Abortion pill loophole advertised during Indy 500
If you were at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway over the weekend, you may have noticed planes flying overhead advertising everything from Mountain Dew to abortion pills.
Why it matters: Indiana was the first state in the nation to ban nearly all abortions after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
The big picture: Abortion is banned statewide except in limited cases to save the life or prevent serious risk to the health of the pregnant person, if there is a lethal fetal anomaly or within the first 10 weeks postfertilization of a pregnancy that is the result of rape or incest.
Driving the news: From Carb Day through race day, abortion education nonprofit Mayday Health hired a plane to fly over Speedway with a banner advertising "abortion pills by mail."
What they're saying: "What we want to communicate is, no matter where you live, you still have options," Liv Raisner, Mayday's founder and executive director, told Axios. "We knew that 350,000 people were going to be around that racetrack on race day. What a great way to reach a high volume of people in a state where abortion is banned."
Between the lines: Indiana law says that telehealth may not be used for abortion, but federal regulation allows for abortion medication to be dispensed by pharmacies through the mail, and there are online providers who ship to all 50 states.
Mayday, which works in the education space only and doesn't prescribe or distribute the pills, explains that the prescribers are often working in states with shield laws that offer protection for practitioners in abortion-friendly states.
State of play: Americans have been using this workaround since the fall of Roe.
A survey released last year reported that 8,000 women a month, living in states that severely restrict abortion or access to such services through telehealth, were having abortion pills mailed to them by the end of 2023.
How it works: A medical abortion typically works by taking a combination of two medications in pill form — mifepristone and misoprostol.
This can be done safely up to the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The fine print: While performing an abortion outside of the state's limited exceptions is a crime in Indiana, self-managed abortion is not.
The state's abortion law does not include legal penalties for a person choosing to have an abortion.
By the numbers: There were 142 abortions performed in hospitals statewide last year, according to the Indiana Department of Health — that's a 98% decrease from 2022, the last full year before the state ban went into effect.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Cavities in children could increase by millions if fluoride is banned, study suggests
The Brief An estimated 25.4 million more teeth will result in tooth decay in the next five years if fluoride is banned from the U.S. public water supply, according to a recent model simulation. The study also predicted an estimated $9.8 billion will be spent on additional dental care over the next five years. Some states like Utah and Florida have already banned fluoride from the state's public water supply. Researchers created a model to estimate the impact a ban on fluoride in the United States water supply would have on children's dental health and the results are bleak. The simulations estimated that a ban would result in tooth decay in 25.4 million more teeth, which is equivalent to a decayed tooth for one out of every three children over the next five years. The results were published in Jama Health Forum on May 30. "There's strong evidence from other countries and cities, such as Calgary in Canada, showing that when fluoride is eliminated, dental disease increases. Our study offers a window into what would happen in the United States if water fluoridation ceased," Lisa Simon, MD, DMD, and senior author of the study, said. Why you should care Not only would eliminating fluoride increase the occurrence of tooth decay, but the estimated cost of dental care would rise exponentially, according to the study. By the numbers The models simulated the potential dental care costs over five and 10 years. $9.8 billion in additional dental care costs over five years $19.4 billion in additional dental care costs over 10 years "Most of the increased cost could be attributed to publicly insured children, meaning it would be a direct public health cost," said Simon. Dig deeper Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the CDC. In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and in 1962 set guidelines for how much should be added to water. Fluoride can come from several sources, but drinking water is the main one for Americans, researchers say. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population gets fluoridated drinking water, according to CDC data. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water was long considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century. The American Dental Association credits it with reducing tooth decay by more than 25% in children and adults. About one-third of community water systems — 17,000 out of 51,000 across the U.S. — serving more than 60% of the population fluoridated their water, according to a 2022 CDC analysis. What they're saying "We know fluoride works. We're able to show just how much it works for most communities and how much people stand to lose if we get rid of it," said Simon. Big picture view U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said he wants communities to stop fluoridating water, and he is setting the gears of government in motion to help make that happen. Kennedy has said he plans to tell the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending fluoridation in communities nationwide. And he said he's assembling a task force of health experts to study the issue and make new recommendations. Two states have already banned adding fluoride to public water systems. These include Florida and Utah. The Source Information for this article was taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, a study that observed oral health and water fluoridation data collected from 8,484 children aged 0-19 which was published in JAMA on May 30, 2025, a Mass General Brigham news release about the study, and reporting by The Associated Press. This story was reported from Los Angeles.
Epoch Times
3 hours ago
- Epoch Times
All Americans Traveling Abroad Should Get Measles Vaccine, CDC Says
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a major update to its measles vaccination guidance, urging all Americans traveling internationally—regardless of destination—to get vaccinated amid a resurgence of the disease in the United States and abroad. 'All international travelers should be fully vaccinated against measles with the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine,' the CDC
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
White House insists Medicaid policy won't cut people who deserve it
The White House plans to confront resistance to Medicaid cuts from Senate Republicans by arguing that any reductions in coverage would only affect people who didn't deserve it in the first place. A strong bloc of Republicans in the Senate has signaled that they are uncomfortable with Medicaid reductions in the sweeping tax-and-spending bill enacted last month by the House. President Donald Trump's advisers are determined to confront those concerns by claiming that cuts would chiefly target undocumented immigrants and able-bodied people who should not be on Medicaid, according to four administration officials and outside allies granted anonymity to discuss strategy. 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more common sense,' Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought said Sunday. 'That's what this bill does. No one will lose coverage as a result.' The megabill would add work requirements to the program and bar undocumented immigrants from getting coverage, among other attempts to tighten eligibility. Those provisions are projected to leave roughly 7.6 million low-income people without health care over the next decade — losses that would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in cost savings for the program. Contrary to Trump officials' claims, such cuts are widely anticipated to go beyond immigrants and the narrow slice of able-bodied unemployed, according to health experts. The provisions would likely add new layers of paperwork for low-income enrollees, making it more difficult for qualified recipients to stay on the program and pushing otherwise-eligible Americans suddenly out of health coverage. In a POLITICO interview published Sunday, Trump Medicaid chief Mehmet Oz argued the changes would 'future proof' the program, also insisting that "we're not cutting Medicaid." 'There's a lot of sensitivity about being accused, accused of not taking care of people who have disabilities or seniors without money or children,' Oz said. Trump officials have aggressively pushed that stance in public and private in recent days, insisting that the administration's plan will shield 'deserving' Medicaid recipients like the elderly and disabled, while targeting those who officials have cast as a drain on the nation's safety net. Many of those people gained coverage over the last decade through Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid. Republicans have been stung before by their efforts to enact health care cuts, most notably facing massive voter blowback in 2017 that cratered Trump's bid to repeal Obamacare and contributed to widespread losses in the following midterms. But Trump officials and allies argue that voters will support these changes to Medicaid, seeing them less as cuts than tweaks meant to ensure resources go to those who truly need it. 'Medicaid does not belong to people who are here illegally, and it does not belong to capable and able-bodied men who refuse to work,' said one of the White House officials. 'So no one is getting cut.' In a statement, White House spokesman Kush Desai said Trump would "protect and preserve Medicaid" by "kicking illegal immigrants off of the program and implementing commonsense work requirements," adding that Americans voted for such policies. The strategy represents a stark messaging shift for a GOP that has long found itself on the defensive in debates over health coverage. And it's an attempt by the White House to mirror the approach Trump has taken on other issues like immigration and trade, casting aside political complexities in favor of portraying them as a simple choice between 'us' and 'them.' Trump has framed his mass deportation campaign as an effort to rid the country of millions of immigrants deemed undeserving of staying in the U.S. He's justified his tariffs as a counter to other countries 'ripping us off' on trade. 'Before, they were taking things away from people,' Thomas Miller, a senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said of the health messaging shift. 'Now, they're saying they're not deserving.' In the Senate, Vought and White House legislative affairs chief James Braid have taken the lead in talks with Republican lawmakers, the White House official said. Trump has also dialed up a handful of senators over the last week, said another White House official granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy, ahead of a sprint in the Senate to pass its version of the megabill in a matter of weeks. The success of that effort could hinge on a handful of GOP senators who are skeptical of any Medicaid policies that could be interpreted as cuts, especially after the House added last-minute health care provisions into its bill that ballooned the predicted coverage losses. Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have expressed reservations about Medicaid work requirements, while some others have warned more generally about the prospect of cutting the program. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), perhaps the most outspoken Republican on the issue, said Monday in a post on X that Trump had assured him 'NO MEDICAID BENEFIT CUTS' will be in the bill. But rather than change course on policy, Trump officials and other Hill Republicans have instead signaled a preference for winning votes by redefining what qualifies as a cut. In a midday missive on Monday, the White House touted its push to remove roughly 1.4 million undocumented immigrants as key to strengthening Medicaid benefits 'for whom the program was designed — pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, low-income seniors, and other vulnerable low-income families.' That strident approach has prompted blowback from patient advocates and health industry groups across the spectrum, and even bewildered some Republicans who questioned the wisdom of making any changes to a program as politically delicate as Medicaid, especially in the red states of Trump's base. 'The fact remains that a great many Trump voters are on Medicaid, particularly in rural areas,' said GOP pollster Whit Ayres, adding it's unclear whether voters will buy Republicans' assertion that some cuts shouldn't qualify as actual cuts.'If no one loses coverage, how are you going to cut $500 billion?' Still, Trump aides remain confident they can bring both the Senate and the broader public around to their view. Much of the Medicaid-cautious contingent in the Senate — including Hawley — have already said they're okay with work requirements, drawing the line instead at broader funding cuts that might directly impact health providers and state budgets. The White House in the meantime has salivated over a fight with Democrats over coverage for undocumented immigrants, viewing it as another politically advantageous front in its immigration offensive. As for work requirements, Republicans pointed to polling that has consistently shown most Americans support them in theory — even despite the warnings about how it's likely to play out. 'It's a simple, clear message to say we're only taking away coverage from people who are not working,' said Miller. 'You don't get down to the granular details of, what does that actually mean in practice?' Megan Messerly and Ben Leonard contributed to this report.
