Latest news with #Winmill
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Investing in Gold This June? Here's How Much You Could Gain in Just One Year
Gold prices have already surged an impressive 25.65% since the beginning of 2025, reaching record highs above $3,500 per ounce, per Recent market volatility saw gold experience its biggest one-day drop in nearly four years, falling 3.7% to settle at $3,294.10. Explore Next: Read More: Despite this correction, experts believe the precious metal remains positioned for potential gains over the next twelve months. Gold's remarkable climb this year culminated in an all-time intraday high of $3,509.90 before support suddenly gave way to profit-taking. According to Trading Economics, gold is expected to trade at approximately $3,249.60 by the end of this quarter. Central banks continue supporting demand, purchasing 244 tonnes in the first quarter despite a 21% decrease from 2024 levels, per Reuters. Real interest rates currently favor gold investments, with the 10-year Treasury yielding 4.5% against 2.3% inflation rates. According to T. Rowe Price, this creates a real interest rate of 2.2%, which remains below historical averages of around 3%. Lower real rates traditionally reduce the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets like precious metals. Be Aware: Thomas Winmill, Portfolio Manager at Midas Funds, expects volatility, but maintains a positive long-term outlook for gold prices. According to Winmill, investors should anticipate random price movements driven by unpredictable geopolitical factors in the short term. However, several fundamental factors support potential price appreciation over the coming twelve months. Continued central bank demand from creditor nations provides underlying support for gold prices, according to industry analysis. Massive deficit spending and growing government debts worldwide could lead to currency debasement, historically benefiting precious metals. Current low interest rates and persistent inflation concerns create an environment where gold often outperforms traditional investments. Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and unresolved trade frictions between major economies further enhance gold's appeal. These factors combine to create conditions favorable for potential price appreciation through 2026. Gold's 20-year track record shows a compound annual growth rate of 9.8%, with significant year-to-year variation. According to DiversifyGuy, the best single-year performance reached 31.4% in 2007, while the worst declined 28.3% in 2013, based on historical data. This volatility demonstrates why experts recommend viewing gold as a long-term wealth preservation strategy rather than speculation. A $1,000 investment based on historical averages could potentially grow to $1,098 over twelve months using conservative projections. However, Winmill noted that gold mining funds like his Midas Discovery have achieved 71.19% one-year returns recently. Actual returns will depend on market conditions, interest rate changes and global economic developments throughout the investment period. Investors should recognize that gold provides no dividend or interest income, relying entirely on price appreciation for returns. According to financial analysis, this characteristic makes gold particularly sensitive to changes in real interest rates and inflation expectations. Winmill recommended older investors seeking income limit gold exposure to less than 5% of total assets. Younger investors with higher risk tolerance can consider allocating more substantial portions of their wealth to precious metals. The specific amount depends on individual factors including age, overall wealth and personal risk tolerance levels. For first-time investors, starting with $500 to $1,000 allows meaningful exposure without excessive risk concentration. According to Winmill, the key is beginning early and adding to positions regularly through systematic investment programs. This approach helps investors benefit from dollar-cost averaging while building long-term precious metals exposure. More From GOBankingRates 8 Common Mistakes Retirees Make With Their Social Security Checks 7 Luxury SUVs That Will Become Affordable in 2025 This article originally appeared on Investing in Gold This June? Here's How Much You Could Gain in Just One Year
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Emergency abortions are now allowed — at only some Idaho hospitals, judge rules
Idaho doctors can perform an abortion as stabilizing care during a medical emergency, a federal judge ruled Thursday — so long as they're at the right hospital. U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled that only St. Luke's Health System and its medical providers are protected from Idaho's near-total abortion ban where it intersects with emergency care. The ruling created a preliminary injunction in the case between the health system, which is Idaho's largest, and Attorney General Raúl Labrador. Spokespersons for St. Luke's and the Attorney General's Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. St. Luke's sued Labrador in January over abortion restrictions it said are incompatible with its obligation to provide patients with stabilizing care under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA. Idaho law only allows abortion in some instances: ectopic or molar pregnancies, reported cases of rape or incest, and procedures that prevent the death of a pregnant patient. Since abortion restrictions took effect in Idaho in 2022, following the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, doctors have said the state's laws make it unclear whether they can perform an abortion if a patient's health, not life, is at risk. At the time St. Luke's sued the state, the hospital system said it wanted to preserve an injunction already in place allowing all Idaho hospitals to perform abortions in medical emergencies. That injunction — which Winmill issued in 2022 — stemmed from a Department of Justice lawsuit against Idaho also over EMTALA. Republican President Donald Trump's administration dropped the lawsuit, which was filed under former Democratic President Joe Biden, earlier this month. A temporary injunction was in place in the St. Luke's case since then. The decision Thursday marks the narrowest emergency abortion protection since June 2024. For about six months last year — between when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the DOJ case and when it remanded it back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — Idaho's ban was fully in effect. St. Luke's said it airlifted six patients out of the state for emergency abortion access during that time. Winmill said in his Thursday decision that 'St. Luke's does not exist in a vacuum,' and the health system said it may not be able to handle the strain of taking patient transfers from other hospitals not protected by the injunction. Still, the judge sided with an argument from Labrador that the scope of the injunction was too broad when the health care system is the only party in the lawsuit. The judge denied a motion from the attorney general to dismiss the case.
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
New court order shields certain Idaho doctors from prosecution for emergency abortion care
Supporters hold signs in support of their doctors and abortion access at a rally on April 21, 2024, at the Idaho Statehouse in Boise. (Otto Kitsinger for States Newsroom) Physicians at Idaho's largest health system will continue to be shielded from criminal prosecution for providing abortion care in an emergency after a federal court judge issued a new protection order Thursday in a lawsuit over the state's abortion ban. The directive applies only to St. Luke's Health System and its medical providers as the sole plaintiff suing Idaho over restrictions hospital officials say conflict with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA. That law requires any hospital that accepts Medicare funding to provide stabilizing treatment to patients who come to emergency rooms regardless of their ability to pay. St. Luke's operates eight of the 39 hospitals in Idaho that accept Medicare funding, and it delivered more than 40% of the 22,000 babies born in the state in 2024. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, an appointee of former Democratic President Bill Clinton, cited the original intention of the law in his Thursday order. Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the law in response to 'patient dumping,' when hospitals would turn people away for being uninsured or covered by Medicaid. 'When EMTALA passed, these 'undesirable' patients were the indigent. Today, they are pregnant women,' Winmill wrote in Thursday's decision. The U.S. Department of Justice, under the Biden administration, sued Idaho in 2022. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2024, but justices decided they couldn't rule on it at that juncture and returned it to the lower courts for further argument. After Republican President Donald Trump's election victory, St. Luke's filed its own separate lawsuit against Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador because the hospital's leadership anticipated Trump's Justice Department would drop the case. The DOJ attorneys moved to dismiss the case on March 5, dissolving the previous injunction. A health system is fighting Idaho's abortion ban. It's not its first controversial stance. 'Specifically, the attorney general, including his officers, employees, and agents, are prohibited from initiating any criminal prosecution against, attempting to suspend or revoke the professional license of, or seeking to impose any other form of liability on, St. Luke's or any of its medical providers based on their performance of conduct that is defined as an 'abortion' under Idaho Code, but that is necessary to 'stabilize' a patient presenting with an 'emergency medical condition' as required by EMTALA,' Winmill wrote. Winmill said it was clear that without the injunction, St. Luke's and its patients would be harmed, because for three months in 2024 when the injunction was not in place, six patients were airlifted out of state if they needed to end their pregnancies to preserve their health. That situation only came up once in the entire year before. The cases these situations apply to are rare, physicians have said, but the consequences can be severe if left untreated. The most common issue is when a pregnant patient's water breaks before the fetus is viable. That can quickly progress to an infection that can cause great damage to the kidneys and reproductive organs, jeopardizing a patient's ability to have children in the future. Labrador's office asked Winmill to dismiss the case, arguing there is no conflict between Idaho's abortion law and EMTALA, and maintaining that the abortion ban protects 'both the mother and their unborn child.' Earlier this month, Labrador's deputies argued at a hearing that case law from the Idaho Supreme Court's interpretation of the ban does not require an immanency of death, only a subjective, good faith medical judgment that the person's life is threatened. At the same time Deputy Attorney General David Myers told Winmill there is no medical situation in which it is necessary to perform an abortion as stabilizing care. Winmill wrote in his decision that while that is true of their interpretation, there is still a conflict. 'The Defense of Life Act plainly requires that an abortion is 'necessary to prevent the death.' If 'imminent' is not the standard, how close must the woman be to death for the abortion to be 'necessary'?' he wrote. 'There is no way for physicians to know this, and the price of falling on the wrong side of the line is a felony conviction.' EMTALA, he added, uses much less categorical language: 'such medical treatment of the condition as may be necessary to assure, within reasonable medical probability, that no material deterioration of the condition is likely to result.' North Idaho legislators bring bill to add health exceptions to state's abortion ban The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group of more than 60,000 physicians, issued a statement Friday celebrating the decision, saying it was a relief. 'OB-GYNs see every day that bans on abortion cannot exist in concert with EMTALA, because bans prevent clinicians from providing patients with the full range of emergency care that they might need,' said Molly Meegan, chief legal officer and general counsel for the organization, in the statement. 'ACOG is grateful that our members in Idaho now have the ability to provide evidence-based medical care to patients facing obstetric emergencies without fear of prosecution.' Idaho's abortion ban applies to all stages of pregnancy and includes an exception to prevent the pregnant patient's death, but not to preserve their health. Physicians found in violation of the law are subject to two to five years in prison, the loss of their medical license, and civil penalties. Without a health exception, which the Idaho Legislature has failed to enact despite repeated pleas from doctors and other providers, doctors have said they cannot terminate a pregnancy to prevent someone from experiencing detrimental health effects without fear of prosecution. The health system also says it could lose Medicare funds for violating EMTALA and the laws have already been driving physicians to practice in other states. The injunction will stay in place as the case proceeds, according to Winmill's order. The next hearing date has not yet been scheduled. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Trump administration drops Biden lawsuit over emergency abortions in Idaho
By Brendan Pierson -U.S. President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday dropped a lawsuit that had been filed by the previous Biden administration in a bid to stop Idaho from enforcing its near-total abortion ban in medical emergencies. The ban still remains blocked in emergencies due to a similar lawsuit brought by a hospital system. The government's voluntary dismissal of its lawsuit against the state automatically lifts a preliminary order by the judge overseeing the case. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. That order had blocked Idaho from enforcing its ban in cases where doctors believe abortion is needed to save a pregnant woman's life or prevent serious harm to her health. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill late on Tuesday issued a new temporary restraining order in a separate lawsuit against the state by St. Luke's Health System that continues, for now, to bar the state from enforcing the ban in such emergencies. Winmill, who is presiding over both lawsuits, is scheduled to hear arguments Wednesday afternoon on the Boise-based hospital system's motion for a longer-term order limiting the state ban, and on the state's motion to dismiss the case. St. Luke's asked for the temporary restraining order on Tuesday after being informed that the Trump administration would be dropping its case. Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, a Republican, has asked Winmill to narrow his restraining order to prevent enforcement only against St. Luke's. The judge has not ruled on that request. Idaho passed its near-total abortion ban, which includes an exception for saving the mother's life, in 2020 as a so-called "trigger law". It was set to take effect when the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, its landmark decision that had established abortion rights nationwide, which it did in June 2022. In August 2022, the Biden administration sued the state, alleging that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires hospitals to provide "stabilizing care" to patients with emergency medical conditions, trumps the state ban in medical emergencies. Winmill agreed and barred the state from enforcing the law in such cases while the lawsuit went forward. The state appealed that ruling, eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to intervene. St. Luke's sued Labrador in January, saying it would be unable to provide required emergency care if the state ban were to go into effect.
Reuters
05-03-2025
- Health
- Reuters
Trump administration drops Biden lawsuit over emergency abortions in Idaho
March 5 - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday dropped a lawsuit that had been filed by the previous Biden administration in a bid to stop Idaho from enforcing its near-total abortion ban in medical emergencies. The ban still remains blocked in emergencies due to a similar lawsuit brought by a hospital system. The government's voluntary dismissal, opens new tab of its lawsuit against the state automatically lifts a preliminary order by the judge overseeing the case. That order had blocked Idaho from enforcing its ban in cases where doctors believe abortion is needed to save a pregnant woman's life or prevent serious harm to her health. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill late on Tuesday issued a new temporary restraining order, opens new tab in a separate lawsuit against the state by St. Luke's Health System that continues, for now, to bar the state from enforcing the ban in such emergencies. Winmill, who is presiding over both lawsuits, is scheduled to hear arguments Wednesday afternoon on the Boise-based hospital system's motion for a longer-term order limiting the state ban, and on the state's motion to dismiss the case. St. Luke's asked for the temporary restraining order on Tuesday after being informed that the Trump administration would be dropping its case. Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, a Republican, has asked, opens new tab Winmill to narrow his restraining order to prevent enforcement only against St. Luke's. The judge has not ruled on that request. Idaho passed its near-total abortion ban, which includes an exception for saving the mother's life, in 2020 as a so-called "trigger law". It was set to take effect when the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, its landmark decision that had established abortion rights nationwide, which it did in June 2022. In August 2022, the Biden administration sued the state, alleging that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires hospitals to provide "stabilizing care" to patients with emergency medical conditions, trumps the state ban in medical emergencies. Winmill agreed and barred the state from enforcing the law in such cases while the lawsuit went forward. The state appealed that ruling, eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to intervene. St. Luke's sued Labrador in January, saying it would be unable to provide required emergency care if the state ban were to go into effect.
