Latest news with #DivisionofReproductiveHealth
Politico
09-05-2025
- Health
- Politico
‘Dismantling one of the strongest tools we have': Conservatives fret HHS cuts
The Trump administration's decision to gut reproductive health research is alarming some conservatives, who worry it undercuts the president's pro-family agenda. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. laid off thousands of federal employees last month, including about 80 who worked at the Centers for Disease Control's Division of Reproductive Health, according to three former CDC staffers granted anonymity to speak candidly on agency dynamics. The office collected state and national data on live births, abortion trends and fertility treatment outcomes — the kind of information policymakers rely on to assess and improve maternal and infant health care, said Isaac Michael, a former HHS statistician who worked on the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System before he was laid off. 'If you cut PRAMS, this is dismantling one of the strongest tools we have to prevent maternal deaths, to reduce infant mortality and to close socioeconomic health gaps,' he said. Michael — who said he voted for President Donald Trump in 2024 based on his anti-abortion stance and supports the president's push to rein in federal spending — said ending PRAMS contradicts the administration's pro-family messaging. By tracking maternal health behaviors before, during and after pregnancy, Michael said the PRAMS team helped identify health disparities, evaluate the effectiveness of Medicaid and Women, Infant and Children (WIC) programs for pregnant people and understand causes of preterm birth and infant death. 'Without it, we are flying blind,' Michael said. 'We lose the ability to see where we are failing mothers and babies until it's too late.' Trump and members of his administration have been silent on the cuts. The White House did not respond to requests for comment about the future of the division's gutted programs. HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in a statement to POLITICO that 'critical programs' from the CDC's Division of Reproductive Health 'will continue under the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) alongside multiple agencies and programs to improve coordination of health resources for American.' PRAMS was one of multiple research teams within the division's women's health and fertility branch, which was wiped out by the layoffs, former CDC employees said. A fertility epidemiology studies team within the branch helmed projects like the CDC's contraception guidance for healthcare providers and an annual abortion surveillance report, which collected voluntary data about legal abortions. The division's field support branch, which deployed epidemiologists to states to improve maternal care, is also gone. The cuts come as more American women died around the time of childbirth last year, reversing a two-year decline, according to provisional data released last month. Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, called the layoffs 'short-sighted,' suggesting it could backfire on the Trump administration's pro-family message. 'Especially if we're going to be pumping more money or more rhetorical power into IVF or … maternal mortality, an area with a lot of bipartisan support, we should be investing in the kind of research that helps inform those debates and approaches,' he said. Brown, whose work focuses on pro-family economic policy, said the cuts may force conservatives to rely on abortion surveillance data from groups like the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion rights think tank. On IVF, Brown noted that while not all conservatives support expanding its access through federal mandates, basic data on usage and success rates is still necessary to inform proper policymaking. 'This is the kind of basic statistics gathering that there's just not really a good free market solution for,' Brown said. 'Collecting data like this is a pretty classic function of government and it's not something that you can rely on private industry or even academic institutions to do in the same scope or scale.' Still, Brown is not convinced the programs are 'gone for good.' He said he suspects the Trump administration will eventually reconsider the cuts. Even groups hesitant to criticize Trump directly are sticking up for PRAMS. 'Tools like PRAMS have real value when they're used to support vulnerable populations and guide evidence-based care,' Mary Hodges, vice president of the National Association of Pro-Life Nurses, said in a statement to POLITICO. 'If this program is being phased out, we would encourage the development of new, transparent systems that preserve those strengths while aligning with a pro-life framework.' PRAMS was temporarily paused earlier this year while HHS reviewed the program's compliance with the Trump administration's executive orders, according to Michael and the three other former CDC staffers. The team was greenlit to resume some operations in April — but then the workforce reduction hit, one former CDC staffer told POLITICO. A congressionally-mandated team working on assisted reproductive technology — the most common type being in vitro fertilization — was also a casualty of the layoffs. While some conservatives support the cuts as part of an overarching goal of shrinking the federal government, others fear it could weaken public health policy efforts that align with their values. Trump has made boosting birth rates and access to IVF a key plank in his agenda, referring to himself as the 'fertilization president,' during a Women's History event at the White House in March. And in February, Trump signed an executive order aimed at expanding access to IVF and reducing out-of-pocket costs. But those critical of the cuts are largely reluctant to criticize the Trump administration to avoid jeopardizing higher-profile goals, like reinstating strict FDA regulations on the abortion drug mifepristone. One leader at a national anti-abortion organization, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive dynamics without upsetting allies in the Trump administration, said while he personally was 'really sad to see' the programs eliminated, neither he nor anyone else he knows in the movement is planning to speak out against them. 'We can't just be the party of cutting,' this leader said. 'We also need to support life and support women.' Mayra Rodriguez, state director for the anti-abortion group Moms for Arizona, said when she voted for Trump she hoped he would purge federal agencies of ideological bias — not cut maternal and infant health research. 'Their data needs to be better, but again, it is their data that has helped us pass a lot of legislation that protects life,' said Rodriguez, who worked for Planned Parenthood before joining the anti-abortion movement. Rodriguez said the CDC's abortion surveillance report has helped identify the gaps and inconsistencies in state-level abortion reporting, aiding the passage of legislation that monitors post-abortion complications among women. She pointed to an Arizona law passed in 2018 that revised the state's abortion reporting requirements, mandating health care providers to report specific complications, including 'incomplete abortion retaining part of the fetus requiring reevacuation.' 'If we truly care about women and children, we need the data to improve health outcomes, and removing groups or organizations that do that contradicts the pro-life stance that we value both the mother and the child,' she said. For now, the division's Maternal and Infant Health branch remains — spared from the layoffs. But according to an HHS announcement about the department restructuring, the so-called Administration for a Healthy America will tackle maternal and child health issues, leaving the future of the branch uncertain. One former staffer warned that the remaining employees can't absorb the lost workload. 'They won't be able to do it,' the staffer said. 'There are so few experts in this topic area throughout the country … they don't have the time or ability or institutional knowledge to continue these programs.' Alice Miranda Ollstein contributed to this report.
Yahoo
13-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Why the backlash to Meghan Markle sharing her postpartum health scare is so ominous
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex — arguably one of the most scrutinized women in the world — revealed last week on her new podcast 'Confessions of a Female Founder' that she suffered from a condition known as postpartum pre-eclampsia after giving birth to one of her children (though Meghan did not specify which one). After sharing her experience, waves of misinformation and disinformation quickly followed, spreading across social media and tabloids. Some questioned the legitimacy of her condition; others accused her of exaggeration or seeking attention. This backlash is not only harmful; it's dangerous. It undermines medical realities, discourages women from speaking up, and perpetuates a culture where maternal health is dismissed and politicized. Just last week, the Trump administration made cuts that gutted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Reproductive Health, which in part monitors data on maternal mortality. The dehumanization of women, and especially women of color, in these conversations reinforces a system that already fails to listen and protect. When lived experiences are met with doubt instead of empathy, lives are at risk. I developed postpartum pre-eclampsia six days after giving birth to my son — the same condition Meghan mentioned. To be clear, this is not the same as pre-eclampsia (pre-eclampsia develops when the baby is still in utero and comes with various other complications). It is imperative to distinguish the two because the context in which a woman is cared for within our medical system differs enormously during pregnancy and post-pregnancy. This distinction easily gets lost in the tabloid and social media noise. Postpartum pre-eclampsia is a very serious and sometimes fatal condition, characterized by high blood pressure and protein in the urine in the days or weeks after giving birth. It can lead to seizing, a stroke, blood clots, excess fluid in the lungs, organ failure, brain damage and death (this is when it progresses to eclampsia). A reported 75% of maternal deaths are connected to postpartum pre-eclampsia, making it an especially dangerous condition, according to the Preeclampsia Foundation, the nation's leading nonprofit on the issue. This is partly because the first postpartum checkup isn't until week six — the exact cutoff point before which data suggests a woman is still at risk of developing the condition. By that time, women have long been discharged, and the attention has shifted to the new baby. The condition can come on fast and often with little warning. When I was diagnosed, I had no prior history of high blood pressure, diabetes or obesity, nor was my son born via IVF — all of which are risk factors that data suggests might increase the likelihood of developing the condition. Due to massive gaps in the research, it's safe to assume any woman, regardless of her medical history, is at some risk. The night I was hospitalized, I noticed my ankles were swelling significantly. I developed a thundering headache and shortness of breath, so I asked my husband to take my blood pressure with a blood pressure cuff we happened to have lying around at home. The numbers were so alarming he thought maybe there was a mistake with the cuff — but he had me call my doctor, just in case. After leaving a message for the on-call doctor, I downplayed my husband's concern. Birth — the hard part, or so I thought — was over. I had a healthy baby boy to take care of. I left my phone to get a snack and returned to two missed calls and a voicemail from my OB-GYN telling me to return to labor and delivery immediately. When we arrived at the hospital, I still didn't feel too worried. So when the nurses started frantically hooking me up to a catheter and IVs, I was afraid and confused. Before anyone could tell me what was wrong with me, I was whisked away to a dark room as my headache worsened. At the time, I had no idea I was at risk of a lethal seizure or stroke. While in emergency treatment, I could not hold or breastfeed my new baby, and my husband was left alone to care for him while worrying about what was happening to me. It was then that we learned about postpartum pre-eclampsia for the first time. It was terrifying — not just for me, but also for my husband. I am so fortunate that not only did my husband believe my symptoms (and have a blood pressure cuff at home) but that my doctor believed me, too. I am a white woman who received swift and effective medical attention. Not everyone has that privilege or is as lucky. Gender bias and systemic issues, including the minimization of women's pain and dismissal of Black women's symptoms in particular, have led to many missed or delayed diagnoses. Black women are three times more likely than white women to die from pregnancy-related causes, and five times more likely to die from postpartum cardiomyopathy, a possible symptom of the condition. By sharing that she suffered from postpartum pre-eclampsia, Meghan not only helps break the long-held silence around the condition, but also highlights how frequently women's health concerns are dismissed or minimized, especially surrounding birth. The skepticism she has received isn't just about celebrity gossip, it's a microcosm of how society often treats women's pain as an exaggeration. And when it's a Black woman speaking out? The disbelief comes faster. Meghan's willingness to speak publicly forces a critical conversation not just about postpartum health, but also about the cultural reflex to second-guess women when they say something feels wrong. This backlash also speaks to the growing broader and darker mistrust of the medical establishment — ironically, rooted in histories of neglect, racism and systemic inequality — that continues to leave so many, especially women of color, feeling unheard or unprotected. That's what makes the backlash to Meghan sharing her story particularly damaging; it threatens the progress toward a more inclusive and accountable medical system by discouraging others from speaking out. Because maternal mortality is rising in the U.S., we cannot afford to stay silent. Our stories matter. Our lives matter. Every woman deserves to know the risks, princess or not — and to be believed. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
05-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
How Trump's CDC Purge Will Affect Reproductive Health: ‘Women Will Die'
The consequences of the Trump administration's purge of thousands of federal workers from the Department of Health and Human Services on April 1 are so enormous, they can be difficult to grasp. But the impacts won't be abstract — experts say the destruction of critical departments could put women's lives at risk. On Tuesday morning, more than 7,000 federal employees across the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were placed on administrative leave. The cuts — part of Donald Trump and Elon Musk's broader purge of the federal workforce — were widespread and erased entire departments, without regard to experience. Two of the three branches in the CDC's Division of Reproductive Health were eliminated, as was their leadership, leaving only the Maternal and Infant Health branch. 'We got obliterated,' says Taylor, who received a reduction in force (RIF) letter on Tuesday. (They asked to use a pseudonym to avoid retribution.) The Division of Violence Prevention was similarly affected, with three of the four branches cut. Only its leadership and a surveillance branch remain. The firings led to more confusion when Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the vaccine skeptic made head of the HHS, said on Thursday about 20 percent of the cuts could be mistakes — and that they need to be corrected. The chaos and uncertainty left many working for the department and those who rely on their life-saving research concerned about those who will be disproportionately impacted by these changes — women. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, ending federal protection for abortion rights, reproductive health experts sounded the alarm on how it would be catastrophic for women's health. And now, especially in states where abortion is banned, the collection and interpretation of data around reproductive health is crucial, as is medical research on IVF, contraception, and high-risk pregnancies. With the layoffs at the Reproductive Health and Violence Prevention divisions, a lot of research and programs that focused on women have been gutted. The repercussions will be far-reaching, as violence against women and pregnancy are linked. In fact, the leading cause of death for pregnant people is homicide. And the groups that are the most vulnerable to both violence and maternal health mortalities are Black women and communities of color. This is in addition to the risks this lack of resources poses for domestic abuse and rape victims because the teams studying how to prevent this type of violence have been decimated. The CDC's Division of Reproductive Health team that focused on emergency preparedness for pregnant and postpartum women and infants was also slashed this week. Those staffers were responsible for responding to how pandemics like Covid-19 can impact pregnant women and making sure to include them in their health response plans. The entire Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) team was laid off. That program was developed to identify women and infants at high risk of health problems, with the goal of reducing infant mortality and morbidity. 'We cannot understand factors associated with poor pregnancy outcomes without surveillance like PRAMs,' Taylor says. The U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate of all high-income countries, and experts fear that reducing research on prevention will make things even worse. 'If we don't understand those factors, U.S. maternal morbidity and mortality will continue to worsen. This means more women will die.' 'Black women in America are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women, we know this in large part because of the data collected and analyzed by the CDC,' says Jennifer Driver, who runs the reproductive rights council at the State Innovation Exchange, a strategy center collaborating with state lawmakers on progressive public policy. Dr. Nicole Freehill is an OB-GYN in Louisiana, and many of her patients have high-risk pregnancies. She's not directly funded by these programs, but she and other doctors across the country will feel the impacts of these cuts. 'Anything like PRAMS that's monitoring for pregnancies with adverse outcomes, even though [the CDC] didn't cut the maternal mortality branch, these things are intertwined,' she says. 'If you're potentially cutting services, monitoring, and research, how can we keep pregnancies healthy?' Freehill also says she was concerned about how cuts to the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) team will affect fertility research. 'That's an ever-changing field, trying to find the best techniques to help patients get pregnant and stay pregnant,' she says. 'A lot of these patients have tried for years, they want to be parents. If this administration is so pro-life, why are they cutting this?' Among the employees who were cut were researchers who studied contraception, abortion, and fertility. For example, staffers would investigate success rates of IVF across clinics nationwide. The CDC is one of the only federal agencies tracking success rates and overseeing fertility clinics. The IVF cuts were especially ironic, considering Trump recently declared himself the 'fertilization president' at a Women's History Month event at the White House on March 26 when talking about the executive order he signed pledging to expand access to fertility treatment. And for people who don't want to get pregnant, the CDC cuts also pose challenges. In a state like Louisiana, where Freehill practices and abortion is banned, contraception is more important than ever. But, as Rolling Stone reported this week, the team that worked on the contraception guidelines at the CDC was also shuttered. The guidelines, which provide recommendations for health care providers for safe use of contraception, are used as a standard of care by OB-GYNs, midwives, and primary care doctors. Freehill says she often checks them when patients who have specific medical conditions and are on medication come in and want to know which birth control option is safest and most effective for them. She is also worried about the gutting of the FDA, which releases guidelines on how many years IUDs can be effective, something that can be constantly updated with new research and data. Trump and Kennedy's attacks on science have been rolled out in stages. One of the first ways the CDC was affected was after Trump's executive order in January claiming to 'defend women from gender ideology extremism.' CDC researchers had to change how they talked about gender, even when it was central to their work. For example, in January an agency website about violence had to scrub the term 'gender-based violence,' and a website about racism in health was removed. 'This will close a lot of doors for sexual assault survivors that relied on these programs.' – a health scientist on the violence prevention team 'The executive order drastically affected the way that we study, report, and all the different ways we can talk about violence against women because it is gender based,' says Jordan, a CDC staffer who researches violence prevention and was sent a RIF letter on Tuesday. They also requested a pseudonym for fear of retribution. 'Gender is associated with a likelihood of experiencing violence.' Intimate partner violence, for example, primarily affects women, and the Intimate Partner Violence Prevention team was dismantled. The team worked with state and local domestic violence coalitions to put prevention strategies in place. All of the employees working on rape prevention education were also placed on leave. They'd funded and evaluated programs aimed at reducing sexual violence, especially in communities with marginalized individuals. They provided funding to state coalitions which distributed the money to rape crisis centers and local organizations and educated communities on resources they had available. One program that was funded was a hotspot mapping app called 'Like a Girl.' If girls and women don't feel safe in a neighborhood they can mark the spot on the map and then that data can be used to target high-impact areas and see if there are improvements that can be made to the area, like adding streetlights or using other proven ways of reducing violence. 'This will close a lot of doors for sexual assault survivors that relied on these programs,' says a health scientist on the violence prevention team who asked to remain anonymous. 'When you experience violence, you are more likely to have mental health issues, to have physical health issues, you're more likely to live in poverty,' Jordan says. 'All of these things are related. If we can't work on preventing violence, we can't work on preventing a whole wide range of health issues for women. You can't tease [these issues] apart and just work on one and not the other.' While the CDC's Division of Violence Prevention's leadership remains, its branches were almost entirely eliminated except for the surveillance team, which looks at data available across the states to see where violence happens, and where help is needed. Many of the positions eliminated were responsible for using this data from the field to determine which methods are successful in preventing violence. 'We're not just giving money to people and walking away; we connect national partners together and create guidance and technical assistance for local communities and states to implement violence prevention activities,' Jordan says. 'If those connections go away, and nobody's funding them, it's leaving these communities out to dry, especially in rural areas. They're going to be left with no resources.' They added, 'If we can't track how and why and what to do about it, there's no point in knowing that [violence] is happening. We already know that.' As the massive layoffs have hit federal health agencies, reproductive health advocates are trying to amp up the involvement of state legislators. 'States rely on [CDC] information to help them understand the gaps,' says advocate Driver. 'How can states address the racial disparities in maternal deaths if the data no longer exists? Erratic and wholesale elimination of programs has and will continue to harm people in the states.' The consequences could have reverberations far outside of the U.S., as well. Cutting funding to all of these agencies could create irreversible damage that trickles out to countries that rely on the U.S. for things like vaccine innovation, detailed guidelines on medicine, and decades-long research on issues that harm people. 'Research-cutting in any area of medicine is dangerous,' Freehill says. 'Currently, the United States is the world leader in medical research, and if that gets significantly cut, then I'm worried about what's going to happen with the overall health of our country — of the entire world.' More from Rolling Stone Trump Skips Honoring Soldiers Killed in Lithuania to Watch Golf Trump Shares Video About How He Is 'Purposely Crashing the Stock Market' Trump's Tariffs Are Tying Republicans in Knots Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
