California has filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration over the proposed $600 million cut to public health funding. The lawsuit argues that the cuts, affecting California and three other Democratic states, are politically motivated and threaten essential public health services.

## California Sues Trump Over $600M Public Health Grants Cut

California is taking legal action against the Trump Administration in response to its plans to cut $600 million in public health funding from California and three other Democratic-led states.

Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit, which alleges that the funding cuts are based on "arbitrary political animus" and would cause irreparable harm to public health efforts in these states.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently informed Congress of its decision to terminate Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grants in California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota.

The attorneys general from these states filed a joint lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, claiming that the cuts violate constitutional principles by imposing retroactive conditions on federal funding.

These grants are critical for various public health initiatives, including workforce development and disease monitoring.

One key grant at risk is the Public Health Infrastructure Grant, which serves as a foundational support for public health systems nationwide.

California is set to lose $130 million from this grant, which funds over 400 jobs in areas with insufficient healthcare workers, and also supports the modernization of laboratory data systems and urgent dental care for underserved children.

The lawsuit contends that the funding cuts will lead to layoffs and weaken the state's preparedness for public health emergencies.

Additional grants under threat include $6 million earmarked for Los Angeles County to address health inequities and funding for HIV behavioral surveillance and social isolation initiatives among older LGBTQ adults.

The rationale provided by HHS for these cuts remains vague, with an agency spokesperson stating that the grants do not align with current agency priorities.

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi criticized this reasoning as a "transparent excuse" to punish states that do not align with the administration’s policies, emphasizing the potential detrimental effects on public health and safety.

California Democratic US Senator Adam Schiff described the cancellation of these grants as "dangerous" and "deliberate," asserting that the targeting of blue states by the Trump administration is both illegal and must cease.

He expressed concern that such actions jeopardize the health and safety of millions of Americans.

Health officials in Los Angeles have also voiced their apprehensions, noting that the cuts would significantly compromise their ability to respond to natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks.

They warned that the cancellation of federal investments could make communities less healthy and less prosperous in the face of ongoing public health challenges.

This is not the first instance of the Trump administration targeting public health funding.

Previous attempts to revoke billions in funding for states addressing public health threats, including COVID-19, were ruled unlawful by a federal judge in Rhode Island.

The current lawsuit seeks to prevent the cuts from taking effect, arguing that they threaten critical public health infrastructure and services across the affected states.

As the legal battle unfolds, the implications of these funding cuts remain a pressing concern for public health advocates, who argue that such actions undermine the essential services that support the health of vulnerable populations across the nation.

The outcome of the lawsuit could set a significant precedent regarding federal funding policies and their impact on state public health initiatives.

California Sues Trump Over $600M Public Health Grants Cut

california-sues-trump-over-600m-public-health-grants-cut

Recent scientific studies highlight the severe health risks posed by climate change, linking it to increased disease and mortality rates. This comes as former President Trump labels climate change concerns as a 'scam,' contradicting the overwhelming evidence from the scientific community.

## Trump Dismisses Climate Change Health Risks as Studies Warn of Dangers

The Trump administration recently revoked a significant scientific finding that identified climate change as a danger to public health, a stance that former President Donald Trump has labeled a "scam." Despite this, numerous scientific studies demonstrate that climate change presents documented and quantifiable threats to human health, contributing to thousands of deaths and illnesses annually in a warming world.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding, established in 2009 during the Obama administration, has served as the legal foundation for many regulations aimed at combating global warming.

Researchers assert that the rescission of this finding undermines public health initiatives and scientific integrity.

Dr Howard Frumkin, a professor emeritus of public health at the University of Washington, criticized the move, stating, "It boggles the mind that the administration is rescinding the endangerment finding; it's akin to insisting that the world is flat or denying that gravity is a thing".

A significant body of research indicates that climate change is increasingly dangerous.

For instance, a study published in the JAMA journal highlights that US heat-related deaths have more than doubled from 1,069 in 1999 to a record high of 2,325 in 2023.

Additionally, a 2021 study published in Nature Climate Change examined 732 locations across 43 countries, revealing that over one-third of heat-related deaths can be attributed to human-induced climate change.

This equates to approximately 9,700 deaths globally each year due to the combustion of fossil fuels.

Recent findings from Texas suggest that 2.2% of summer deaths between 2010 and 2023 can be linked to increased heat, further emphasizing the direct impact of climate change on health outcomes.

The surge in research on this topic is evident, with over 29,000 peer-reviewed studies investigating the intersection of climate and health since the government first recognized climate change as a public health threat.

Notably, more than 60% of these studies have been published in the last five years.

Dr Jonathan Patz, who leads the Center for Health, Energy, and Environmental Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, asserted that health risks from climate change are already evident.

He referenced the 2021 heat dome that resulted in over 600 fatalities in the Northwest and noted that climate attribution studies revealed the event was made 150-fold more likely due to climate change.

Research encompasses various health aspects, including illnesses and injuries that may not result in death but still significantly impact quality of life.

While some studies focus solely on heat-related mortality, others delve into broader health implications, including mental health strains and the displacement of populations due to extreme weather events.

A collaborative study from last year attempted to quantify the annual health costs of climate change, factoring in a range of climate-related deaths, including those from extreme weather events and diseases like malaria.

This research estimated that climate change could cost the global economy at least $10 billion annually, based on the EPA's valuation of human life.

Dr Lynn Goldman, dean emeritus at the George Washington University School of Public Health, emphasized that public health is not limited to disease prevention; it encompasses overall well-being.

She pointed out the growing number of individuals displaced by rising sea levels and extreme weather, stating, "We have only begun to understand the full consequences of a changing climate in terms of health".

While deaths linked to extreme heat are rising, the issue becomes more complex when considering cold-related deaths, which have been decreasing.

Currently, studies show that there are still 13 times more deaths from cold exposure than from heat exposure in the US However, projections suggest that if global temperatures rise by an additional 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius), the balance between heat and cold-related mortality will shift dramatically, leading to a significant increase in overall temperature-related deaths if society fails to adapt to these changes.

In summary, the scientific consensus strongly supports the notion that climate change poses serious health risks, despite contrasting views from political figures.

As research continues to unfold, the implications for public health and policy remain critical areas of focus.

Trump Dismisses Climate Change Health Risks as Studies Warn of Dangers

trump-dismisses-climate-change-health-risks-as-studies-warn-of-dangers

A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration must continue funding public health grants in Colorado, preventing the loss of approximately $22 million. This decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Colorado and three other states aimed at blocking the administration's funding cuts.

## Federal Judge Orders Continued Public Health Funding for Colorado

A federal judge has intervened to prevent the Trump administration from cutting approximately $600 million in public health grants affecting Colorado and three other states.

US District Court Judge Manish Shah issued a temporary restraining order on Thursday, ensuring that funding will continue for at least two weeks while the case unfolds.

The lawsuit was initiated by Colorado, California, Minnesota, and Illinois, all led by Democratic governors.

They argued that the proposed cuts would cause "irreparable harm" to essential public health services in their states.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser emphasized the importance of these funds, stating that the state could lose about $22 million in ongoing funding, along with an expected $4 million in future allocations.

The grants in question are provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and are critical for various public health initiatives, including disease surveillance, testing capacity, and workforce development.

Jill Hunsaker Ryan, the executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, expressed concern over the potential impact of losing these funds on health services that are vital for controlling sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

The Trump administration justified the funding cuts by stating that the grants did not align with the CDC's current priorities, raising questions about the criteria used for such decisions.

The affected states' attorneys general contended that the cuts were politically motivated, aiming to penalize states that have not aligned with the administration's policies.

Weiser characterized the funding cuts as a "lawless" action intended to target states perceived as adversaries by the Trump administration.

During the court proceedings, arguments centered around whether the administration followed due process in deciding to cut the funding.

Judge Shah noted that the states had a strong likelihood of success in proving that the federal government violated the law through its funding cut plans.

As a result, the temporary restraining order will remain in effect for 14 days, allowing for further deliberation on the matter.

This ruling is part of a broader trend in which Colorado has engaged in numerous legal battles against the Trump administration's policies.

Since President Trump's inauguration, the state has joined 38 lawsuits challenging various executive orders and actions.

These legal actions reflect ongoing tensions between the state and the federal government, particularly regarding issues such as immigration and healthcare policy.

Weiser's office has indicated that the temporary restraining order is a crucial step in safeguarding public health funding and maintaining essential services for Colorado residents.

The state will continue to assess the potential impact of the funding cuts during this period and seek ways to mitigate harm to public health initiatives if the cuts are ultimately upheld.

As the legal battle continues, the court's decision has provided a temporary reprieve for public health programs that rely heavily on federal funding.

The outcome of this case may set a significant precedent for how federal funding is allocated to states in the future, particularly in politically charged contexts.

Federal Judge Orders Continued Public Health Funding for Colorado

federal-judge-orders-continued-public-health-funding-for-colorado

Minnesota's Attorney General Keith Ellison has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for cutting more than $42 million in public health grants. The lawsuit argues that these cuts threaten vital public health services and violate constitutional protections.

## Minnesota Sues Over CDC's $42 Million Public Health Funding Cuts

Minnesota has joined a coalition of states in a lawsuit against the Trump administration for its decision to cut over $600 million in public health grants, which includes more than $42 million specifically targeted at Minnesota.

Attorney General Keith Ellison announced the lawsuit, asserting that these cuts are unlawful and damaging to the state's public health infrastructure.

The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, argues that the cuts are politically motivated and violate constitutional protections.

The funding in question is crucial for various public health initiatives, including disease tracking, data modernization, and emergency preparedness.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grants have been instrumental in supporting public health efforts across Minnesota.

According to the complaint, the cuts would lead to the layoff of hundreds of public health professionals and hamper efforts to maintain and improve disease data systems essential for tracking outbreaks.

Ellison criticized the cuts, stating, "These actions by the Trump administration serve to inflict pain and suffering on the people he is supposed to serve." He emphasized the need for public health funding to safeguard the well-being of Minnesotans, especially in the context of ongoing health challenges.

The lawsuit also highlights the potential impacts of the funding cuts, which could affect critical programs that support the care and health of vulnerable populations, including those dealing with HIV and other communicable diseases.

The Public Health Infrastructure Grant, considered the backbone of public health, is among the most significant funds at risk.

In addition to Minnesota, the lawsuit includes California, Colorado, and Illinois, all of which have similarly faced funding cuts from the CDC.

Together, the states are challenging the arbitrary nature of the funding decisions made by the administration, which they argue are based on political animus rather than public health needs.

The coalition of states is seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the implementation of these cuts, emphasizing that the abrupt termination of funding not only violates the law but also puts public health at risk across multiple states.

Ellison’s office noted that the funding cuts could lead to significant setbacks in health care access and public health monitoring, particularly as states continue to deal with the ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic and other health crises.

As the lawsuit progresses, the coalition of states aims to hold the federal government accountable for its commitments to public health funding, reinforcing the necessity of these resources for maintaining health services and protecting communities in Minnesota and beyond.

The outcome of this legal action could have far-reaching implications for public health funding nationwide, especially in states governed by Democrats, which have often been at the center of political disputes regarding federal funding allocations.

In conclusion, Minnesota's legal challenge against the CDC's funding cuts underscores the ongoing battle over public health resources amid a politically charged landscape.

The states are united in their effort to ensure that necessary funding remains intact to support vital health initiatives and protect their populations.

Minnesota Sues Over CDC's $42 Million Public Health Funding Cuts

minnesota-sues-over-cdc-s-42-million-public-health-funding-cuts

Colorado lawmakers are addressing the issue of 'ghost networks' in mental health care through new legislation aimed at improving access to services. House Bill 1002 requires insurance companies to verify provider listings and includes measures to expand the mental health workforce.

## Colorado Lawmakers Tackle 'Ghost Networks' to Improve Mental Health Access

Colorado lawmakers are making strides to enhance access to mental health care by targeting the issue of "ghost networks," which refers to providers that are inaccurately listed in health insurance databases.

These networks often prevent patients from receiving timely care, as many listed providers are unavailable, out of service, or no longer accepting new patients.

The initiative is encapsulated in House Bill 1002, which mandates that commercial insurance carriers must confirm the status of mental and behavioral health care providers who have not submitted claims for at least a year.

This verification process aims to ensure that patients have access to accurate provider directories, thereby reducing the frustration of navigating false listings.

The bill also seeks to expand the mental health workforce by allowing pre-licensed providers to join insurance networks and receive reimbursement for services rendered under supervision.

This move is particularly significant given the state's pressing need for mental health professionals; Colorado currently faces a shortage of over 4,000 positions in this field.

Lindsay Gilchrist, a primary sponsor of the bill, emphasized the importance of addressing the barriers that lead many Coloradans to seek out-of-network therapists.

She noted that patients are eleven times more likely to go out of network for mental health services compared to other medical specialties, resulting in higher out-of-pocket costs and delayed care.

Kyle Brown pointed out that all of Colorado's rural counties are grappling with workforce shortages in mental health care, which exacerbates access issues for residents.

The increasing demand for mental health services, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, has made these legislative changes even more urgent.

Health advocates have praised the bill as a significant step toward alleviating the burden of trial and error that patients often face when trying to find suitable care.

Alexis Althop of Healthier Colorado highlighted that timely removal of inaccurate providers from networks will create opportunities for eager professionals who are ready to accept new patients.

Amanda Carlson from the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative added that the challenges of navigating the health care system are particularly pronounced for mental health services, where patients frequently encounter obstacles due to ghost networks.

The bill's passage, which received a favorable vote of 10-2, reflects a growing recognition of the need for improved access to mental health care across the state.

Looking ahead, the success of House Bill 1002 may hinge on the effective implementation of its provisions and the continued commitment of lawmakers to address the persistent challenges in mental health access.

With Colorado's mental health crisis still looming, the initiative represents a proactive effort to ensure that residents receive the care they need without unnecessary barriers.

In summary, Colorado lawmakers are taking significant steps to combat the challenges posed by ghost networks in mental health care by introducing legislation that aims to enhance provider directory accuracy and expand the mental health workforce.

This initiative is crucial in ensuring that all Coloradans have timely access to the mental health services they require.

Colorado Lawmakers Tackle 'Ghost Networks' to Improve Mental Health Access

colorado-lawmakers-tackle-ghost-networks-to-improve-mental-health-access

A federal judge has intervened to stop the Trump administration from cutting approximately $600 million in public health grants to Colorado and three other Democratic-led states. The funding cuts, which health officials warn could severely impact crucial health programs, were challenged in court by state attorneys general.

## Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Public Health Funding Cuts to Colorado

A federal judge has intervened to halt the Trump administration's plans to cut around $600 million in public health grants to Colorado, California, Illinois, and Minnesota, arguing that the cuts violate constitutional protections against retroactive funding conditions.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had announced its intention to withhold these funds, which are critical for various public health initiatives, particularly those aimed at supporting LGBTQ+ communities and addressing health disparities among minorities.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser informed that some grants could have been terminated imminently, prompting swift legal action from the states involved.

The lawsuit asserts that these funding cuts are retaliatory measures against states that oppose Trump's immigration policies, suggesting a politically motivated agenda behind the decision.

Health officials in Colorado have expressed grave concerns regarding the potential loss of funding for vital programs such as HIV prevention and other health services that significantly benefit marginalized communities.

In a statement, Weiser emphasized the importance of these grants, stating, "These funds are essential for maintaining public health infrastructure and ensuring that vulnerable populations receive the care they need." The cuts, he argues, could lead to severe repercussions for health services that already operate under strained conditions due to the ongoing pandemic.

The lawsuit claims that the decision to cut funding was made without proper legislative process and lacks legal justification.

It seeks to prevent the administration from implementing these funding cuts, which would otherwise dismantle critical health services across the states involved.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker criticized the funding cuts as "a slap in the face" to public health leaders, highlighting the detrimental impact this could have on public health programs amidst an ongoing health crisis.

The proposed cuts particularly target initiatives that focus on HIV prevention and care, which are crucial for combating rising infection rates among adolescents and ethnic minorities in cities like Chicago and Los Angeles.

In addition to the public health funding, the Trump administration's actions are also poised to affect transportation funding across the same states, further compounding the financial strain on state resources.

The courts have previously intervened in similar situations, blocking the administration's attempts to restrict federal funds for lower-income social service programs.

As the legal battles continue, the outcome will be closely watched, with significant implications for public health initiatives and the broader political landscape.

The states involved maintain that they will fight to protect the health and well-being of their residents against what they see as an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government.

The situation remains fluid as further developments unfold, and state officials continue to prepare for potential impacts should the funding cuts proceed without judicial intervention.

The judge's ruling is seen as a temporary victory for the states, but the ongoing legal struggle reflects the deepening divides over public health policy and federal governance in the US.

For now, Colorado and its allies remain vigilant, advocating for the restoration of necessary funding to support critical health services and protect vulnerable populations from the adverse consequences of these cuts.

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Public Health Funding Cuts to Colorado

federal-judge-blocks-trump-s-public-health-funding-cuts-to-colorado

Jad Tarifi, a former Google executive, argues that pursuing advanced degrees in law and medicine may no longer be worthwhile due to the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence. As AI technologies evolve, he suggests that traditional education paths could lead students to waste years on degrees that may quickly become irrelevant.

## Ex-Google Exec Warns: Law and Medicine Degrees May Be Obsolete

Jad Tarifi, the founder of Google's first generative AI team, has raised significant concerns about the future of higher education, particularly in fields like law and medicine.

He argues that the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) could render these advanced degrees obsolete, suggesting that students may end up "throwing away" years of their lives pursuing them.

Tarifi, who holds a PhD in AI himself, contends that by the time students complete their degrees, AI will have advanced to a point where the skills learned in traditional educational settings will be outdated.

He notes that even AI applications in fields like robotics will likely be resolved well before students finish their studies.

"AI itself is going to be gone by the time you finish a PhD," Tarifi told Business Insider.

He believes that time could be better spent exploring more niche areas connected to AI or even skipping formal education altogether.

He emphasizes that "higher education as we know it is on the verge of becoming obsolete," advocating for the cultivation of unique perspectives and emotional awareness over accumulating credentials.

The concerns raised by Tarifi echo sentiments shared by other tech leaders.

For example, Mark Zuckerberg has expressed doubts about the effectiveness of college education in preparing students for modern job markets.

He commented on a podcast that "I'm not sure that college is preparing people for the jobs that they need to have today," highlighting the pressing issues of student debt and the necessity for change in educational paradigms.

Moreover, OpenAI's CEO Sam Altman has asserted that AI models, particularly GPT-5, can perform tasks comparable to those of PhD-level experts.

He remarked, "GPT-5 really feels like talking to a PhD-level expert in any topic," underscoring the rapid advancements AI has made.

Tarifi's warnings also extend to the medical field, where he argues that medical education is heavily reliant on outdated memorization techniques.

"In the current medical system, what you learn in medical school is so outdated," he stated, suggesting that the lengthy commitment to obtaining a medical degree may not be worth the effort given the pace of AI advancements.

While there is still a robust pipeline from PhD to high-paying jobs in the tech sector—70% of AI doctoral students are now taking private sector jobs post-graduation—this trend has sparked fears among academic leaders about a potential "brain drain." They worry that the allure of high salaries in tech could deter scholars from contributing to academia, which is essential for nurturing the next generation.

Henry Hoffmann, chair of the University of Chicago's computer science department, noted that the financial incentives for PhD students are increasingly compelling.

One student recently left their program to accept a "high six-figure" offer from ByteDance, demonstrating the growing disparity between academic pursuits and corporate opportunities.

As the landscape of education and employment continues to evolve, Tarifi's perspective encourages young people to rethink their paths.

Instead of pursuing traditional degrees, he suggests focusing on interpersonal skills and self-awareness, which he believes will be crucial in a future increasingly dominated by AI.

In summary, as AI technologies progress at an unprecedented rate, the relevance of advanced degrees in law and medicine is under scrutiny.

Tarifi's insights reflect a broader conversation about the future of education and the skills that will truly matter in a rapidly changing job market.

Ex-Google Exec Warns: Law and Medicine Degrees May Be Obsolete

ex-google-exec-warns-law-and-medicine-degrees-may-be-obsolete

The ongoing debate surrounding violent video games centers on their potential impact on aggression and behavior, especially among youth. While some studies suggest a link between violent gameplay and aggressive tendencies, others highlight the complexity of factors influencing behavior. This article explores the arguments for and against the regulation of video game content and its implications for society.

## The Debate on Violent Video Games: Effects on Behavior and Society

The discussion around violent video games has intensified, especially following landmark legal decisions and widespread public concern regarding their effects on behavior.

Researchers have long investigated whether exposure to violent video games may lead to increased aggression in players, particularly among youth.

This article delves into the arguments on both sides of the debate, examining the evidence, implications for society, and potential regulatory measures.

Studies have shown that violent video games are prevalent in the lives of children and adolescents, raising concerns about their long-term effects on behavior.

According to research, exposure to violence in various media, including video games, can increase the risk of aggressive behavior, akin to the effects of growing up in a violent environment.

This correlation has prompted discussions about the potential for violent video games to serve as a risk factor for aggression and to reinforce aggressive behaviors through social learning.

Conversely, some scholars argue that the relationship between violent video games and real-life aggression is not straightforward.

Dr Cheryl Olson, in her analysis of a Supreme Court ruling, noted that youth violence has actually declined in recent years, even as violent video game usage has surged.

This observation raises questions about the validity of claims linking video game violence to real-world aggression.

Factors such as socioeconomic status may also play a crucial role; for instance, affluent youth may have more access to video games and simultaneously engage in fewer violent interactions due to safer environments.

Longitudinal studies have produced mixed results in assessing the impact of violent video games on aggression.

A significant study comparing players of violent games like Grand Theft Auto V to those playing non-violent games found no conclusive evidence that violent gameplay directly caused increased aggression.

Other research has suggested that personality traits, such as narcissism, may influence the choice of violent video games and correlate with verbal aggression, indicating that individual differences could be more significant than the games themselves.

Despite the lack of consensus, many researchers agree that the impact of violent video games cannot be entirely dismissed.

For example, a meta-analysis indicated that repeated exposure to violent media can lead to desensitization and an increase in aggressive thoughts and behaviors over time.

Children are particularly susceptible to these effects as they develop their understanding of social norms and acceptable behavior.

The role of parental control and regulation is another critical aspect of this debate.

The establishment of rating systems such as the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) has aimed to prevent children from accessing violent content.

However, with the rise of digital distribution, many argue that these systems are outdated and ineffective.

A significant percentage of parents do not utilize available parental controls, allowing minors easy access to inappropriate content.

Thus, there is a growing call for stricter regulations and more effective tools to protect youth from exposure to violent video games.

Importantly, violence in video games is just one of many factors contributing to aggressive behavior.

Experts argue that a holistic view is necessary, considering the interplay of various elements such as family environment, peer influence, and individual psychological traits.

The general aggression model (GAM) highlights how aggression is influenced by social, cognitive, and biological factors, suggesting that media violence is one piece of a larger puzzle.

In conclusion, the debate over violent video games remains complex and multifaceted.

While there is evidence suggesting a link between violent video game exposure and aggression, it is crucial to consider the broader context of individual and societal factors.

As technology continues to evolve, so too must our approaches to understanding and regulating video game content.

Continued research and dialogue will be essential in addressing the challenges posed by violent video games and their implications for society.

The Debate on Violent Video Games: Effects on Behavior and Society

the-debate-on-violent-video-games-effects-on-behavior-and-society

The Trump administration's proposal to rescind the 2009 EPA endangerment finding has sparked controversy as officials assert that climate change does not endanger public health. Critics argue that this move ignores overwhelming scientific evidence linking climate change to severe health risks.

## Trump Administration Claims Climate Change Doesn't Threaten Health

The Trump administration has taken a significant step towards reshaping US climate policy by proposing to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This finding, which classified greenhouse gases as pollutants that endanger public health, has been a cornerstone for many climate regulations under the Clean Air Act.

The administration argues that the previous conclusions regarding the health risks of climate change are exaggerated and unfounded.

Topic

Health

Recent articles:

Trump Dismisses Climate Change Health Risks as Studies Warn of Dangers

Federal Judge Orders Continued Public Health Funding for Colorado

Minnesota Sues Over CDC's $42 Million Public Health Funding Cuts

Colorado Lawmakers Tackle 'Ghost Networks' to Improve Mental Health Access

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Public Health Funding Cuts to Colorado

Ex-Google Exec Warns: Law and Medicine Degrees May Be Obsolete

The Debate on Violent Video Games: Effects on Behavior and Society

Trump Administration Claims Climate Change Doesn't Threaten Health

Trump Administration Cuts Public Health Funding in Colorado

Experts Warn HHS Vaccine Policy Changes Violate Law and Endanger Health

Trump Administration Plans $600M Cut to Public Health Funds in Four States

Carson Residents Win Millions in Lawsuit Over Channel Odor

Hims & Hers Stock Plummets After FDA Targets Compounded GLP-1s

New World Screwworm Outbreak Expands into Northern Mexico

Former FDA Chief Critiques HHS for Policy-Based Evidence Approach

Tracking Sleep with Apple Health: A Comprehensive Guide

Climate Change Could Cause 500,000 More Malaria Deaths in Africa by 2050

CDC Health Alerts Drop Leaves Doctors 'Flying Blind'

SC Senator Proposes Bill to Eliminate Religious Exemptions for Measles Vaccine