Judge orders Trump admin to restore removed health agency webpages
A federal judge ordered federal health agencies Tuesday to restore pages they removed from their websites last month to comply with President Donald Trump's executive order on 'gender ideology and extremism,' saying the decision to pull them down could be detrimental to public health.
The decision by U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, came after a testy Monday afternoon hearing in which he sharply questioned the administration about doctors' claims that the removal of the pages damaged their ability to care for patients.
Bates said Tuesday that the pages' removal appeared to harm some doctors' ability to treat patients and was done without any public rationale, recourse or ability to challenge the decisions, despite laws and regulations that typically require them.
'No backend remedy could ameliorate the inability to provide all required care during an appointment time to a patient who cannot return in the future,' Bates wrote. Bates' decision requires federal health agencies — including the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration — to restore by midnight websites identified by Doctors for America, the left-leaning advocacy group that initiated the lawsuit.
The order followed a 90-minute hearing Monday on Doctors for America's bid to win a temporary restraining order restoring the pages and blocking the agencies 'from removing or substantially modifying' other datasets to implement the executive order.
The group sued the Office of Personnel Management, the CDC, the FDA and HHS last week, claiming the missing information 'deprives' doctors and researchers of ready access to data that's critical to treating patients and addressing public health emergencies.
Bates' order is the latest in a growing list of court decisions to slow or stop Trump's early blitz of executive orders that are remaking the federal bureaucracy.
Zachary Shelley, an attorney with consumer advocacy group Public Citizen representing the doctors, argued the removal of datasets and guidance — including guidelines on HIV and contraception drugs and information on student health — has hampered their ability to timely treat patients based on federally vetted information.
'There's nothing that can be done to un-delay research, un-delay progress,' he said. 'Every day that's lost now can't be given back if pages eventually go up."
DOJ attorney James Harlow argued that agencies are free to stop sharing information or to remove it for review, even if that data was once routinely disclosed.
'An agency's maintenance of a website is not the functional equivalent of an agency's formulation of an order,' he said. But Bates challenged Harlow's 'maintenance' assertion, arguing the agencies could have announced their intent to review the webpages in question while leaving them up in the interim.
'It's termination,' Bates said of the pages' removal. 'That's different than … 'ordinary maintenance.''
In his opinion, Bates said the agencies' decisions to take down certain webpages 'likely' constitute an 'order' that's reviewable under federal administrative law. 'The decision to remove myriad public-facing webpages, some of which had been active for decades, is certainly a 'form of agency power' or 'action' that the [Administrative Procedures Act] reaches,' he wrote.
Dr. Reshma Ramachandran, a Yale School of Medicine professor who provides primary care at a clinic that serves low-income people, said in a declaration to the court that the webpages' removal has impacted her work. Ramachandran said the disappearance of CDC guidelines on prescribing HIV preventive medication added time and confusion to a recent patient visit.
Patients visiting federally qualified health centers like where she practices tend to use public or scheduled transportation options that leave them with tight timelines to receive care and medications, Ramachandran said. Reducing the risk of HIV transmission requires timely care, she said. 'The delays imposed by CDC's removal of information is extremely harmful,' Ramachandran added.
Harlow's argument that patients weren't losing access to health care 'because CDC pulled down a couple pages' prompted Bates to loudly reprimand him for 'questioning' the judge. ''Adequacy of treatment' — that's a pretty clear term,' Bates said.
In his opinion, Bates signaled those impacts on patient care convinced him the doctors had a case.
'These doctors' time and effort are valuable, scarce resources, and being forced to spend them elsewhere makes their jobs harder and their treatment less effective,' he wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How stress shapes cancer's course
About two millennia ago, the Greek physicians Hippocrates and Galen suggested that melancholia—depression brought on by an excess of "black bile" in the body—contributed to cancer. Since then, scores of researchers have investigated the association between cancer and the mind, with some going as far as to suggest that some people have a cancer-prone or "Type C" personality. Most researchers now reject the idea of a cancer-prone personality. But they still haven't settled what influence stress and other psychological factors can have on the onset and progression of cancer, Knowable Magazine notes. More than a hundred epidemiological studies—some involving tens of thousands of people—have linked depression, low socioeconomic status and other sources of psychological stress to an increase in cancer risk, and to a worse prognosis for people who already have the disease. However, this literature is full of contradictions, especially in the first case. In recent decades, scientists have approached the problem from another angle: experiments in cells and animals. These have revealed important mechanisms by which stress can alter tumors, says Julienne Bower, a health psychologist at UCLA who coauthored a 2023 article on the connection between the brain and the immune system in diseases, including cancer, in the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. Such studies are showing that "psychological factors can influence aspects of actual tumor biology," she says. On the flip side, studies in people and animals suggest that blocking the chemical signals of stress may improve cancer outcomes. Today, a growing number of researchers think that psychological factors can influence cancer's progression once someone has the disease. "I don't think anyone appreciated the magnitude by which even mild stress, if it's chronic, can have such a negative influence on cancer growth," says Elizabeth Repasky, a cancer immunologist at the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York. New interest in the relationship between stress and cancer growth emerged in part from research into how stress affects the body's response to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In the 1990s and early 2000s, genomics researcher Steve Cole and his team at UCLA investigated why people infected with HIV who were under high stress tended to have worse outcomes, including larger viral loads and poorer responses to antiretroviral drugs. Cole's team discovered several routes through which stress could worsen HIV infections. In monkeys, they found, the lymph nodes of stressed animals had many more connections to sympathetic nerve cell fibers—which execute the body's fight-or-flight response—than the nodes of unstressed monkeys. Lymph nodes contain immune cells, and the nerve fibers reduced the antiviral function of these cells, which, in turn, led to an increase in the replication of a version of HIV that infects monkeys and apes. Lymph nodes, in addition to housing immune cells, also act as the body's drainage system, flushing away toxins through a network of tissues, organs and nodes called the lymphatic system. Importantly, cancer cells can hijack this system, using it to travel through the body. Erica Sloan, a postdoctoral trainee of Cole who was involved in the HIV work, wondered whether stress, via the sympathetic nervous system, might also affect lymph nodes in those with cancer. Sloan, now a cancer researcher at Monash University in Australia, went on to discover in mice that chronic stress increases the number of connections between the lymphatic system and breast tumors, making the cancer cells more likely to spread. Strikingly, treatment with a drug—a beta blocker that blunts the activity of key molecules of the sympathetic nervous system such as norepinephrine—prevented these effects. Research by other groups has shown that stress can lead to molecular changes, particularly within the immune system, that influence how cancer progresses. Some of this work suggests that, when stress leads to inflammation—a broad immune reaction typically brought on by injuries and infections—it can boost the growth of tumors. Stress can also impair the activity of immune cells that play an active role in fighting cancer. In the early 2000s, research by University of Iowa behavioral scientist Susan Lutgendorf and her colleagues found that in patients with ovarian cancer, depression and anxiety were associated with impaired tumor-fighting immune cells. In another study of people with ovarian cancer, the researchers found that poor social support was linked to higher levels of a growth factor that stimulates blood vessel growth around tumors. This growth, called angiogenesis, enables new blood vessels to supply nutrients to tumors and—like the lymphatic system—provide pathways through which cancer cells can spread to other parts of the body. Lutgendorf and her colleagues have since found that stressful situations have a similar effect on mice with ovarian cancer, enhancing tumor angiogenesis and cancer spread. Equally important, they've found that these effects can be reversed with beta blockers. Other groups have found similar effects of blocking stress signals on other types of cancer in rodents, including blood and prostate cancer. In addition, researchers have found that increasing levels of stress hormones such as norepinephrine and cortisol in mice can make previously dormant cancer cells more likely to divide and form new tumors. Studies like these are revealing that stress can trigger a cascade of biochemical changes and alter a cancer cell's environment in a way that may promote its spread. "Stress signaling and stress biology really have an impact on most—if not all—of these processes," says Jennifer Knight, a cancer psychiatrist at the Medical College of Wisconsin. If stress can make cancer worse, how can the process be stopped? Little by little, new treatments are emerging. For about half a century, clinicians have used beta blockers to treat hypertension. By scouring data from patient registries, researchers found that people with cancer who already had been taking certain kinds of beta blockers at the time of diagnosis often had better outcomes, including longer survival times, than those who were not on the medicines. Over the past few years, several clinical trials—most of which are small and early-stage—have directly tested whether beta blockers could benefit people with cancer. In one pair of studies, a research team led by neuroscientist Shamgar Ben-Eliyahu at Tel Aviv University, administered the beta blocker propranolol along with an anti-inflammatory drug to people with colorectal or breast cancer five days before surgery. The team chose this timing because earlier research had shown that while surgery is an opportunity to remove the tumor, it can also paradoxically provide the chance for the cancer to spread. So blocking any potential effects of stress on cancer spread, they reasoned, could be crucial to a patient's long-term prognosis. These trials, which involved dozens of patients, revealed that the tumor cells of those who received the drugs showed fewer molecular signs of being able to spread—a process known as metastasis—less inflammation, and an increase in some tumor-fighting immune cells. For colorectal cancer patients, there were also hints that the intervention could reduce cancer recurrence: Three years after the procedure, cancer returned in two of the 16 patients who received the drugs, compared to six of 18 patients who didn't receive those meds. Other studies have assessed the effect of using beta blockers alone, without anti-inflammatory drugs. In 2020, Sloan and her colleagues published a study including 60 breast cancer patients, half of whom were randomly assigned to receive propranolol a week before surgery, while the other half received a placebo. They, too, found that tumor cells from patients who received beta blockers had fewer biomarkers of metastasis. Stress-reducing beta blockers may also benefit other cancer treatments. In a 2020 study, Knight and her team looked at the effect of beta blockers in 25 patients with multiple myeloma who were receiving blood stem cell transplants. Patients who took beta blockers had fewer infections and faster blood cell recovery—although the study was too small to properly evaluate clinical outcomes. And in a small study of nine people with metastatic skin cancer, Repasky and her colleagues found hints that beta blockers might boost the effectiveness of cancer immunotherapy treatments. While studies on beta blockers are promising, it's not clear that these drugs will improve outcomes in all kinds of cancers, such as lung cancer and certain subtypes of breast cancer. Some patients can react badly to taking the medications—particularly those with asthma or heart conditions such as bradycardia, in which the heart beats unusually slowly. And, crucially, the drugs only block the endpoint of stress, not its cause, Repasky says. They will therefore likely need to be combined with mindfulness, counseling and other stress-reducing strategies that get closer to the root of the problem. Such interventions are also in the works. Bower and her team have conducted clinical trials of mind-body interventions such as yoga and mindfulness meditation with breast cancer survivors, to improve health and promote lasting remission. They've found that these therapies can decrease inflammatory activity in circulating immune cells, and they speculate that this may help to reduce tumor recurrence. Ultimately, bigger clinical trials are needed to firmly establish the benefits of beta blockers and other stress-reducing interventions on cancer survival outcomes—and determine how long such effects might last. The timing of treatment and the type of cancer being treated may play a role in how well such therapies work, researchers say. But lack of funding has been a barrier to conducting the larger follow-up studies needed to answer such questions. The work isn't yet backed by pharmaceutical companies or other organizations that support large studies in oncology, Knight says. And for now, whether stress can increase a person's risk of developing cancer in the first place, as the ancient Greeks once postulated, remains a mystery. Population studies linking stress to cancer risk are often complicated by other factors, such as smoking, poor nutrition and limited access to health care. "We have no definitive way of saying, 'If you're stressed out, you're going to develop cancer,'" says Patricia Moreno, a clinical psychologist at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and coauthor of an article in the 2023 Annual Review of Psychology about stress management interventions in cancer. But for people who already have a cancer diagnosis, many researchers argue that the evidence is strong enough to include stress management in clinical practice. On average, cancer patients do not receive psychological therapies that can reduce stress at the level for which they are needed, says Barbara Andersen, a clinical psychologist at Ohio State University. Although they won't be necessary for every patient, many can benefit from mind-body interventions, she says. "I'm not saying they should be a first priority, but they shouldn't be the last." This story was produced by Knowable Magazine and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How one state reduced its overdose death rate by 32% in a year
Overdose deaths in New York state declined 32% last year, a significant drop that officials and experts attribute to the state's efforts to expand harm reduction and addiction treatment services. An estimated 4,567 New Yorkers died of a drug overdose in 2024, compared to 6,688 in 2023, according to provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 77% of those deaths involved an opioid like fentanyl or heroin. Healthbeat dug into the measures the state took to help decrease its overdose death rate. The statewide decline mirrors a national trend, said Dr. Magdalena Cerdá, a professor and director of the Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy at the Department of Population Health at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Last year, about 80,000 Americans died of a drug overdose, down from about 110,000 deaths in 2023, a reduction of almost 27%, according to the CDC. 'We're still definitely in the middle of an overdose crisis,' Cerdá said. 'But the substantial decline in the past year gives me a lot of hope.' The reduction in deaths is promising but tenuous, experts say. Although overdose deaths have declined overall, racial disparities in mortality have widened, and uncertainty around federal funding related to addiction services could imperil recent progress. The Trump administration's recently released budget plan calls for more than $1 billion in cuts to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the federal agency focused on addiction and mental health. In New York, the reduction in deaths reflects a combination of forces, including wider availability of the overdose-reversing medication naloxone, expanded access to medication for opioid use disorder, and deeper investments in harm reduction services, experts say. 'There's likely multiple reasons for this decline, but one of them is the substantial investment that states have done, and in particular, New York state has done, in terms of the provision of harm reduction services and services to treat substance use disorders,' Cerdá said. In an announcement, Gov. Kathy Hochul's administration linked the decline in deaths to the state's distribution of nearly $400 million in opioid settlement funds, which are funding efforts to expand access to medication for addiction, supportive services, and recovery programs. 'These numbers show that our hard work and innovative approaches to establishing services are making a difference across the state,' Dr. Chinazo Cunningham, the commissioner of the Office of Addiction Services and Supports, said in a statement. Through a new online portal, the state has distributed more than 13 million fentanyl test strips and 10 million xylazine test strips — used to test drug samples — and 296,000 naloxone kits to residents for free, according to Hochul's administration. Additionally, the state Health Department distributed more than 537,600 naloxone kits from January 2024 through April 2025. The declines in mortality have not been evenly distributed across demographic groups. In New York City, while overdose deaths in 2023 declined for the first time in four years, including among white New Yorkers, they were unchanged among Black New Yorkers and increased among Latino New Yorkers. Recent data from the city Department of Health and Mental Hygiene show that high rates of overdose mortality persist in parts of the Bronx, Upper Manhattan, and Central Brooklyn. Addressing those disparities will require deeper investments in the impacted communities, including by reducing barriers to care and services, Cerdá said. In its annual report released in November, New York's Opioid Settlement Fund Advisory Board — a committee tasked with making recommendations for the allocation of the funding — stressed the need for racial equity in the distribution of settlement funds, describing ongoing overdose deaths in Black and Latino communities as an 'overarching concern.' Dr. Silvia Martins, a professor of epidemiology and director of the Substance Use Epidemiology Unit in the Department of Epidemiology at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, raised concerns that cuts to federal programs related to addiction could slow or stop the recent overall reduction in overdose deaths. Reduced funding for SAMHSA and looming cuts to Medicaid could curtail many Americans' access to addiction prevention and treatment programs, she said. And if federal funding for addiction services dries up, opioid settlement funds won't be able to fully close the gaps, she cautioned. 'I truly hope that the federal government realizes now is not the time to stop these efforts, because it's trending, in most states, in the right direction,' she said. 'We see that these efforts are working.' This story was produced by Healthbeat and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
DOGE cuts pass House, despite some GOP opposition
WASHINGTON — The House advanced the first round of requested spending cuts from the Trump administration in a narrow party-line vote, overcoming the first hurdle to enact a slew of recommendations made by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. Lawmakers voted 214-212 to approve the $9.4 billion rescissions package specifically targeting foreign aid as well as federal funding for organizations the Trump administration has accused of being anti-conservative. The package now heads to the Senate, which will have until July 18 to approve the requests otherwise the halted funding must be continued. All four members of Utah's House delegation voted in favor of the package. The fate of the bill appeared to be in peril when six Republicans initially voted against the measure on the floor, setting it up to fail. However, GOP leaders huddled with holdouts on the floor and managed to get two of those defectors to flip. The package looks to cut $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a nonprofit organization authorized by Congress in 1967. Every year, Congress appropriates funds to the CPB which are then distributed to more than 1,500 public media stations through community service grants. The spending cuts specifically target stations such as PBS and NPR, which the Trump administration claims unfairly target conservatives and the Republican Party. The package also cuts funding to the United States Agency for International Development, which provides foreign aid, as well as funds for the World Health Organization. The bill proposes millions of dollars in cuts to the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program started under the George W. Bush administration focusing on the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. The rescissions package would cut more than $8 million dedicated to the program. Those provisions initially put the package in murky territory as several moderate Republicans opposed cuts to the programs, specifically pointing to PEPFAR as 'one of the most successful public health programs in the world.' Other Republicans questioned the slashed funding to public broadcasting stations, citing strong relationships with their local news outlets. The package now heads to the Senate where it must be passed within 36 days to adhere to rescissions rules. Otherwise, the funds must be unfrozen and allocated to the appropriate agencies. The package will only require a simple majority in the Senate as rescissions packages are exempt from filibuster rules, relieving Republicans from needing to rely on any Democrats to help pass Trump's proposed cuts.
