Advocates gather outside the Hippodrome Theater in Richmond, Virginia, this summer to protest Medicaid cuts. Medicaid covers nearly two-thirds of Black babies’ births in the U.S., federal data shows, and congressional cuts to the program are already limiting reproductive health care in Black and low-income communities. (Photo by Bert Shepherd/Courtesy of Protect Our Care PAC)

At least 90% of Black people surveyed for a new poll said Medicaid is important to them or their families, and more than half either have public insurance or a family member who relies on the program. 

“Medicaid is critical for so many things with regards to making sure that we’re healthy and addressing health disparities. By losing it or weakening it, it is just going to disproportionately harm our communities,” said Regina Davis Moss, the president and CEO of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda. 

Davis Moss’ organization commissioned the 10-state poll, which includes views from California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Nonpartisan research firm PerryUndem conducted the survey between May and June and interviewed 500 Black adults in each state. 

The findings, shared exclusively with States Newsroom, show a significant number of Black people who want children are not yet planning to have them due to cost and health care concerns. 

Results were released just as several Planned Parenthood clinics that served Black patients with low incomes closed after a law took effect blocking certain reproductive health clinics affiliated with abortion providers from receiving Medicaid reimbursements until July 2026.

Louisiana’s Planned Parenthood clinics, which never offered abortions in their decades of service, closed on Sept. 30. Sixty percent of the Baton Rouge and New Orleans patients were Black and most have Medicaid insurance, States Newsroom reported. One of two Planned Parenthood locations in Memphis, where more than 60% of the population is Black, temporarily closed its doors during the first week of October due to Medicaid cuts, Tennessee Lookout reported. 

“Proximity is important, and the fact that these clinics have to close means that individuals needing their services will go without,” said Danielle Atkinson, executive director of Mothering Justice, a national advocacy group based in Michigan. 

Four Planned Parenthood clinics closed in her state this spring after the Trump administration cut millions of Title X family-planning funding, Michigan Advance reported.  

“They’ll go without STI testing. They’ll go without cancer screening. They’ll go without counseling,” Atkinson said. 

The ban on Medicaid for some reproductive health providers was part of a larger reconciliation package that is also set to slash nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid more broadly over the next decade. 

“Medicaid is a lifeline for Black women, girls and gender-expansive people,” Davis Moss said. The state and federal program covers nearly two-thirds of Black births, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and almost half of all births nationwide. 

Maternal health advocates are bracing for the impact of Medicaid cuts on labor and delivery units, which have already been closing at a rapid pace over the last 10 years, especially in rural communities. A maternity ward in northeast Georgia, one of the states included in the poll, will close at the end of the month partially due to Medicaid cuts, Georgia Recorder reported in September. 

Findings from the In Our Own Voice poll also show that Black people of reproductive age — 18 to 44 in this case — want children but are not planning to have them, citing high costs of living. 

California had the biggest disparity of 28 percentage points: 56% want children but only 28% plan to have them. 

“I believe some of the reasons they said are not new issues that we are grappling with, but it’s deeply concerning because they are being exacerbated in this current administration,” Davis Moss said. 

At least 69% of Black people polled in each of the 10 states said they worry about being able to take care of children or more children than they already have, while at least 67% cited housing costs and 57% pointed to child care expenses. 

“In a lot of these states, the cost of child care is more expensive than a year of tuition, which is such a barrier for people to be able to: one, go into the workforce, two, have that early intervention and early education that really sets their children up for success, and three, give individuals and families the opportunity to go and explore careers and learning opportunities,” Atkinson said. 

Abortion restrictions played a factor in family planning, too, though in smaller numbers. At least 45% said they don’t want children because they or their loved one could die from pregnancy, while 43% worry about miscarriage care and 30% said abortion bans are stopping them from growing their families. 

Three of the states included in the poll — Florida, Georgia and North Carolina — have abortion bans stricter than 20 weeks. Voters in California, Michigan and Ohio approved reproductive rights amendments in recent years that secured the right to an abortion up to fetal viability, while Nevada and Virginia may have similar safeguards in place after the midterms. 

A majority of voters in each of the 10 states say abortion should be legal in all or most cases and at least 78% say Black women should make the decisions about pregnancy that’s best for them. 

Overall, at least half of Black adults polled are struggling with economic security. Black women of reproductive age were more likely to expect less safety and security throughout the rest of Republican President Donald Trump’s second term than Black men. 

“We’re getting ready to celebrate our 250 years, and all the things that we have fought for and all these things that we have gained in terms of civil rights and human rights, they are under threat like never before,” Davis Moss said. 

Electric power lines. Clean energy projects, including several that involve improving the efficiency of electric power grids, are at risk of losing federal funding that was promised during the Biden administration. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

More than $130 million in Wisconsin clean energy-related projects are at risk as the Trump administration moves to cut up to $24 billion in projects originally approved by the Biden administration.

The projects are on a list that covers three groups of cuts proposed in May, on Oct. 2 and this past week. The online news outlet Semafor reported the third set of proposed cuts, which alone totals $12 billion, on Tuesday, Oct. 7, and published a link to a list that covers all three groups.

“However, it’s not clear whether, or when, the full list of cancellations will be enacted, or if President Donald Trump is instead looking to use them as leverage in negotiations over the [federal government] shutdown,” Semafor reported.

The Wisconsin grants on the list are a mix of projects that help boost energy efficiency, including supporting the expansion of energy storage battery systems. One potential casualty is more than $1 million to prepare young people to enter apprenticeships in the skilled trades.

Clean energy holds the promise of addressing air pollution and climate change as well as revitalizing the state’s industrial base, said John Imes, director of the Wisconsin Environmental Initiative (WEI), a nonprofit that advocates policies benefiting the environment and the economy.

“These are all win-win that all of us want regardless of our political affiliation,” Imes told the Wisconsin Examiner. “This is all bottom-line stuff.”

Rolling back projects that enhance cleaner and more efficient use of energy will likely increase the cost of energy, Imes said.

“It means higher electric bills, higher energy bills, fewer choices and lost jobs,” he said. “We’re going to lose momentum.”

Battery power and rural grid upgrade

The two largest Wisconsin projects on the Department of Energy list of targets involve one company, Alliant Energy. They account for more than half of the Wisconsin funds targeted for cancellation.

The projects are being undertaken by Alliant’s Wisconsin Power & Light unit. They include a $50 million grant for upgrading the rural electrical grid and $30 million for a power storage system using a technology based on carbon dioxide this is to be built near Portage, Wisconsin.

“We understand the Administration and Department of Energy (DOE) are working through their budgets and have notified some businesses of changes to grant announcements,” said Cindy Tomlinson, Alliant senior manager for communications, in an email message last week.

“At this time, we have not been made aware of any changes to the announced DOE grants for our Alliant Energy projects,” Tomlinson said. “We are optimistic the value and viability of these projects is clear and that they will remain fully funded. These projects deliver economic and customer benefits.”

The electrical grid upgrade project received a conditional commitment from the energy department in December, but a final award agreement hasn’t been executed, Tomlinson said, and no federal funds have been received or spent.

The federal grants accounted for about one-third of the total planned investment for each project. If the grid upgrade grant is canceled, the project is still expected to go forward, Tomlinson said, “however at a slower, more gradual pace than the fast, concentrated fashion outlined in our grant application.”

Other potentially affected grants include $28.7 million for Johnson Controls, based in the Milwaukee suburb of Glendale, to support the company in its expansion of heat pump manufacturing.

The grant’s total value was $33 million at the time it was awarded to the company. According to USAspending.gov, a federal site that tracks the status of federal outlays, the business has received $4.4 million of the total.

Johnson Controls announced the grant in November 2023, part of an investment to scale up heat pump manufacturing at plants in Texas, Kansas and Pennsylvania and increase production by 200%, the company said at the time.

The company did not respond to inquiries Thursday and Friday by email and by telephone about the status of the grant or its planned heat pump manufacturing expansion.

Energy efficiency and innovation

Another Wisconsin recipient with grants on the list that are slated for elimination is Slipstream, a Madison-based nonprofit that provides consulting services on energy efficiency and innovation.

“We’re trying to make our energy systems more efficient and better so everybody’s paying less for energy,” said Scott Hackel, Slipstream’s vice president for research.

Hackel said Slipstream is working with other organizations on the list of targeted projects, and some of those organizations have been notified of grant terminations.

Slipstream also has two direct grants on the list, but has not received any notification that those grants are being terminated, Hackel said.

Slipstream had been awarded $5.2 million for work on equipping buildings with technology that enables them to automatically manage their power demand — reducing the building’s electrical load when demand on the grid is high and amping up the load when broader demand eases.

The organization is in the middle of a project implementing demand management technology in a group of buildings. The information gained from that test could be used to develop incentive programs for building owners to adopt that kind of technology, Hackel said.

If that gets cut off before it’s finished, other buildings in Wisconsin “would not have this example to look to,” he said.

A second grant awarded to the organization, $4 million, is to be used to train inspectors, building designers and others in how to effectively comply with and make the best use of building codes, particularly energy codes.

“Everything we’re doing is trying to make buildings and homes more affordable to live in with lower utility bills,” Hackel said. “If we’re not able to do that, that’s also a cost to people in Wisconsin.”

Two Universities of Wisconsin grants, one for $10 million and the other for $2.9 million, are on the list. Both involve projects to test technology innovations, according to the federal grant information documents.  

‘Electric city’ upgrades and a job-training program

A grant for the city of Kaukauna, Wisconsin, to install battery storage and make related electrical grid upgrades is also on the list. The original grant totaled $3 million, and so far $59,362 has been paid out, according to USAspending.gov, leaving $2.95 million that could be canceled.

The storage system is to bolster Kaukauna’s hydroelectric power generation operation, which dates to 1913 and led to the community’s adoption of “Electric City” as its nickname.

“Collateral damage from the Trump administration’s remarkably poor governance record continues to collect, this time in Kaukauna,” said Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson. “I can’t think of something more insulting than making the electric grid of a place known as ‘Electric City’ less safe or efficient.”

Also on the list is the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, a Milwaukee nonprofit that provides training and certification to prepare people to enter apprenticeships in the skilled trades. WRTP was awarded a $1.5 million grant for training in skills related to transportation electrification. So far $112,470 has been paid out. 

Dan Bukiewicz, head of the Milwaukee Building Trades Council and co-chair of the WRTP board of directors, said that the board hasn’t been notified that its grant might be at risk of being taken away by the Trump administration.

“I won’t say we’re surprised,” however, Bukiewicz said. “They’re just trying to roll back a lot of the green energy and infrastructure [investments]. … It’s trying to make time stand still, and it just won’t if the United States is going to compete globally.”

WRTP students typically come from underserved communities and are the most in need, Bukiewicz said. The program’s training emphasizes job safety, introduces students to the construction industry, equips them with basic skills that an apprenticeship will build on, and acquaints them with how the industry and the technology are changing and where they might find a place that suits them.

If the federal grant is pulled, “these dollars are irreplaceable,” Bukiewicz said. “It’s not just taking money away and eliminating classes. It’s eliminating opportunities and a chance for generational change for people who really need it.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., joined by President Donald Trump, delivers an announcement on “significant medical and scientific findings for America’s children” in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Sept. 22, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Federal health officials suggested a link between the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy as a risk for autism, although many health agencies have noted inconclusive results in the research. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans disapprove of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s job performance and the federal government’s evolving vaccine policy, according to a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan health organization KFF.

In addition, the vast majority of those surveyed have heard the unproven claims made by President Donald Trump, Kennedy and others in late September that taking acetaminophen, also known as Tylenol, during pregnancy could be one possible environmental factor in a child later being diagnosed with autism.

A total of 77% of the people KFF polled said they knew of the statements, though whether people believe the claims, which have yet to be established by the medical community, varied.

Only 4% of those surveyed said it is “definitely true” that taking Tylenol during pregnancy increases the risk of the child developing autism, and 35% said the claim is “definitely false.” Thirty percent said it is “probably true” and 30% said it is “probably false.”

Combined, 65% said it’s either probably or definitely false to say that taking acetaminophen during pregnancy increases the chance of a child developing autism, a complex disorder that experts believe is the result of both genetic and environmental factors.

When broken down by political party, 86% of Democrats, 67% of independents and 43% of Republicans said the claims were either probably or definitely false.

The survey shows 59% somewhat or strongly disapprove of how Kennedy is handling his new role at the top of the country’s public health infrastructure.

The level of support changes considerably depending on political party affiliation, with 86% of Democrats, 64% of independents and 26% of Republicans disapproving.

A slightly higher number, 62%, either somewhat or strongly disapprove of the United States’ vaccine policy.A similar trend emerged when those polled were broken up by political parties. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats, 67% of independents and 31% of Republicans somewhat or strongly disapproved of vaccine policy.

The survey shows a declining share of Americans have faith in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide trusted information about vaccines, compared with previous KFF polls in September 2023 and earlier this year.

A total of 63% of respondents two years ago trusted the CDC on vaccines, but that has declined to 50%.

Democrats’ faith in the CDC’s vaccine recommendations has dropped from 88% two years ago to 64%, independents have gone from 61% to 47% and Republicans have remained relatively steady, only going from 40% to 39%.

Across political parties, a person’s own doctor as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association remain broadly trusted for vaccine information.Eighty-three percent said they trust their doctor or health care provider, 69% believed information from the American Academy of Pediatrics and 64% had faith in the AMA.

The poll of 1,334 adults took place from Sept. 23 to Sept. 29 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full survey. Questions broken down by a person’s political ideology had a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A new bill in the state legislature would ban hemp-derived THC products in Wisconsin. Producers say it would destroy their businesses.

The post Wisconsin lawmakers and hemp producers both want regulations on THC products. They disagree on how. appeared first on WPR.

The front entrance of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 3, 2023. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Judges on a federal appeals court panel seemed skeptical that the Trump administration’s expanded use of a fast-track deportation procedure didn’t violate the due-process rights of immigrants during oral arguments Monday.

The hearing before judges Patricia A. Millett, Neomi Rao and J. Michelle Childs of the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals comes after a lower court struck down the expedited removal policy used to bypass judicial review in the quick removals of migrants far from the southern border. The expanded policy is a pillar in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. 

“This is a critical tool of immigration enforcement,” U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign said. “This is not a small deal. The ability to conduct expedited removal is one of the executive’s most important tools for maintaining border control and not being overwhelmed.”

For decades, presidential administrations have applied expedited removal to immigrants apprehended at the southern border who cannot prove they have remained in the country for more than two years. If they cannot produce that proof, those immigrants are then subject to deportation without appearing before an immigration judge.

In January, the Trump administration expanded expedited removal to apply nationwide, rather than only within 100 miles of the southern border.

Childs said the Trump administration can still use expedited removal, along with other enforcement tools, for its immigration policy.

“So what are you losing, other than (applying expedited removal to) millions of other people, to go inward into the U.S.?” Childs asked.

Former President Barack Obama appointed Millett, former President Joe Biden appointed Childs, and President Donald Trump appointed Rao in his first term.

Policy lacks procedure

Arguing on behalf of the immigration advocacy group that brought the suit, Make the Road New York, attorney Anand Balakrishnan said the new policy “brings to bear against this new class of people an entire system of expedited removal that is not procedurally adequate.”

The judges also questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s expanded use of expedited removal. 

Ensign argued that the Trump administration doesn’t believe the expansion violates due-process rights because those affected are not U.S. citizens.

“It has been well-established that aliens who are not lawfully admitted into the country are only entitled to whatever procedures the political branches provide, and that the plaintiffs cannot rely on the due-process clause to impose additional procedural requirements,” Ensign said.

Balakrishnan said that when the Trump administration expanded the use of the policy in January, there were no new procedures put in place, meaning immigrants wanting to challenge their removal under the new policy would have no way to do so.

“The procedures that have been on the books, in some cases are not tailored for this radically new class to which it’s being applied, and in other cases, are insufficient to deal with the unique challenges placed by them and the liberty interests of this new group,” Balakrishnan said. 

Hope Broussard, 20, sought care at a Planned Parenthood in Washington in 2023 when her IUD became lodged in her cervix and the clinics in her hometown of Sandpoint, Idaho, weren’t able to help. She now lives in Pullman, Washington. (Photo by Geoff Crimmins for States Newsroom)

Fifth in a five-part series. 

Hope Broussard’s intrauterine device should have brought relief from her severe periods. But at 17, it started causing debilitating pain.

At the Sandpoint, Idaho, clinic where the device was implanted, providers suspected it was embedded in her uterine wall, but lacked the ultrasound equipment to make a diagnosis.

Homeless with no insurance after her mother kicked her out, Broussard couldn’t enroll in Medicaid as a minor without a parent’s involvement. The women’s clinics in Sandpoint couldn’t help. Hospital bills were out of the question.

“The only people that were able to help me were Planned Parenthood,” Broussard said.

She sought care across the border in Washington, at the Spokane Planned Parenthood, where an ultrasound showed the IUD was coiled around her cervix. A specialist carefully removed it in a follow-up appointment and she paid $20 for everything because it was all she could afford.

“It really was my saving grace at the time,” said Broussard, who moved from Idaho to Pullman, Washington, in part because of that experience of being unable to access health care locally. “I have no idea what I would’ve done if I didn’t have that option available to me.”

Broussard is one of more than 2 million people nationwide who used Planned Parenthood for health care between 2023 and 2024, according to the national organization’s annual report. But how many people will be able to afford and access care is changing after a new federal provision prohibits some organizations that provide abortions from receiving Medicaid payments for at least a year. Nationally, Planned Parenthood estimates it could lose $700 million from Title X and Medicaid cuts, forcing affiliates to close some clinics, curtail services and stop accepting Medicaid patients.

Many Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion groups celebrated the provision passed by Congress in July that essentially targeted Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide for “defunding” because abortion care is part of clinical services in many states where access is mostly legal. Federal Medicaid dollars cannot be used to pay for abortions except in limited circumstances, and abortion care makes up a small percentage of overall care provided by clinics. Still, conservatives argue the mere association with any such clinics is equivalent to funding all abortion. 

“Planned Parenthood’s desperate ploy for our tax dollars only underscores why the One Big Beautiful Bill is such a historic win,” said Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser in a July statement. “It halted, for the first time, over half a billion taxpayer dollars from propping up the corrupt abortion industry.”

Democratic-led states are in troubleshooting mode 

In response, elected officials in some Democratic-led states, including Washington, Hawaii, Colorado and Massachusetts have publicly pledged to backfill the funding needed to allow Planned Parenthood clinics to keep accepting Medicaid and other low-income patients. In July, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson committed to filling the $11 million gap Planned Parenthood expected to see.

Many states don’t begin their legislative sessions until January, so some of the plans aren’t official yet and still need to make it through the legislative process or the details of allocation are still in progress. That means clinics either have to absorb the costs for now with the promise of reimbursement, or change their payment options and services for the time being. For example Hawaii is moving to sliding-scale fees for some Medicaid patients, and in Maine, a major independent clinic is making changes to its services. 

Idaho’s border with Washington and Oregon is a point of contention among lawmakers across state lines, where the political views could hardly be more polarized between the hard-line conservatives in Idaho and progressive politics in the other two states. But for the people who need abortion care, or even a basic ultrasound, like Broussard, clinics in places like Spokane and Ontario, Oregon, are some of the last options available. 

Oregon lawmakers are also brainstorming ways that the state can provide reimbursement to Planned Parenthood for lost funding. Clinics across the state billed Medicaid nearly $17 million for services in 2024, according to the Oregon Capital Chronicle. 

Courtney Normand, the Washington state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, said this latest move from Congress is adding to challenges from the first Trump administration when there were other cuts, along with health care system pressures from the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact of increasing patient volumes after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that upended federal abortion rights protections.

“It feels like the hits have just kept on coming in Washington, and that’s why access, affordability and stable funding is our key concern,” Normand said. 

Brita Lund, the health center manager at a Planned Parenthood in Seattle, worries about having to turn away patients if the federal Medicaid cuts and other strains on the health care system become too much to bear. She already feels like she spends too much time grilling a patient about their personal details at an appointment so the staff can find a way to get the treatment paid for by a specific pocket of funding. 

“Who is going to help these people if we’re not going to help them? I want someone to give me that answer,” Lund said. “It literally keeps me up at night.” 

While Washington state is known for being one of the most openly accessible for sexual and reproductive health, a budget crisis led legislators to cut 55% of the funding to the Abortion Access Project, about $8.5 million. Normand said it’s hard to know exactly why legislators made the decision, but some regretted it and are trying to find a solution for the upcoming session. Ferguson pledged to restore the funding as well. 

‘I know the state is supportive, it’s just about what their capacity is’

In Hawaii, Title X cuts from the Trump administration earlier this year amounted to about $2.1 million, said Jen Wilbur, Hawaii state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates. The state legislature acted quickly in April to approve a new $6 million family planning fund to offset that loss over the next two years, with $3 million specifically allocated to Planned Parenthood clinics. What the funding program will look like exactly is still to be determined, Wilbur said. The needs vary by island, and an assessment of what those needs are is underway.  

Hawaii has trended slightly more conservative than other blue states in recent elections, Wilbur said, but support from lawmakers still feels strong. She and other advocates are trying to game plan in the event that the federal government restricts access to mifepristone through the mail, which would severely affect access for the islands. 

But Wilbur worries about the long-term sustainability of the funding in a small state that already has many challenges with high cost of living, difficulty retaining providers and navigating the unknown. 

“We don’t even know how many more cuts are coming, so is any state really going to be able to sustain this going forward? I don’t know,” Wilbur said. “I know the state is supportive, it’s just about what their capacity is.” 

Short-term state fixes in Maine, Massachusetts 

New England, considered a hub for abortion access and low-cost reproductive health services, has been especially impacted by the federal Medicaid rule. It affects not only Planned Parenthood affiliates, but also two nonprofit health networks that offer wide-ranging health services primarily to Medicaid patients: Health Imperatives in Massachusetts and Maine Family Planning, which, like Planned Parenthood, has sued over the new policy. 

Maine’s legislature this summer appropriated about $6 million for family planning funding, to go to organizations like Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and Maine Family Planning, the largest reproductive health provider in the state with 18 clinics compared to Planned Parenthood’s four. But as Maine Morning Star reports, the temporary relief does not fully meet both organizations’ deficits, and Maine Family Planning this week announced it will end primary care services in Ellsworth, Houlton and Presque Isle at the end of October.

Still, both Maine Family Planning and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England say they will continue to see Medicaid patients free of charge for reproductive health and family planning services. 

Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healey also announced the state would deliver $2 million to Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, which is one of the co-plaintiffs in Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit against the federal government.

“We want the people of Massachusetts to know that if you need reproductive health care services, you should continue to seek this care,” Healey said in a news release. 

Massachusetts has been a leader in policy promoting access to reproductive health including abortions, which is legal in the state up to 24 weeks of pregnancy with exceptions for significant fetal abnormalities and the pregnant person’s health.  

But access to broad reproductive health care even in a city like Boston remains limited, especially for people living in poverty, said Dominique Lee, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.

Lee told States Newsroom that making a primary care or OB-GYN appointment in the Boston area can mean having to wait 60 days, while Planned Parenthoods typically have same-day appointments. She noted that the communities with the least access to low-cost reproductive health services are concentrated in central and western Massachusetts, where Planned Parenthood has three clinics.

Lee said she is grateful for the $2 million in state funding, which she calls “short-term relief.” Because Medicaid funding represented about a quarter of her organization’s revenue, Lee said it is like a business losing its biggest customer. Her goal now is to figure out how the affiliate can sustain long term. She said they are brainstorming other revenue streams like offering vasectomies.

“We have gotten really good at contingency planning,” Lee said. “But it would be great to have a business model that is sustainable, that can withstand all of these attacks, and not have to worry about it. That would be a dream.”

The affiliate’s website notes that patients can no longer use their MassHealth or Medicaid Managed plans for care at Planned Parenthood clinics but says they are still seeing “all patients.”

Health Imperatives, which operates seven clinics in southern Massachusetts, is also looking at operations.

Health Imperatives CEO Julia Kehoe said the $19 million nonprofit serves about 23,000 people annually and offers social and psychiatric services to vulnerable populations. About 40% of what Health Imperatives does is offer low-cost sexual and reproductive health services for about 10,000 patients annually, Kehoe said. For now, they are continuing to see the same amount of patients and are working with the state government for funding help. 

But she said the organization is also looking at private funding because they are determined to continue seeing Massachusetts’ poorest residents, many of whom experience food insecurity in places like Nantucket, which is one of the nation’s wealthiest towns but where the main safety net for those who are not wealthy is a single Health Imperatives clinic. 

“I would never, ever make the decision to not see Medicaid patients,” Kehoe said. “We exist to provide services to people who fall through the cracks of mainstream systems of care. So we’re going to prioritize people who are on Medicaid or people who don’t have insurance. What I would do is, rather than further health disparities and wealth disparities in one of the most expensive states in the country, I would have fewer clinics.”

Correction: This article has been corrected to reflect that elected officials in Maine have not yet pledged to support family planning clinics with backfilled funding. The state passed a bill last session that provided family planning funding that was already needed before the congressional bill cut Medicaid funding.

Kwik Trip announced it will no longer accept pennies months after the U.S. Department of Treasury announced it would end penny production. 

The post No more pennies at Kwik Trip as company adopts new ‘cash rounding’ policy appeared first on WPR.

Sarah Elgatian is a graduate student in rural Iowa, who like about 16 million women of reproductive age, uses Medicaid insurance and at times has relied on Planned Parenthood for routine gynecological treatment for infections and birth control, both in person and through its growing telehealth program. (Photo by Todd Welvaert for States Newsroom)

Fourth in a five-part series.

Sarah Elgatian was in too much pain to feel awkward. 

That morning in 2019, she was hunched over her toilet, feeling what she described as a “weird burning nausea,” abdominal pain and other symptoms. She remembered the Planned Parenthood telehealth ad she’d seen recently. Elgatian downloaded the app, and within a couple hours from her bathroom, she was video chatting with a health provider. She recalled that the doctor could tell she had a urinary tract infection just by looking at her face.

“They were like, yeah, those are textbook symptoms, and you are cringing,” said Elgatian, 35, who lives on the outskirts of Davenport, Iowa, where the nearest pharmacy is at least a 20-minute drive. But luckily, Elgatian’s spouse was able to get the antibiotics the Planned Parenthood provider prescribed, and with it, relief. “That was really scary, just because, if you’ve ever had a UTI, when they’re bad, they’re so bad.”

Elgatian, like about 16 million women of reproductive age, has Medicaid, the federal and state medical insurance program for people with low incomes, and therefore limited options when it comes to reproductive health. With even fewer options in rural Iowa, Elgatian, who is a graduate student, said at times she has relied on Planned Parenthood for routine gynecological treatment for infections and birth control, both in person and through its growing telehealth program.

Now that a new rule has eliminated hundreds of millions in Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood, reproductive health providers have turned to telehealth as part of the solution to offer low-cost health services due to reductions in clinic staff and services, or closures.  

Telemedicine gained momentum in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing health care deserts around the country. In the reproductive health space, it has expanded in the last few years, as the overturn of Roe v. Wade and the resulting policies prompted the closure of many physical clinics. By the end of 2024, 1 in 4 abortions was provided via telehealth, according to the Society of Family Planning, though there are ongoing efforts at the federal and state level to prohibit telehealth abortions.

“We’ve — overall as a trend — seen more patients taking advantage of telehealth, and I think it’s a combination of factors, particularly in rural areas where access to care can be very, very limited,” said Ruth Richardson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood North Central States, which covers Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota (which has no physical clinics) and South Dakota, and recently closed eight clinics after the Trump administration froze their federal family planning Title X grant funding. “That is something that we’ve seen as a trend even before the Medicaid defund occurred.”

At the same time, providers and advocates warn that telehealth — the virtual delivery of care using technology from video conferencing, phone- or computer-based apps, to text messaging — still leaves a huge gap in reproductive health care access, especially for patients without reliable Internet or who don’t have the financial resources necessary to participate, like a debit or credit card. Much of the care cannot be delivered virtually, such as treating certain STIs, intrauterine device insertion, performing vasectomies and procedural abortions, which are optional in the first trimester and necessary later in pregnancy.

“There’s a lot of people for whom telemedicine is not an option, and so I think it’s really important to note that it’s not a quick fix,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, which manages five physical clinics in Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Virginia that specialize in abortion and offer some gynecology services. It also has a virtual care practice in 10 states that offers primarily medication abortion. “It’s not the only fix, right? It’s got to be both and so that people truly have choice.”

Turning to telehealth 

In 2023, one-third of Iowa’s counties were considered maternal health deserts, according to the March of Dimes. That number will likely increase in the nonprofit’s next report. Earlier this year, Planned Parenthood North Central States shrunk its physical presence in Iowa from six to two clinics. The affiliate, Richardson said, stands to lose $11 million from the latest federal Medicaid change, after having served about 27,000 people on Medicaid — about one-third of their total patients — in 2024. 

Richardson said the affiliate’s health centers will continue to serve patients regardless of their insurance status and will work with them to understand their payment options. She said she is expecting their telehealth program to keep growing, especially after shuttering clinics in more rural areas like Bemidji, Minnesota. 

In the past year, the North Central States affiliate reported it saw 4,204 patients during 8,241 visits on the Planned Parenthood Direct app, a 12.9% increase in virtual care visits, and about 5% of the 87,631 total patients seen. Services offered during telehealth visits include birth control counseling and prescriptions, UTI treatment, gender-affirming care, emergency contraception and the abortion pill. Newer virtual care services were launched this past year, related to menopause, sexual wellness and early pregnancy complications.

Planned Parenthood has increased its telehealth presence across the nation in the last two years. Planned Parenthood Direct, launched about a decade ago and expanded nationally in 2019, provides both text-based and video-based care, and accepts Medicaid in some states.

Separately, Planned Parenthood affiliates run virtual health centers, which have expanded to more than 50 nationwide, said a Planned Parenthood Federation of America spokesperson. According to Planned Parenthood’s 2023-2024 annual report, patients booked more than 47,000 appointments through virtual health centers in the last fiscal year, and, on average, virtual health center patients are accessing care more than two days sooner than in-person appointments. Across all telehealth platforms, there were 142,000 appointments made, the spokesperson said. 

In Michigan the most popular Planned Parenthood clinic has no real walls or windows. The virtual clinic launched in 2023, and now sees the highest number of patients compared to the state’s 10 physical health centers, said Ashlea Phenicie, the chief external affairs officer at Planned Parenthood of Michigan, which in April closed three clinics in underserved areas and consolidated two health centers in Ann Arbor because of Title X cuts. 

Phenicie said Michigan’s virtual clinic is always more than 100% booked and offers evening and weekend appointments.

“I think that not only is it filling a need in communities where we don’t have brick-and-mortar health centers, but for many patients, this is how they prefer to access care,” Phenicie said. “It’s convenient. A lot of our patients will do it on their lunch break or, you know, before school or between work and picking up their kids. It lets them fit their health care into their everyday lives. It can also provide a degree of privacy and security. There’s no protesters who walk by when you’re visiting a telehealth provider or getting birth control through the PPDirect app.” 

In a new study in the journal Contraception, researchers from the Guttmacher Institute found that while many publicly funded family planning clinics offer some services via telehealth, Planned Parenthood clinics offer telehealth most frequently, and offer a wider variety of services. The researchers, who surveyed nearly 500 publicly supported family planning clinics, wrote that many health departments and federally qualified health centers need more support and infrastructure to implement telehealth, especially for contraceptive care. They noted that while the benefits of telehealth include convenience, low cost, and improved patient outcomes, difficulties include loss of patient-provider rapport, technology and workflow issues, and regulatory barriers.

And they warned: “If telehealth is implemented inequitably, it may deepen existing disparities.”

Barriers 

Research is still limited when it comes to telehealth delivery of broad reproductive health services. A 2023 study by researchers at Oregon Health & Science University found evidence suggesting telehealth care for intimate partner violence and contraceptive care can produce “equivalent clinical and patient-reported outcomes as in-person care.”

But many reproductive health care advocates and researchers agree that telehealth will likely not be enough to fill the gap left by closing physical clinics, and that there remain many barriers to accessing telehealth generally, related to age, language, financial resources, digital literacy, and access to technology and internet.

In 2023, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration reported that roughly 12% of people lived in households with no internet connection, while a National Digital Inclusion Alliance analysis of 2022 data showed that 24% of households lacked a home internet connection.

Last month the Journal of Medical Internet Research published a study examining telehealth usage patterns of nearly 10,000 adults in rural California that found people who are older, speak Spanish or rely on public insurance struggle the most to access virtual care. The researchers reported that rural health disparities are often more pronounced among rural populations of color, who make up about 20% of rural U.S. residents.

For Elgatian, her occasional use of telehealth has not erased her need for affordable in-person reproductive health care, something she’s currently worried is about to change in Iowa following the new Medicaid rule. In a pinch, her fail-safe — at least until recently — had been Planned Parenthood, the closest being more than an hour away in Iowa City, followed by just one other in-state option: the Des Moines clinic nearly three hours away. But it was the latter clinic that Elgatian was closest to while driving through last year and suddenly bleeding vaginally. It turned out to be related to uterine polyps and her IUD, something she likely wouldn’t have discovered via telehealth.

“I don’t yet know, personally, how this will pan out for me, but it seems likely that there will be a time when I will struggle to find care without being able to use Planned Parenthood,” she said.

Efforts to expand and improve telehealth

Since its founding four years ago, telehealth provider Hey Jane, which is not affected by the government’s new Medicaid exclusion, has provided care to more than 100,000 people and expanded beyond medication abortion to provide birth control, emergency contraception, treatment for vaginal infections, herpes, and UTIs, according to co-founder Kiki Freedman. Hey Jane operates in the District of Columbia and 22 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington). It recently became a Medicaid provider for people in Illinois. 

Freedman said their services are offered on a sliding fee scale. And she said the platform allows patients to text with clinicians, which is popular with patients.

“They could be on their couch, watching a movie with their partner by their side, or whomever they need, and then just be chatting with us,” Freedman said. “That’s not something that you could get if you receive care in person and take the medication home with you, and then don’t have those ongoing touch points.”

Freedman said that Hey Jane has already seen an influx in patients since Congress passed the federal tax and spending cut bill and more clinics have closed, and that they are working on becoming Medicaid providers in more states — something that can be challenging for telehealth businesses without a physical facility. 

“We’ve continued to grow really fast over the past several years, and have just been hiring a lot and doing a lot of work on sort of our technical automation so that we can continue to meet the demand that has been rising,” Freedman said. “These acute events, like these terrible clinic closures, have definitely exacerbated that.”

Coming Friday: Democratic-led states try to backfill funding losses.

Correction: This article has been corrected to reflect that the mobile Planned Parenthood Direct app provides both text-based and video-based care.

Jess Deis, a nurse practitioner and nurse midwife in Kentucky and Indiana, learned she had cervical cancer after she qualified for Medicaid insurance in 2014. (Sarah Ladd/Kentucky Lantern)

Third in a five-part series.

It had been a decade since Jess Deis’ last women’s wellness exam when Kentucky expanded Medicaid and she finally qualified for the state insurance program.

Physicians recommend a cervical cancer screening — also referred to as a Pap smear, which is a swab of the cervix — as part of a wellness exam once every three to five years for women between the ages of 21 and 65. Deis, 43, was in her last semester of nursing school in 2014 when the test came back with abnormal results. Her doctor ordered additional testing.

“Then I got a call on a Sunday evening from a physician letting me know I had cervical cancer and I needed to see a specialist,” Deis said.

Cervical cancer is one of few cancers that has a known path of prevention after the approval of the first HPV vaccine in 2006. But that also means it falls at the intersection of three cultural issues that are facing strong political opposition — broad access to low-cost or free reproductive health care, access to vaccines for children, and sex education.

Kentucky had the highest cervical cancer incidence rate in the country between 2015 and 2019, according to medical research, and a mortality rate twice as high as the rest of the country. The state tied with West Virginia for the second-highest rate of 9.7 cases per 100,000 residents between 2017 and 2021. Oklahoma topped the list for that five-year period with 10.2 cases per 100,000, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Deis delayed the surgery to remove her uterus until after graduation, and later became a certified nurse practitioner. Now she provides Pap smears to patients multiple times a day at Planned Parenthood clinics in Kentucky and Indiana and other care via telehealth. She recently helped a patient who hadn’t been seen for a screening in 15 years discover she had advanced cervical cancer.

She is troubled by what could happen in the wake of the new Medicaid rule passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump in July that barred nearly all Planned Parenthood affiliates from receiving Medicaid reimbursements because some clinics in the nonprofit network provide abortions. Kentucky and Indiana both have abortion bans, but still have Planned Parenthood clinics to provide other reproductive health care.

“I don’t just worry; I know that there’s going to be more folks with stories like mine, but without the happy ending,” Deis said.

‘What we’re really talking about is our daughters getting cervical cancer’

The American Cancer Society recently reported the number of early cervical cancer cases has declined sharply among young people since the vaccine’s introduction nearly 20 years ago. But vaccine adoption rates for children are low in the states where rates are highest — about one-third of boys and girls between the ages of 13 and 17 were vaccinated in Mississippi as of 2020.

The vaccine is most effective when given before engaging in any kind of sexual activity for the first time, because it can prevent the sexually transmitted strains of HPV that present the highest risk of cervical cancer. More than 98% of cervical cancer cases are caused by HPV, and a 2024 study from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found zero cases of cervical cancer in Scottish women born between 1988 and 1996 who were fully vaccinated against HPV between the ages of 12 and 13.

“We could make (cervical cancer) an eradicated disease,” said Dr. Emily Boevers, an Iowa OB-GYN. “But everything is falling apart at the same time.”

Boevers said limitations on Medicaid coverage and the loss of Title X family planning funding will make screenings and vaccines less accessible for the populations that need them the most, even if clinics don’t close as a result. But it will take years to see the consequences of these changes, she said, because it takes about 15 years on average for HPV to become cancer. 

“So what we’re really talking about is our daughters getting cervical cancer,” she said. 

Kentucky’s legislature acknowledged the importance of HPV vaccines as recently as 2019, when representatives passed bipartisan House Resolution 80, which encouraged females and males between the ages of 9 and 26 to get the HPV vaccine and everyone to “become more knowledgeable of the benefits of the vaccine.” Only four legislators voted against it.

But today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has made false statements about the HPV vaccine’s safety and effectiveness and played a leading role in organizing a mass lawsuit against one of the vaccine’s manufacturers, Merck. The Associated Press reported the judge dismissed more than 120 claims of injuries from Gardasil, the name of one HPV vaccine, because of a lack of evidence. 

“Secretary Kennedy supports renewing the focus on the doctor-patient relationship and encourages individuals to discuss any personal medical decisions, including vaccines, with their healthcare provider,” a Health and Human Services spokesperson wrote to States Newsroom in September. “The American people voted for transparency, accountability, and the restoration of their decision-making power, and that is exactly what HHS is delivering.”

The response did not clarify whether Kennedy still thinks the vaccine is unsafe and what basis there is for that claim. 

Dr. Linda Eckert, a University of Washington School of Medicine professor and practicing OB-GYN, has an extensive background in immunizations and cervical cancer prevention. She served as a liaison for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices until 2024. Members of the committee were recently dismissed by Kennedy’s agency and replaced by new members, several of whom have reportedly expressed anti-vaccine views. Eckert said the group had plans in motion to present to the ACIP in June a case for administering the HPV vaccine at the earliest age of 9 before it was disbanded. 

Although Black and Hispanic women are affected by cervical cancer at disproportionate rates because of systemic inequities, Eckert said the fastest rising group experiencing late-stage cancer is white women in the Southeast. But she added that Alabama was the first state in the country that launched a targeted campaign to eliminate cervical cancer. 

Treatment for the cancer once it develops can also be difficult to obtain, Eckert said. It can be expensive and require many follow-up visits, and usually leads to infertility either through hysterectomy or invasive radiation treatments. 

“It is a really devastating disease to treat,” Eckert said. “Even if you live, you are permanently changed.”

Recent study showed zero cases of cervical cancer after HPV vaccine 

Dr. Aisha Mays, founder and CEO of a Dream Youth Clinic in Oakland, California, said the services her clinic offers to young people for free includes most of the same services that Planned Parenthood clinics provide, including the HPV vaccine.

“That’s the work of Planned Parenthood and clinics like mine that are encouraging and doing regular Pap smear screenings and vaccines, and having really clear conversations with young people around the importance of these procedures,” Mays said.

The recent turn against vaccines by some segments of the public and members of President Donald Trump’s cabinet who doubt their effectiveness and baselessly claim that they cause injury and developmental issues like autism has made the promotion of HPV vaccines more difficult for Mays. Overwhelming evidence, including from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shows that they are safe and effective.  

The vaccine can also protect against genital warts, anal cancer and oropharyngeal cancer, Mays said. There are about 40 strains of HPV in total that are known to infect the genitals, and more that can attach to certain patches of skin. Most people who have sex will come in contact with one or more of the strains by the time they reach their mid-20s or early 30s.

Mays’ clinic is largely funded by state and local grants, but it received more than $100,000 in federal funding for a sexual health education program through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Population Affairs. It was a nationally distributed podcast hosted by adolescents, Mays said, and they chose topics to talk about related to sexual health, including HPV.

The program’s grant was one of many that have been cancelled under the Trump administration. An objective laid out in Project 2025, the blueprint document for the next Republican presidency written by conservative advocacy group the Heritage Foundation, was to ensure no subgrantees of sex education programs were promoting abortion or “high-risk sexual behavior” among adolescents. It also stated that any programming should not be used to “promote sex.”

HHS also terminated funding for one of California’s sexual health programs in August over the state’s refusal to remove references in the programming related to gender, including the idea that biological sex and gender identity are distinct concepts. Another directive of Project 2025 was to make sure biological sex is never conflated with gender identity or sexual orientation.

States with high rates of cervical cancer have low density of physicians

States with the lowest incidences of cervical cancer, including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Minnesota, also have the highest density of physicians per capita. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ state physician workforce data, Massachusetts has the highest number of physicians per 100,000 people, and Oklahoma ranks in the bottom three.

Kentucky is in the bottom 15, and so is Indiana, where Marissa Brown works as a Planned Parenthood health center manager in Bloomington. Brown described her clinic as “an oasis in a desert” because there are few options for gynecological care in the area, and even fewer for obstetrics. Brown said they routinely see patients from rural areas two or more hours away, and many of them are coming for wellness exams that include cancer screenings.

Indiana used to have 38 Planned Parenthood clinics, but through 15 years of funding cuts and targeted anti-abortion legislation, the organization closed 21 of them between 2002 and 2017. In the years since then, another seven shut down to consolidate services. Many of them did not provide abortions.

“We hear a lot about patients coming in who can’t get into their gynecologist for four to 12 weeks,” Brown said. “We can do that in a few days to two weeks, and we have walk-in appointments too.”

Health Imperatives, a nonprofit network of seven community health clinics in southern Massachusetts, can no longer bill for Medicaid because they provide medication abortions and received about $800,000 in reimbursements for other services in 2023, like Planned Parenthood. One of Health Imperatives’ clinics is in Martha’s Vineyard, whose working-class residents have to work three to four jobs just to afford to live on the affluent island, said Julia Kehoe, the organization’s president and CEO.

More than a decade ago, she said she noticed a pattern: Their patients would come in for an annual gynecological exam, receive an abnormal cervical cancer screening, but not follow up, because the closest available specialist would require expensive travel off the island. Kehoe said that once their Martha’s Vineyard clinic purchased a colposcopy machine, from privately raised funds, in 2012, they started diagnosing some of their regular patients with now-advanced cancer.

“In the first year that we did colposcopies, we found four individuals who had stage three or four cancer, who we luckily were then able to connect up to Boston for critical care,” she said. “But if we had had that capacity earlier … we would have caught it earlier.”

States Newsroom reproductive rights reporter Sofia Resnick contributed to this report.

Coming Thursday: Telemedicine could help narrow the care gap in rural communities.

Child abuse, neglect or endangerment laws were used to charge hundreds of pregnant people with crimes in the two years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, underscoring the rise of fetal personhood laws, according to a new report. (Getty Images)

More than 400 people were charged with pregnancy-related crimes during the two years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights, research released Tuesday shows.

Prosecutors across the country often charged people with some form of child neglect, endangerment or abuse based on allegations of substance use during pregnancy, according to an annual report from the nonprofit Pregnancy Justice. 

Nearly three dozen cases were brought against people who miscarried or delivered stillborns, and in nine cases, pregnant people were accused of obtaining, attempting or researching abortion. 

“Prosecutors are wielding criminal laws to surveil and criminalize pregnant people, their behavior and their pregnancy outcomes,” Dana Sussman, Pregnancy Justice’s senior vice president, told States Newsroom.

Although charges against those experiencing pregnancy loss are less common, Sussman said she fears they could lead people to avoid seeking miscarriage care. 

For instance, a woman who miscarried at home was charged with abuse of a corpse in September 2023, Ohio Capital Journal reported. 

Brittany Watts was around 21 weeks pregnant when she went to the hospital but waited for hours and didn’t get help, according to the Capital Journal, and after she miscarried at home, she returned to the hospital, where staff called police. She was never indicted, and she filed a federal lawsuit in January against the city of Warren, police, hospital officials and hospital staff. 

“Rather than being able to grieve her loss, she was taken away in handcuffs. She was interrogated in her hospital bed while she was still tethered to IVs, and so she wants compensation for her own trauma, but most importantly, wants to make sure that this doesn’t happen to anyone else,” Rachel Brady, Watts’ attorney, told States Newsroom in June.

Watts’ lawsuit alleges local law enforcement and the hospital violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals that receive Medicare funding to provide stabilizing medical treatment regardless of a person’s ability to pay or insurance status. The defendants denied liability and the plaintiff’s claims, according to court documents filed in September. 

In this year’s report, pregnancy-related cases cropped up in 16 states, and states with strict abortion bans topped the list again: Alabama (192), Oklahoma (112) and South Carolina (62).

“If you are doing anything that exposes your pregnancy, your fetus to some real risk, perceived or assumed risk, in certain parts of the country, that is a felony,” Sussman said. 

Fetal personhood — the notion that fetuses, zygotes and embryos should have the same legal rights as human beings — comes into play when pregnant people struggling with addiction are drug tested during checkups or at labor and delivery units, Sussman said. 

“In several states, it’s become relatively common practice for people to be charged with a felony for child endangerment or neglect for simply testing positive” on toxicology tests, Sussman said. “And that carries years in prison, and of course, immediate family separation from your newborn and even from your other children in your home, in your family.” 

An investigation by The Marshall Project, Mississippi Today and three other news outlets in 2023 found that local law enforcement and prosecutors in Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina applied child abuse and neglect laws to fetuses when pursuing charges against pregnant women. 

Lawmakers in a few states have pitched legislation seeking to curb punitive approaches to addiction among expectant and new mothers. 

A bill advancing in the New York Legislature would require informed consent for drug testing and screening pregnant and postpartum patients unless it’s medically necessary. Legislation took effect in Washington state this summer that prevents the criminalization of pregnancy loss, and requires officials at jails, prisons and immigrant detention centers to report miscarriages and stillbirths to the state annually. Massachusetts legislators passed a law in December that prevents medical professionals from automatically referring substance-exposed newborns to the state Department of Children and Families. 

Prosecutors obtained information about pregnancy-related crimes from health care facilities in 264 out of 412 cases, even in incidents that did not allege substance use, according to the Pregnancy Justice report.

“If people are worrying about losing their children because of family separation through the child welfare system or by going to jail, they are not going to get the care that they need,” Sussman said. “Pregnancy is seen as a moment and a window of opportunity for people to get care. People are motivated, uniquely motivated, and we really squander that opportunity when we turn health care into a place of reporting.” 

Former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Susan Monarez testifies before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Sept.17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez testified before a U.S. Senate committee Wednesday that she was fired after just 29 days because she refused to pre-approve vaccine recommendations or fire career officials for no reason. 

Monarez, who was nominated by President Donald Trump earlier this year and confirmed by the Senate in July on a party-line vote, became a central figure in the country’s debate over public health last month after she refused to resign. 

Monarez testified that during a meeting in late August, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told her she needed to commit to approving upcoming recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without reviewing any data or research. 

“He also directed me to dismiss career officials responsible for vaccine policy without cause. He said if I was unwilling to do both, I should resign,” Monarez said. “I responded that I could not pre-approve recommendations without reviewing the evidence and I had no basis to fire scientific experts.”

Monarez testified before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee during the nearly three-hour hearing that she told Kennedy if he didn’t trust her, then he could fire her.

During that same late August meeting, Monarez said Kennedy told her the childhood vaccine schedule would be changing in September and that she needed to be on board with that.

“We got into an exchange where I had suggested that I would be open to changing childhood vaccine schedules if the evidence or science was supportive,” Monarez testified. “And he responded that there was no science or evidence associated with the childhood vaccine schedule.”

ACIP is scheduled to meet Thursday and Friday at the CDC’s headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. 

Kennedy testified before a separate Senate committee earlier this month that he did demand that Monarez fire career CDC scientists but said he didn’t tell her to accept the recommendations of the vaccine advisory panel without further review.

“What I asked her about is she had made a statement that she was going to not sign on and I wanted clarification about that,” Kennedy said at the time. “I told her I didn’t want her to have a role if she’s not going to sign onto it.”

Vaccine safety at issue

Monarez said that undermining vaccine safety will lead to an increase in preventable diseases, some of which have long-term or even lifelong consequences for children’s health. 

“I believe that we will have our children harmed for things that we know they do not need to be harmed by — polio, measles, diphtheria, chickenpox,” she said. 

Former CDC Chief Medical Officer Dr. Debra Houry told the committee there are significant ramifications if the new members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, who were appointed by Kennedy after he fired all of the former members, don’t use rigorous science and data to make their recommendations. 

“It’s going to be heartbreaking,” Houry said. “I think what concerns me is these aren’t harmless diseases. We just saw the case in California of a young child that died of encephalitis years after measles. These diseases have long-term consequences and in the U.S. we have gone so far in reversing this. We don’t want our children to die.”  

Houry was one of several CDC officials who resigned after learning about Monarez’s firing, which happened just weeks after a gunman opened fire at the CDC’s headquarters, killing a police officer. 

Both Monarez and Houry testified, in response to a question from Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, that confusion about vaccines and CDC recommendations had real consequences. 

“I myself was subject to threats,” Monarez said. “And I am very concerned that the further promulgation of misleading information will undermine not just the safety and health of our children, but it will also exacerbate some of these tensions — the willingness to commit harm if someone is affronted by a belief that the people like us that are trying to help them are actually not trying to help them.” 

Houry told the committee the gunman fired about 500 rounds, with approximately 180 of those hitting the building. 

“Each bullet was meant for a person, and each of my staff were very traumatized afterwards,” Houry said. “I had staff that were covering their kids in the day care parking lot. There were people that were out at the ride-share as bullets were passing over their head. I have many that won’t speak about vaccines now and removed their names off of the papers. They don’t wish to present publicly anymore because they feel they were personally targeted because of misinformation.”

‘Did we do something wrong?’

HELP Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., said at the beginning of the hearing he intended to invite Kennedy and possibly other HHS officials to testify before his committee later in the year if they wanted to respond to what was said in the Wednesday hearing. 

He also raised concerns that Monarez was fired after less than a month in the role, despite her being nominated by Trump, confirmed by the Senate and Kennedy saying while swearing her in that she had “unimpeachable scientific credentials.”

“We as senators need to ask ourselves, did we look past something? Did we do something wrong?” Cassidy said. “It may be that we did nothing wrong, in which case, Dr. Monarez and Dr. Houry, the onus is upon you to prove that the criticisms leveled by the secretary are not true.”

Cassidy later added that “it may be impossible to learn who’s telling the truth.”

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member on the committee, said the Trump administration’s decision to fire Monarez after less than a month in the CDC director’s role was because “she refused to act as a rubber stamp to implement Secretary Kennedy’s dangerous agenda to substantially limit the use of safe and effective vaccines that would endanger the lives of the American people and people throughout the world.”

Sanders raised concerns that the loss of career officials at the CDC and other federal health agencies could hamper the country from addressing disease outbreaks in the months and years ahead. 

Confusion over whether Monarez was recorded

There were a few awkward moments in the hearing, in addition to the serious discussion about the Trump administration’s approach to public health. 

One came after Florida Republican Sen. Ashley Moody mentioned twice during her five minutes of questions that Monarez had spoken with Cassidy about her firing, implying that was somehow improper.  

Cassidy gave a lengthy statement afterward, clarifying the record. 

“As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the CDC that favorably reported Dr. Monarez as the CDC director, it is entirely appropriate for someone with oversight concerns to contact my office, or me, or frankly any of us,” Cassidy said. “Upon receiving outreach from Dr. Monarez, I contacted both the secretary and the White House to inquire about what was happening and to express concerns about what was alleged. As soon as the director was fired, the HELP Committee began reviewing the situation, as it is our responsibility, and any and all communication with the witnesses was conducted by HELP staff in coordination with attorneys.”

Another somewhat uncomfortable and slightly confusing moment came after Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin told Monarez that someone had recorded her meeting or meetings with Kennedy.

Mullin then repeatedly questioned her recollection of her conversations with Kennedy, implying that he had a different view because he had listened to the recording. 

The exchange led Cassidy to give another statement to the committee. He appeared somewhat frustrated that someone gave just one senator on the panel the recording, that Mullin had not shared it with any other members of the committee and that HHS had chosen not to give it to the committee in response to a request for documents related to Monarez’s firing. 

“If a recording does not exist, I ask Sen. Mullin to retract his line of questions,” Cassidy said. “I’ll also note that if he has it, I’m also curious why only one senator was given this and why we’re just hearing about it now.”

A few minutes later, Cassidy announced to the hearing room that Mullin told reporters elsewhere that he was mistaken about there being a recording of the meeting or meetings. 

Monarez lawyer

Several GOP senators on the panel also questioned Monarez at length about when and why she chose to hire legal representation and why she ultimately went with Mark Zaid, who has made public statements against Trump and his policies. 

Monarez testified that she wasn’t aware of Zaid’s political beliefs when she hired him and hasn’t spoken with him about politics. 

“I was seeking some critical counsel to be able to help me make sure that I was understanding and aware of everything that had transpired and preparing for what might be next, including this committee hearing,” Monarez said. “Mark and I have never spoken about politics. I never asked him about his politics. He has never asked me about my politics.”

Over the past three years, battery recycling has received heightened attention, raising critical questions: What is the true state of recycling today? Can...

The post An Overview of the Global Battery Recycling Industry appeared first on Cleantech Group.

Following a night of heavy rain, Dakar’s flooded roads were gridlocked on the morning of our recent cleantech policy consultation, hosted by Senegal’s...

The post Cleantech Ecosystems: How to Develop Cleantech Policy That Works for Your Country appeared first on Cleantech Group.

Jessika Trancik, a professor in MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, has been named the new director of the Sociotechnical Systems Research Center (SSRC), effective July 1. The SSRC convenes and supports researchers focused on problems and solutions at the intersection of technology and its societal impacts.

Trancik conducts research on technology innovation and energy systems. At the Trancik Lab, she and her team develop methods drawing on engineering knowledge, data science, and policy analysis. Their work examines the pace and drivers of technological change, helping identify where innovation is occurring most rapidly, how emerging technologies stack up against existing systems, and which performance thresholds matter most for real-world impact. Her models have been used to inform government innovation policy and have been applied across a wide range of industries.

“Professor Trancik’s deep expertise in the societal implications of technology, and her commitment to developing impactful solutions across industries, make her an excellent fit to lead SSRC,” says Maria C. Yang, interim dean of engineering and William E. Leonhard (1940) Professor of Mechanical Engineering.

Much of Trancik’s research focuses on the domain of energy systems, and establishing methods for energy technology evaluation, including of their costs, performance, and environmental impacts. She covers a wide range of energy services — including electricity, transportation, heating, and industrial processes. Her research has applications in solar and wind energy, energy storage, low-carbon fuels, electric vehicles, and nuclear fission. Trancik is also known for her research on extreme events in renewable energy availability.

A prolific researcher, Trancik has helped measure progress and inform the development of solar photovoltaics, batteries, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and other low-carbon technologies — and anticipate future trends. One of her widely cited contributions includes quantifying learning rates and identifying where targeted investments can most effectively accelerate innovation. These tools have been used by U.S. federal agencies, international organizations, and the private sector to shape energy R&D portfolios, climate policy, and infrastructure planning.

Trancik is committed to engaging and informing the public on energy consumption. She and her team developed the app carboncounter.com, which helps users choose cars with low costs and low environmental impacts.

As an educator, Trancik teaches courses for students across MIT’s five schools and the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing.

“The question guiding my teaching and research is how do we solve big societal challenges with technology, and how can we be more deliberate in developing and supporting technologies to get us there?” Trancik said in an article about course IDS.521/IDS.065 (Energy Systems for Climate Change Mitigation).

Trancik received her undergraduate degree in materials science and engineering from Cornell University. As a Rhodes Scholar, she completed her PhD in materials science at the University of Oxford. She subsequently worked for the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, and the Earth Institute at Columbia University. After serving as an Omidyar Research Fellow at the Santa Fe Institute, she joined MIT in 2010 as a faculty member.

Trancik succeeds Fotini Christia, the Ford International Professor of Social Sciences in the Department of Political Science and director of IDSS, who previously served as director of SSRC.

On May 6, MIT AgeLab’s Advanced Vehicle Technology (AVT) Consortium, part of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, celebrated 10 years of its global academic-industry collaboration. AVT was founded with the aim of developing new data that contribute to automotive manufacturers, suppliers, and insurers’ real-world understanding of how drivers use and respond to increasingly sophisticated vehicle technologies, such as assistive and automated driving, while accelerating the applied insight needed to advance design and development. The celebration event brought together stakeholders from across the industry for a set of keynote addresses and panel discussions on critical topics significant to the industry and its future, including artificial intelligence, automotive technology, collision repair, consumer behavior, sustainability, vehicle safety policy, and global competitiveness.

Bryan Reimer, founder and co-director of the AVT Consortium, opened the event by remarking that over the decade AVT has collected hundreds of terabytes of data, presented and discussed research with its over 25 member organizations, supported members’ strategic and policy initiatives, published select outcomes, and built AVT into a global influencer with tremendous impact in the automotive industry. He noted that current opportunities and challenges for the industry include distracted driving, a lack of consumer trust and concerns around transparency in assistive and automated driving features, and high consumer expectations for vehicle technology, safety, and affordability. How will industry respond? Major players in attendance weighed in.

In a powerful exchange on vehicle safety regulation, John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and Mark Rosekind, former chief safety innovation officer of Zoox, former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and former member of the National Transportation Safety Board, challenged industry and government to adopt a more strategic, data-driven, and collaborative approach to safety. They asserted that regulation must evolve alongside innovation, not lag behind it by decades. Appealing to the automakers in attendance, Bozzella cited the success of voluntary commitments on automatic emergency braking as a model for future progress. “That’s a way to do something important and impactful ahead of regulation.” They advocated for shared data platforms, anonymous reporting, and a common regulatory vision that sets safety baselines while allowing room for experimentation. The 40,000 annual road fatalities demand urgency — what’s needed is a move away from tactical fixes and toward a systemic safety strategy. “Safety delayed is safety denied,” Rosekind stated. “Tell me how you’re going to improve safety. Let’s be explicit.”

Drawing inspiration from aviation’s exemplary safety record, Kathy Abbott, chief scientific and technical advisor for the Federal Aviation Administration, pointed to a culture of rigorous regulation, continuous improvement, and cross-sectoral data sharing. Aviation’s model, built on highly trained personnel and strict predictability standards, contrasts sharply with the fragmented approach in the automotive industry. The keynote emphasized that a foundation of safety culture — one that recognizes that technological ability alone isn’t justification for deployment — must guide the auto industry forward. Just as aviation doesn’t equate absence of failure with success, vehicle safety must be measured holistically and proactively.

With assistive and automated driving top of mind in the industry, Pete Bigelow of Automotive News offered a pragmatic diagnosis. With companies like Ford and Volkswagen stepping back from full autonomy projects like Argo AI, the industry is now focused on Level 2 and 3 technologies, which refer to assisted and automated driving, respectively. Tesla, GM, and Mercedes are experimenting with subscription models for driver assistance systems, yet consumer confusion remains high. JD Power reports that many drivers do not grasp the differences between L2 and L2+, or whether these technologies offer safety or convenience features. Safety benefits have yet to manifest in reduced traffic deaths, which have risen by 20 percent since 2020. The recurring challenge: L3 systems demand that human drivers take over during technical difficulties, despite driver disengagement being their primary benefit, potentially worsening outcomes. Bigelow cited a quote from Bryan Reimer as one of the best he’s received in his career: “Level 3 systems are an engineer’s dream and a plaintiff attorney’s next yacht,” highlighting the legal and design complexity of systems that demand handoffs between machine and human.

In terms of the impact of AI on the automotive industry, Mauricio Muñoz, senior research engineer at AI Sweden, underscored that despite AI’s transformative potential, the automotive industry cannot rely on general AI megatrends to solve domain-specific challenges. While landmark achievements like AlphaFold demonstrate AI’s prowess, automotive applications require domain expertise, data sovereignty, and targeted collaboration. Energy constraints, data firewalls, and the high costs of AI infrastructure all pose limitations, making it critical that companies fund purpose-driven research that can reduce costs and improve implementation fidelity. Muñoz warned that while excitement abounds — with some predicting artificial superintelligence by 2028 — real progress demands organizational alignment and a deep understanding of the automotive context, not just computational power.

Turning the focus to consumers, a collision repair panel drawing Richard Billyeald from Thatcham Research, Hami Ebrahimi from Caliber Collision, and Mike Nelson from Nelson Law explored the unintended consequences of vehicle technology advances: spiraling repair costs, labor shortages, and a lack of repairability standards. Panelists warned that even minor repairs for advanced vehicles now require costly and complex sensor recalibrations — compounded by inconsistent manufacturer guidance and no clear consumer alerts when systems are out of calibration. The panel called for greater standardization, consumer education, and repair-friendly design. As insurance premiums climb and more people forgo insurance claims, the lack of coordination between automakers, regulators, and service providers threatens consumer safety and undermines trust. The group warned that until Level 2 systems function reliably and affordably, moving toward Level 3 autonomy is premature and risky.

While the repair panel emphasized today’s urgent challenges, other speakers looked to the future. Honda’s Ryan Harty, for example, highlighted the company’s aggressive push toward sustainability and safety. Honda aims for zero environmental impact and zero traffic fatalities, with plans to be 100 percent electric by 2040 and to lead in energy storage and clean power integration. The company has developed tools to coach young drivers and is investing in charging infrastructure, grid-aware battery usage, and green hydrogen storage. “What consumers buy in the market dictates what the manufacturers make,” Harty noted, underscoring the importance of aligning product strategy with user demand and environmental responsibility. He stressed that manufacturers can only decarbonize as fast as the industry allows, and emphasized the need to shift from cost-based to life-cycle-based product strategies.

Finally, a panel involving Laura Chace of ITS America, Jon Demerly of Qualcomm, Brad Stertz of Audi/VW Group, and Anant Thaker of Aptiv covered the near-, mid-, and long-term future of vehicle technology. Panelists emphasized that consumer expectations, infrastructure investment, and regulatory modernization must evolve together. Despite record bicycle fatality rates and persistent distracted driving, features like school bus detection and stop sign alerts remain underutilized due to skepticism and cost. Panelists stressed that we must design systems for proactive safety rather than reactive response. The slow integration of digital infrastructure — sensors, edge computing, data analytics — stems not only from technical hurdles, but procurement and policy challenges as well. 

Reimer concluded the event by urging industry leaders to re-center the consumer in all conversations — from affordability to maintenance and repair. With the rising costs of ownership, growing gaps in trust in technology, and misalignment between innovation and consumer value, the future of mobility depends on rebuilding trust and reshaping industry economics. He called for global collaboration, greater standardization, and transparent innovation that consumers can understand and afford. He highlighted that global competitiveness and public safety both hang in the balance. As Reimer noted, “success will come through partnerships” — between industry, academia, and government — that work toward shared investment, cultural change, and a collective willingness to prioritize the public good.

© Photo: Kelly Davidson Studio

Farm Foundation has named Dr. Sunghun Lim as its 2025 Agricultural Economics Trade and Sustainability Fellow.

Farm Foundation’s Agricultural Economics Fellow program is a yearlong program for a faculty agricultural economist. The 2025 fellowship is focused on integrated systems approaches to understanding and overcoming the challenges in developing a greater understanding of how trade and sustainability are interconnected and are impacting the food and agricultural sectors in the United States and beyond in rapidly changing circumstances.
In addition to being mentored by staff in USDA’s Office of the Chief Economist, Lim in turn will mentor participants in the Farm Foundation and USDA Economic Research Service Agricultural Scholars program, among other engagements. 

His research has been published in leading academic journals, including the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Nature Communications, NBER Book Series, Food Policy, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Handbook of Agricultural Economics, and The World Economy.

He earned his BS in Economics in 2013 and his MS in Agricultural and Resource Economics in 2015 from the University of California, Davis. He received his Ph.D. in Applied Economics from the University of Minnesota in 2020.

Dr. Lim is Farm Foundation’s fifth Agricultural Economics Fellow and succeeds Dr. Sandro Steinbach (North Dakota State University), Drs. Trey Malone (University of Arkansas), Amanda Countryman (University of Colorado), and Alejandro Plastina (University of Iowa).

The post Farm Foundation® Announces 2025 Agricultural Fellow. appeared first on Farm Foundation.

The post Clean Technology Wins Achieved Among Recent Rate Hike Decisions Made by PSC appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

The December Farm Foundation Forum, Tax Year 2025: Potential Impacts and Opportunities for Farmers and the Agriculture Sector, covered the possible outcomes and impacts for farms and the greater agricultural sector from potential changes to taxation policy in 2025 and beyond. Some key aspects discussed included the impact of expiring tax provisions, and specific issues like estate tax and bonus depreciation. 

The conversation was moderated by Todd Van Hoose, president and CEO of Farm Credit Council, and included input from Mark Albright, public affairs specialist in tax outreach partnership and education at the Internal Revenue Service; Kent Bacus, executive director of government affairs at National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; Tia McDonald, research agricultural economist with USDA Economic Research Service; Paul Neiffer, agribusiness and business advisor with Farm CPA Report; and Elizabeth Swanson, national tax senior manager with Pinion. 

Below are some of the main points presented by the panel. 

1. Expiring Tax Provisions: Expiring tax provisions, including key provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), will impact farm households. These include the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, estate tax exemptions, and bonus depreciation, set to expire by the end of 2025. 

2. Impact on Tax Liabilities: Expiring provisions are expected to increase tax liabilities by nearly $9 billion, with $650 million coming from the estate tax exemptions. The most significant increase will come from the expiration of changes to federal income tax rates, the removal of the state and local tax cap, and the reinstatement of the personal exemption. 

3. Qualified Business Income (QBI) Deduction: The QBI deduction, which allows farm businesses to deduct 20% of their income, will be affected by expiring provisions. Larger farms benefit more from this deduction, but moderate-sales farms face the highest percentage increase in taxes due to the expiration of this provision. 

4. Estate Tax and Exemptions: A major concern for farm households is the estate tax exemption, which will be halved in 2026, potentially leading to higher estate tax liabilities for farm families.  

5. Concerns Over Bonus Depreciation: The phase-out of bonus depreciation, which allows faster write-offs of equipment costs, poses a risk to farm businesses that rely on capital-intensive equipment. The expiration could lead to significant tax burdens unless replaced with alternative provisions. 

6. CTA Compliance and Penalties: The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) mandates reporting beneficial ownership information for entities like LLCs. Failure to comply with CTA filing requirements can result in significant penalties. However, on December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas entered a preliminary injunction suspending enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its implementation of regulations nationwide. 

7. IRS Resources for Farmers: Various IRS resources are available to farmers, including the Farmers Tax Guide, tax tips for farmers, and an online Agricultural Tax Center. These tools help farmers navigate tax complexities, especially regarding crop insurance, disaster payments, and updated provisions like mileage rates and self-employment tax thresholds. 

The two-hour discussion, including the audience question and answer session, was recorded and is archived on the Farm Foundation website.  

Please note: This summary was created with the help of ChatGPT. Please refer to the recorded session for full details. 

The post Farm Foundation Forum Detailed Possible Impacts of Upcoming Changes to Taxation Policy appeared first on Farm Foundation.

This article was originally published by CT Mirror.

Donald Trump’s return to power comes against a backdrop of the well-known anti-environmental legacy of his first term. His assertion that climate change was a “hoax,” was followed by the rolling back or outright revocation of more than 100 environmental regulations and policies, as tracked by numerous universities and newspapers at the time.

Blue-state attorneys general let none of this go without a fight — filing dozens of lawsuits and taking other actions on all manner of Trump administration moves, not just those connected to the environment, energy and climate. Connecticut was in the thick of it, especially on climate issues related to air quality and the emissions known to contribute to global warming and climate change.

But the second Trump administration could prove even more challenging for the attorneys general. It arrives with previous experience and a team potentially less prone to the mistakes that often caused failures in court in the first go-round. Trump will also have majorities in both chambers of Congress to bolster his agenda.

There are also the very specific policy and action recommendations in Project 2025, the conservative governing plan developed by the Heritage Foundation with assistance from many officials connected to Trump’s first term. After facing serious blowback to the plan during the campaign, Trump claimed he knew nothing about it, though his campaign website contained some of the same ideas.

Trump has since hired several Project 2025 authors for his new administration including a key architect, Russell Vought, to run the Office of Management and Budget. Vought held that same position for part of Trump’s first administration.

There is also a super-majority conservative U.S. Supreme Court that has already flexed its muscles. It has issued a number of rulings that have effectively closed off avenues for challenges. The Chevron decision in June and the court’s use of the so-called major questions doctrine both generally now restrict what agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Department can do without specific direction from Congress.

“It’s changed everything,” said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who took office halfway through Trump’s first term, picking up the fight from his predecessor George Jepsen, in conjunction with attorneys general around the country.

“It’s hard to overstate how profound this change is,” Tong said. “It essentially overturns the whole apple cart of regulatory infrastructure in this country.”

“I think we’re expecting a fight on everything. And that regulatory process — in changes in rulemaking — is going to grind to a very slow crawl and in some cases, to a halt. And that was the point of the people that initiated this.”

The Supreme Court rulings were destined to cause difficulties for Connecticut and other states regardless of whether Trump or Harris won. Tong said he and his blue-state brethren had been planning for both contingencies, though he wouldn’t say what the strategies will be.

“We’ve been preparing for the prospect of the Trump presidency for a long time now, and we are very closely coordinated and aligned,” he said. “We are ready.”

Roger Reynolds, senior legal director with the advocacy group Save the Sound called the Supreme Court rulings hugely concerning. “We’re in a really critical place right now. They have a clear anti-regulatory agenda,” he said. “It’s about putting their hands on the scales on the side of the regulated industries.”

Connecticut’s Democratic senate leaders, President Martin Looney, D-New Haven, and Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, sent a letter last week to Gov. Ned Lamont urging him to prepare to combat Trump administration actions that could hurt the state and the region. The request follows California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decision to hold a special legislative session to ensure there is enough money to take legal action against the Trump administration when necessary. Meanwhile, the governors of Colorado and Illinois are forming a blue state governors’ coalition to oppose Trump administration efforts.

The Biden administration has methodically reinstated many of Trump’s first administration rollbacks and fortified them with both regulatory-enhanced programs and funding, such as in the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure act.

Trump’s own campaign statements and promises as presented in his platform, Agenda 47, as well as Project 2025, could initiate another round of climate change, energy and environmental whiplash.

According to published reports, two of the first administration’s more effective members, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, both former fossil fuel industry lobbyists, are back at work in the transition and could be in line for positions in the new administration.

Within a week of the election Trump named former Long Island Republican congressman Lee Zeldin to run the EPA. He has limited environmental expertise but is a Trump loyalist. North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, a fossil fuel proponent, was nominated to head the Interior Department and to lead a new National Energy Council. And a fracking company executive, Chris Wright, was named to lead the Energy Department and sit on that council. Wright has said there is no climate crisis.

A close review of the nearly 900-page Project 2025 shows that it targets climate change, as well as energy and environmental programs and regulations. The project seeks to cripple the EPA, curtail if not eliminate funding and subsidies for clean and renewable energy programs — including for electric vehicles — as well as eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. And it would eliminate any focus on environmental justice.

It seeks to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which is popular enough among Republicans whose states and districts have benefitted that 18 members of the House Republican Caucus sent a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson asking that it not be repealed.

Project 2025 also derides the idea of addressing climate change as a policy goal and seeks to remove even the mention of it broadly throughout government.

It contains pointed political statements such as this: “Mischaracterizing the state of our environment generally and the actual harms reasonably attributable to climate change specifically is a favored tool that the Left uses to scare the American public into accepting their ineffective, liberty-crushing regulations, diminished private property rights, and exorbitant costs.”

And it makes a number of specific recommendations to remove climate change as a consideration, such as with the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: “End the focus on climate change and green subsidies;” and for the Energy Department: “Eliminate political and climate-change interference in DOE approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.”

Project 2025 would privatize the National Weather Service and dramatically reduce the percentage of funding provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for recovery from disasters like the historic flooding Connecticut, and other states, have experienced due to climate change.

During the campaign Trump disavowed knowledge of the plan, although Agenda 47 says some of the same things in far less detail. It reads: “On Day One, President Trump will rescind every one of Joe Biden’s industry-killing, jobs-killing, pro-China and anti-American electricity regulations,” and “President Trump will DRILL, BABY, DRILL.”

The impacts of any of these would likely be felt down to state and local levels.

Connecticut’s biggest worries

If the Trump administration implements the environmental recommendations of Project 2025, Connecticut as well as other states face the possibility that unspent federal funds for climate and energy projects could be clawed back, costing jobs and the economic development around them.

Among 11 bullet points a conservative administration should pursue in energy policy: “Support repeal of massive spending bills like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which established new programs and are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to renewable energy developers, their investors, and special interests, and support the rescinding of all funds not already spent by these programs.”

There is also the potential that the funding Connecticut and nearly all states have grown to rely on for large energy and electric grid projects could disappear. Project 2025 calls for eliminating and defunding the Grid Deployment Office.

And there could be the kinds of regulatory shifts seen during the first administration when approvals for offshore wind were slow-walked. Trump, who for years has stated his hatred for offshore wind, has threatened to stop all offshore wind projects on day one, referring to subsidies for them as “insane.”

Connecticut and the entire New England grid has been counting on offshore wind development to bolster its energy capabilities in the face of expanding power needs for economic development around data centers and other large businesses, as well as for electrification needs for motor vehicle charging and heat pump conversions.

Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Commissioner Katie Dykes steered clear of any hand-wringing when asked what she expects from a second Trump administration. She did, however, note that roughly a quarter of DEEP’s budget for both programs and personnel comes from a variety of different federal grants across a number of different federal agencies, EPA being the big one.

“There are a lot of different scenarios that people are contemplating with the new Congress and with the new administration, but it’s early to say what may happen,” she said. “We’re assessing options under different scenarios, but it’s too early to tell what the impacts will be.”

She ticked off a laundry list of programs that recently received federal money and noted the need to get the funds distributed and implemented. “We’re staying in touch with our neighboring states and with project developers to help understand how we can be nimble in the face of any changes that may come.”

And she said DEEP will be collaborating with the state Attorney General’s office and will follow its lead on any steps that need to be taken to protect Connecticut’s mission and interests.

One likely impact for Connecticut is that Trump’s policies will further prolong the now 50-year battle for clean air.

The state continues to face pollution and ozone levels that have long kept it from meeting federal air quality standards. The entire state does not meet 2015 standards and the southern part doesn’t even meet more lenient ones from 2008. That’s even as still tighter standards were issued in February.

The heat of this summer has once again resulted in a large number of bad air days — 23. The result over time has been persistently high asthma rates in the state, especially among vulnerable populations.

A principal cause is pollution and greenhouse gases that blow in from Midwest power plants running on fossil fuels of oil, gas and coal. Connecticut has long contended the situation violates the Good Neighbor provision of the Clean Air Act designed to keep upwind states from polluting downwind ones.

After four years fighting the first Trump administration’s efforts to loosen regulations on both greenhouse gas and standard pollutant emissions, Tong’s office has remained active the last four years, battling red-state attorneys general attempting to thwart the Biden administration’s tighter Good Neighbor regulations. In June, the Supreme Court stayed those regulations and sent them back to the lower courts.

“It’s not great,” Tong said, when asked whether the case is now stuck. “That doesn’t mean I’m gonna fight any less hard than I have. It doesn’t mean that we are any less focused on it. No one’s giving up, and no one’s saying darn it, because we have Lee Zeldin and a six-three conservative court that we should just move on to other things. It’s clean air; it’s foundational and fundamental to public health, so we’re just gonna keep at it. It’s not optional.”

Reynolds at Save the Sound is equally gloomy, saying the current litigation scenario puts everything several years out — again. “It doesn’t mean that it’s not necessarily going to go forward, but it certainly means it’s not going to be implemented anytime in the near future,” he said. “It’s absolutely a fair assessment that we’re not going to see clean air in Connecticut anytime soon.”

And the axis on environmental and climate regulation is likely to flip again as the Trump administration is expected to replace the Biden rules with their own less restrictive ones. The rulemaking process takes time and is likely to set off a whole new wave of court challenges, delaying things even more.

This session, the Supreme Court is taking up a challenge to the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act that requires in-depth environmental reviews for federal projects. A recent federal appeals court ruling curtailed how those reviews can be structured.

There are also hints in Project 2025 that the second Trump administration might try to overturn the so-called Endangerment Finding, which allowed greenhouse gases to be regulated — specifically as part of motor vehicle, power plant and industrial emissions.

All of these could further limit the tools attorneys general and others have for challenging environmental laws and regulations the new administration may want to overturn from the Biden era and before, or may seek to put in place.

Reynolds points out that states still have a lot of power — to approve power plants and review pipelines, among other things. And he notes that the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts specifically allow citizen suits if the federal government isn’t complying with those laws. He said that’s been Save the Sound’s bread and butter in upholding environmental regulations.

“That’s why, since the ‘70s, through all the administrations we’ve had, many of which have put a bull’s eye on environmental regulations, we’ve continued to have progress,” he said. “Our strategy is going to continue to be to enforce these incredibly powerful acts, and fight rollbacks and do what we can to get funding for these initiatives, and to get states and municipalities to take the lead.”

Reynolds isn’t the only one talking about states and municipalities taking the lead.

Brad Campbell, president of the Conservation Law Foundation and a former EPA regional administrator, said simply opposing Trump as state and local officials did during the first administration will not be enough this time, based on what Project 2025 espouses and what Trump has already said, because both clearly cater to the fossil fuel industry.

“What we’ll be pushing for is for states to fill in any gaps that are created by Trump’s attacks on federal agencies and the rollback of some standards,” he said. “A major concern in New England is the climate investments that Biden was able to secure in Congress. Those are enormously important to accelerating New England’s energy transition.”

But if the Trump administration embraces Project 2025’s threat to cut funding to clean energy and other climate-targeted programs, tax incentives and entire programs and offices — across all government, not just environment and energy areas — will states have the money to take the lead?

“States may have to come up with additional funding for the energy transition if the federal government goes into full retreat,” Campbell said.

Focus on the states

“Not going to happen this year,” said Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex and co-chair of the Energy and Technology Committee. “The state budgets before Trump won are already out of balance.”

He noted that many state employees — including at DEEP — are paid in whole or part with federal funds. “If you lose 10% of state employees because their funding is cut directly by federal budget changes,” he said. “I don’t know how we make that up, right? I just think it’s going to be a stressful, difficult time.”

Needleman said he still plans to hold a series of meetings before the legislative session begins to formulate policies and initiatives.

“I do not believe that anyone can fight a battle with only a strong defense. I think we need a combination of a sensible offense and a thoughtful defense about the damage that they can do, because we are going to have a target on our back,” he said.  

His co-chair, Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, said he and Needleman are already trying to figure out whether to resurrect some of the major energy, environmental and climate legislation that failed in the last two sessions. The presumption at that time was that the federal government would be at least neutral, if not supportive broadly of climate change initiatives.

“This may further chill our willingness to take on big things,” he said. “I would never throw up my hands and walk away. But coming into the session I was already feeling frustrated, constrained, finding it difficult to do the things that I think we really need to do, which are of bigger consequence, like a lot of this necessary investment in infrastructure.

“Now you layer in on top of it, either federal preemption of any regulatory framework we might choose, or certainly a cessation or diminishment of funding for the things that we’ve counted on the feds for in the past. It’s very hard to figure, what do we do first?”

Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich and ranking member on the committee, said his goal is to make the best policy he can in alignment with his goals of low cost, reliable and environmentally responsible energy.

“Whether there’s a Democratic presidential administration or a Republican one, and there is going to be both in the next 20 years, and policy at the federal level — you make the best of it,” he said. “I haven’t seen, really in any substantial way, that federal policy has helped us meet those goals in Connecticut over the last decade or so.

“The goal is to make policy on a state level. You can’t count on federal policies. We need things to be sustainable on their own. Subsidies will not solve our woes.”

Steinberg offers some ideas for getting money if federal funding decreases or disappears. He suggests collaborations with the business community or investors. He said it might be worth considering something like taxing data center developers to cover the energy burden they bring. Such a tax could be reduced or eliminated if the company installs solar, geothermal, or some other energy reduction mechanism. “Anything to mitigate their energy burden by like a third or 50% before they can escape this tax,” he said.

The point, Steinberg said, is to figure out ways to get things done. It could be opting for low cost solutions in the near term or working with the Green Bank on private funding sources.

“I think that there are things that we must explore doing, even if it’s going to be harder,” he said.

Others said the transition to clean energy in New England is well underway which will help survive another round of Donald Trump.

“There is so much momentum behind clean energy technologies in particular,” said Julie McNamara, deputy policy director climate and energy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It’s two things at once. There will continue to be progress and there will not be as much progress as there could or must have been.

“Certain things will slow or stop because we’re approaching the parts of the clean energy transition where it gets hard. A lot of the low-hanging fruit has been picked, and so we’re starting to need to take those next further steps, the kind of things where It takes real, intentional work to couple policy with economics and a vision for the future.”

But Steinberg warned against the impulse to just wait Trump out. “It is not only not an answer; it would be irresponsible, in my view.”

He said everyone will need to be creative. “But the one thing we cannot lose is our resolve,” he said. “We just need to keep doing it, because we don’t have a choice.”

Connecticut took on Trump on climate before. It will probably be harder to do it again. is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.