis Got Stuck With the Job

The health law absorbed a one-two blow this week. Not only did the administration slash funding for navigators (counselors who help people sign up for coverage), but it also froze a program that provides billions of dollars to insurers to help stabilize the marketplace. The reaction to both was fairly tempered, though. (Which might be a sign that upheaval and uncertainty has become the new norm.)

Politico: Latest Obamacare Shake-Up Could Fuel Rate Hikes

Modern Healthcare: CMS Risk-Adjustment Payment Freeze to Hit High-Cost Insurers Hardest

Pfizer’s agreement to roll back its price hikes earned the company flashy headlines. Looking more closely, the move doesn’t really translate to savings for consumers.

Stat: What Pfizer, Trump, and Consumers Got Out of a Surprising Deal

Be sure to check out this deep dive on the CEO who, while having a knack for turning a profit, is described as tone-deaf to the current outrage on drug prices.

Stat: How Pfizer’s CEO Kept on Raising Prices — Until Trump’s Tweet

If all that wasn’t enough news for you, here’s my miscellaneous file for the week: A startling report finds that drug distributors shipped the equivalent of about 260 opioid pills for every person in Missouri in a six-year period; despite New York’s abundance of world-class hospitals and surgeons, thousands of patients needing transplants are languishing on lists because New Yorkers donate organs at a lower rate than anywhere else in the country; and the administration tried to water down a global resolution on breastfeeding, resorting to trade threats and backing off only when Russia stepped in to introduce the measure.

The Washington Post: Companies Shipped 1.6 Billion Opioids to Missouri From 2012 to 2017, Report Says

The New York Times: New York Has World-Class Hospitals. Why Is It So Bad for People in Need of Transplants?

The New York Times: U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials

And just when we were getting over the romaine lettuce outbreak, we have not one but two more food-related illnesses popping up.

Have a great weekend!

Podcast: KHN’s ‘What The Health?’ ACA Under Fire. Again.

Democrats in the Senate are gearing up to fight President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh. They argue he is not only a potential threat to abortion rights, but also to the Affordable Care Act.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues its efforts to undermine the workings of the Affordable Care Act. This week, officials announced a freeze on payments to insurers who enroll large numbers of sicker patients, and another cut to the budget for “navigators” who help people understand their insurance options and enroll for coverage.

This week’s panelists for KHN’s “What the Health?” are:

Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News

Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times

Anna Edney of Bloomberg News

Julie Appleby of Kaiser Health News

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • One reason Democrats are rallying around the health issue rather than the abortion issue is that there is more unity in their caucus over health than abortion. Also, the two key Republican senators who support abortion rights — Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — also voted against GOP efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act last year.
  • The Trump administration’s action on risk-adjustment payments sent yet another signal to insurers that the federal government does not necessarily have their backs and is willing to change the rules along the way.
  • The Trump administration says it wants to cut to payments for navigators because they are not cost-effective. But the navigator money does not come from taxpayers or government sources. It is paid from insurance industry user fees. These funds also go to support ACA advertising — which has also been cut. However, the user fees have not been reduced. In theory, reducing these fees could provide savings that could be passed on to consumers.
  • After being called out on Twitter by Trump, drugmaker Pfizer this week announced it would delay some already-announced price increases on about 100 of its drugs. It is worth noting that the president used his bully pulpit and gained some success. The six-month delay will mean that consumers will not experience an increase in cost at the pharmacy for at least that time period. But it still raises questions.
  • The Trump administration worked to block a World Health Organization resolution to promote breastfeeding. But while this seemed a clear case of promoting the interests of infant formula companies over public health experts, there was pushback from some women who say they are unable to breastfeed and feel stigma when they opt for formula instead. On the other hand, formula can be dangerous in developing countries without easy access to clean water.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists recommend their favorite health stories of the week they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: Politico Agenda’s “The One Big Winner of the Obamacare Wars,” by Joanne Kenen

Julie Appleby: The New York Times’ “Doctor, Your Patient Is Waiting. It’s a Red Panda,” by Karen Weintraub.

Anna Edney: Politico’s “CMS Quit Test of Pricey Cancer Treatment Amid Concerns Over Industry Role,” by Sarah Karlin-Smith and David Pittman

Margot Sanger-Katz: HuffPost’s “Trump Administration May Be Preparing A New Obamacare Sabotage Effort,” by Jonathan Cohn

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to What the Health? on iTunesStitcher or Google Play.

Podcast: KHN’s ‘What The Health?’ ACA Under Fire. Again.

Democrats in the Senate are gearing up to fight President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh. They argue he is not only a potential threat to abortion rights, but also to the Affordable Care Act.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues its efforts to undermine the workings of the Affordable Care Act. This week, officials announced a freeze on payments to insurers who enroll large numbers of sicker patients, and another cut to the budget for “navigators” who help people understand their insurance options and enroll for coverage.

This week’s panelists for KHN’s “What the Health?” are:

Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News

Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times

Anna Edney of Bloomberg News

Julie Appleby of Kaiser Health News

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • One reason Democrats are rallying around the health issue rather than the abortion issue is that there is more unity in their caucus over health than abortion. Also, the two key Republican senators who support abortion rights — Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — also voted against GOP efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act last year.
  • The Trump administration’s action on risk-adjustment payments sent yet another signal to insurers that the federal government does not necessarily have their backs and is willing to change the rules along the way.
  • The Trump administration says it wants to cut to payments for navigators because they are not cost-effective. But the navigator money does not come from taxpayers or government sources. It is paid from insurance industry user fees. These funds also go to support ACA advertising — which has also been cut. However, the user fees have not been reduced. In theory, reducing these fees could provide savings that could be passed on to consumers.
  • After being called out on Twitter by Trump, drugmaker Pfizer this week announced it would delay some already-announced price increases on about 100 of its drugs. It is worth noting that the president used his bully pulpit and gained some success. The six-month delay will mean that consumers will not experience an increase in cost at the pharmacy for at least that time period. But it still raises questions.
  • The Trump administration worked to block a World Health Organization resolution to promote breastfeeding. But while this seemed a clear case of promoting the interests of infant formula companies over public health experts, there was pushback from some women who say they are unable to breastfeed and feel stigma when they opt for formula instead. On the other hand, formula can be dangerous in developing countries without easy access to clean water.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists recommend their favorite health stories of the week they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: Politico Agenda’s “The One Big Winner of the Obamacare Wars,” by Joanne Kenen

Julie Appleby: The New York Times’ “Doctor, Your Patient Is Waiting. It’s a Red Panda,” by Karen Weintraub.

Anna Edney: Politico’s “CMS Quit Test of Pricey Cancer Treatment Amid Concerns Over Industry Role,” by Sarah Karlin-Smith and David Pittman

Margot Sanger-Katz: HuffPost’s “Trump Administration May Be Preparing A New Obamacare Sabotage Effort,” by Jonathan Cohn

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to What the Health? on iTunesStitcher or Google Play.

If High Court Reverses Roe V. Wade, 22 States Are Likely To Ban Abortion

What would the U.S. would look like without Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion nationwide?

That’s the question now that President Donald Trump has chosen conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Reversing the landmark case would not automatically make abortion illegal across the country. Instead, it would return the decision about abortion legality to the states, where a patchwork of laws are already in place that render abortion more or less available, largely depending on individual states’ political leanings.

“We think there are 22 states likely to ban abortion without Roe,” due to a combination of factors including existing laws and regulation on the books and the positions of the governor and state legislature, said Amy Myrick, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents abortion-rights advocates in court.

“The threat level is very high now,” Myrick said.

Kavanaugh never opined on Roe v. Wade directly during his tenure on the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. In his 2006 confirmation hearing for that position, though, he said he would follow Roe v. Wade as a “binding precedent” of the Supreme Court — which lower-court judges are required to do.

Abortion opponents are buoyed by the pick.

“Judge Kavanaugh is an experienced, principled jurist with a strong record of protecting life and constitutional rights,” said a statement from Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. She spearheaded support for Trump in his presidential campaign after he promised to appoint to the Supreme Court only justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Kennedy, by contrast, was a swing vote on abortion issues. He frequently sided with conservatives to uphold abortion restrictions. However, in key cases in 1992 and 2016, he sided with liberals to uphold Roe’s core finding that the right to abortion is part of a right to privacy that is embedded within the U.S. Constitution.

Even now, with Roe v. Wade’s protections in place, a woman’s ability to access abortion is heavily dependent on where she lives.

According to an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-rights think tank, 19 states adopted 63 new restrictions on abortion rights and access.

At the same time, 21 states adopted 58 measures last year intended to expand access to women’s reproductive health.

Since 2011, states have enacted nearly 1,200 separate abortion restrictions, according to Guttmacher, making these types of laws far more common.

As of now, four states — Louisiana, Mississippi and North and South Dakota — have what are known as abortion “trigger laws.” Those laws — passed long after Roe was handed down — would make abortion illegal if and when the Supreme Court were to say Roe is no more.

“They are designed to make abortion illegal immediately,” said Myrick.

Another dozen or so states still have pre-Roe abortion bans on the books.

Some have been formally blocked by the courts, but not repealed. Those bans could, at least in theory, be reinstated, although “someone would have to go into court and ask to lift that injunction,” said Myrick.

States could simply begin enforcing other bans that were never formally blocked, like one in Alabama that makes abortion providers subject to fines and up to a year in jail.

At the same time, Myrick said, “there are 20 states where abortion would probably remain safe and legal.”

The Path To The High Court

Several major challenges to state abortion laws are already in the judicial pipeline. One of these will have to get to the Supreme Court to enable a majority to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of what or when,” said Sarah Lipton-Lubet, vice president for reproductive health and rights at the National Partnership for Women and Families.

The cases fall into three major categories.

The first — and most likely type to result in the court taking a broad look at Roe v. Wade — are “gestational” bans that seek to restrict abortion at a certain point in pregnancy, said Lipton-Lubet.

Mississippi has a 15-week ban, currently being challenged in federal court. Louisiana enacted a similar ban, but it would take effect only if Mississippi’s law is upheld. Iowa earlier this spring passed a six-week ban, although that is being challenged in state court, not federal, under the Iowa Constitution.

The second category involves regulations on abortion providers.

One pending case, for instance, involves an Arkansas law that would effectively ban medication abortions. Finally, there are bans on specific procedures, including several in Texas, Arkansas and Alabama that would outlaw “dilation and evacuation” abortions, which are the most common type used in the second trimester of pregnancy.

Myrick and Lipton-Lubet agree that there is no way to predict which abortion case is likely to reach the high court first.

The case that’s actually closest to the Supreme Court, noted Myrick, is a challenge to an Indiana law that would outlaw abortion if the woman is seeking it for sex selection or because the fetus could be disabled. A federal appeals court found that law unconstitutional in April.

Many analysts also agree that even with the court’s likely philosophical shift, Roe v. Wade might not actually be overturned at all.

Instead, said Lipton-Lubet, a more conservative court could “just hollow it out” by allowing restrictive state laws to stand.

“The court cares about things like its own legitimacy,” said Myrick, “and how often a precedent has been upheld in the past.” Given that Roe’s central finding — that the decision to have an abortion falls under the constitutional right to privacy — has been upheld three times, even an anti-abortion court might be loath to overrule it in its entirety.


KHN’s coverage of women’s health care issues is supported in part by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

If High Court Reverses Roe V. Wade, 22 States Poised To Ban Abortion

What would the U.S. look like without Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion nationwide?

That’s the question now that President Donald Trump has chosen conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Reversing the landmark case would not automatically make abortion illegal across the country. Instead, it would return the decision about abortion legality to the states, where a patchwork of laws are already in place that render abortion more or less available, largely depending on individual states’ political leanings.

“We think there are 22 states likely to ban abortion without Roe,” due to a combination of factors including existing laws and regulation on the books and the positions of the governor and state legislature, said Amy Myrick, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents abortion-rights advocates in court.

“The threat level is very high now,” Myrick said.

Kavanaugh never opined on Roe v. Wade directly during his tenure on the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. In his 2006 confirmation hearing for that position, though, he said he would follow Roe v. Wade as a “binding precedent” of the Supreme Court — which lower-court judges are required to do.

Abortion opponents are buoyed by the pick.

“Judge Kavanaugh is an experienced, principled jurist with a strong record of protecting life and constitutional rights,” said a statement from Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. She spearheaded support for Trump in his presidential campaign after he promised to appoint to the Supreme Court only justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Kennedy, by contrast, was a swing vote on abortion issues. He frequently sided with conservatives to uphold abortion restrictions. However, in key cases in 1992 and 2016, he sided with liberals to uphold Roe’s core finding that the right to abortion is part of a right to privacy that is embedded within the U.S. Constitution.

Even now, with Roe v. Wade’s protections in place, a woman’s ability to access abortion is heavily dependent on where she lives.

According to an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-rights think tank, 19 states adopted 63 new restrictions on abortion rights and access.

At the same time, 21 states adopted 58 measures last year intended to expand access to women’s reproductive health.

Since 2011, states have enacted nearly 1,200 separate abortion restrictions, according to Guttmacher, making these types of laws far more common.

As of now, four states — Louisiana, Mississippi and North and South Dakota — have what are known as abortion “trigger laws.” Those laws — passed long after Roe was handed down — would make abortion illegal if and when the Supreme Court were to say Roe is no more.

“They are designed to make abortion illegal immediately,” said Myrick.

Another dozen or so states still have pre-Roe abortion bans on the books.

Some have been formally blocked by the courts, but not repealed. Those bans could, at least in theory, be reinstated, although “someone would have to go into court and ask to lift that injunction,” said Myrick.

States could simply begin enforcing other bans that were never formally blocked, like one in Alabama that makes abortion providers subject to fines and up to a year in jail.

At the same time, Myrick said, “there are 20 states where abortion would probably remain safe and legal.”

The Path To The High Court

Several major challenges to state abortion laws are already in the judicial pipeline. One of these will have to get to the Supreme Court to enable a majority to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of what or when,” said Sarah Lipton-Lubet, vice president for reproductive health and rights at the National Partnership for Women and Families.

The cases fall into three major categories.

The first — and most likely type to result in the court taking a broad look at Roe v. Wade — are “gestational” bans that seek to restrict abortion at a certain point in pregnancy, said Lipton-Lubet.

Mississippi has a 15-week ban, currently being challenged in federal court. Louisiana enacted a similar ban, but it would take effect only if Mississippi’s law is upheld. Iowa earlier this spring passed a six-week ban, although that is being challenged in state court, not federal, under the Iowa Constitution.

The second category involves regulations on abortion providers.

One pending case, for instance, involves an Arkansas law that would effectively ban medication abortions. Finally, there are bans on specific procedures, including several in Texas, Arkansas and Alabama that would outlaw “dilation and evacuation” abortions, which are the most common type used in the second trimester of pregnancy.

Myrick and Lipton-Lubet agree that there is no way to predict which abortion case is likely to reach the high court first.

The case that’s actually closest to the Supreme Court, noted Myrick, is a challenge to an Indiana law that would outlaw abortion if the woman is seeking it for sex selection or because the fetus could be disabled. A federal appeals court found that law unconstitutional in April.

Many analysts also agree that even with the court’s likely philosophical shift, Roe v. Wade might not actually be overturned at all.

Instead, said Lipton-Lubet, a more conservative court could “just hollow it out” by allowing restrictive state laws to stand.

“The court cares about things like its own legitimacy,” said Myrick, “and how often a precedent has been upheld in the past.” Given that Roe’s central finding — that the decision to have an abortion falls under the constitutional right to privacy — has been upheld three times, even an anti-abortion court might be loath to overrule it in its entirety.


KHN’s coverage of women’s health care issues is supported in part by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Must-Reads Of The Week From Brianna Labuskes

It’s been a week since a tweet went viral about an injured woman begging fellow train passengers not to call an ambulance for fear of the expense — and the story is still resonating. It was a snapshot of our reality, a shocking but relatable moment, where we all wondered: When is a $3,000 ride to the hospital worth it?

Here are some other stories — and yes, much longer than 140 or so characters — that will make you think as well.

Democrats are walking a tightrope as they strategize for the upcoming Supreme Court nominee battle. They have a base that’s raring for a knock-down, drag-out brawl on one side, and vulnerable red-state candidates that need protection on the other. Help might come from an unlikely source: the health law.

The Associated Press: Dems Want to Focus High Court Fight on Abortion, Health Care

As lawmakers gird for the fight even before a nominee is picked, President Donald Trump mulls over his short list. But we can expect a choice as early as Monday.

The Washington Post: Trump Narrows List for Supreme Court Pick, With Focus on Kavanaugh and Kethledge

“Death spiral” and “doomsday” predictions were thick on the ground last year when it came to the health law marketplaces, but the exchanges are proving to be surprisingly resilient to any attempts to kill them.

The New York Times: Obamacare Is Proving Hard to Kill

The Washington Post: More Americans Pay for ACA Health Plans, Despite Trump Administration Moves to Undercut Law

True to his word, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin announced the state is cutting benefits for Medicaid recipients as “an unfortunate consequence” of a judge’s ruling on Kentucky’s work requirements waiver. But, it might be a little more complicated than that: Some say the announcement is actually misleading and people will continue receiving limited coverage.

Modern Healthcare: Questions Arise Over Kentucky’s Medicaid Cuts Following Work Requirement Rejection

Is the convenience of getting prescription pills at your door worth handing over a ton of your personal health care information to Amazon? The company is in a league of its own when it comes to analyzing consumers’ shopping behaviors and preferences — and critics wonder what will happen when it is handed sensitive health care data.

The Wall Street Journal: Amazon’s PillPack Deal Gives It Access to Sensitive Health Data

In the miscellaneous file this week: the heartbreaking story of the unclaimed AIDS victims buried during the height of the crisis on a small island in New York; revelations about a persistent weakness in the nation’s food-safety system — with a lot of fingers pointing at the Food and Drug Administration; in an experiment right out of pulp fiction, scientists have shown that zapping the front part of someone’s brain can actually curb aggressive tendencies; and people are rushing to get their genes checked for dangerous mutations — but are failing to read the small print where it says those results could be completely and totally wrong.

The New York Times: Dead of AIDS and Forgotten in Potter’s Field

Politico: Victims Blame FDA for Food-Recall Failures

Stat: Can Zapping Brains Reduce Violence? Controversial Study Sees Potential

The New York Times: The Online Gene Test Finds a Dangerous Mutation. It May Well Be Wrong.

In news that cheered many a journalist in this newsroom (though not me, because I don’t drink coffee), a new study finds that you should indulge in that cup of joe in the morning: You might live longer for it.

Must-Reads Of The Week From Brianna Labuskes

It’s been a week since a tweet went viral about an injured woman begging fellow train passengers not to call an ambulance for fear of the expense — and the story is still resonating. It was a snapshot of our reality, a shocking but relatable moment, where we all wondered: When is a $3,000 ride to the hospital worth it?

Here are some other stories — and yes, much longer than 140 or so characters — that will make you think as well.

Democrats are walking a tightrope as they strategize for the upcoming Supreme Court nominee battle. They have a base that’s raring for a knock-down, drag-out brawl on one side, and vulnerable red-state candidates that need protection on the other. Help might come from an unlikely source: the health law.

The Associated Press: Dems Want to Focus High Court Fight on Abortion, Health Care

As lawmakers gird for the fight even before a nominee is picked, President Donald Trump mulls over his short list. But we can expect a choice as early as Monday.

The Washington Post: Trump Narrows List for Supreme Court Pick, With Focus on Kavanaugh and Kethledge

“Death spiral” and “doomsday” predictions were thick on the ground last year when it came to the health law marketplaces, but the exchanges are proving to be surprisingly resilient to any attempts to kill them.

The New York Times: Obamacare Is Proving Hard to Kill

The Washington Post: More Americans Pay for ACA Health Plans, Despite Trump Administration Moves to Undercut Law

True to his word, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin announced the state is cutting benefits for Medicaid recipients as “an unfortunate consequence” of a judge’s ruling on Kentucky’s work requirements waiver. But, it might be a little more complicated than that: Some say the announcement is actually misleading and people will continue receiving limited coverage.

Modern Healthcare: Questions Arise Over Kentucky’s Medicaid Cuts Following Work Requirement Rejection

Is the convenience of getting prescription pills at your door worth handing over a ton of your personal health care information to Amazon? The company is in a league of its own when it comes to analyzing consumers’ shopping behaviors and preferences — and critics wonder what will happen when it is handed sensitive health care data.

The Wall Street Journal: Amazon’s PillPack Deal Gives It Access to Sensitive Health Data

In the miscellaneous file this week: the heartbreaking story of the unclaimed AIDS victims buried during the height of the crisis on a small island in New York; revelations about a persistent weakness in the nation’s food-safety system — with a lot of fingers pointing at the Food and Drug Administration; in an experiment right out of pulp fiction, scientists have shown that zapping the front part of someone’s brain can actually curb aggressive tendencies; and people are rushing to get their genes checked for dangerous mutations — but are failing to read the small print where it says those results could be completely and totally wrong.

The New York Times: Dead of AIDS and Forgotten in Potter’s Field

Politico: Victims Blame FDA for Food-Recall Failures

Stat: Can Zapping Brains Reduce Violence? Controversial Study Sees Potential

The New York Times: The Online Gene Test Finds a Dangerous Mutation. It May Well Be Wrong.

In news that cheered many a journalist in this newsroom (though not me, because I don’t drink coffee), a new study finds that you should indulge in that cup of joe in the morning: You might live longer for it.