Category: Academic Analysis

Source: – By Skip York, Nonresident Fellow in Energy and Global Oil, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

Global energy markets, such as those for oil, gas and coal, tend to be sensitive to a wide range of world events – especially when there is some sort of crisis. Having worked in the energy industry for over 30 years, I’ve seen how war, political instability, pandemics and economic sanctions can significantly disrupt energy markets and impede them from functioning efficiently.

A look at the basics

First, consider the economic fundamentals of supply and demand. The risk most people imagine in the current crisis between Israel, the U.S. and Iran is that Iran, which is itself a major oil-producing country, might suddenly expand the conflict by threatening the ability of neighboring countries to supply oil to the world.

Oil wells, refineries, pipelines and shipping lanes are the backbone of energy markets. They can be vulnerable during a crisis: Whether there is deliberate sabotage or collateral damage from military action, energy infrastructure often takes a hit.

For instance, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Iraqi forces placed explosive charges on Kuwaiti oil wells and began detonating them in January 1991. It took months for all the resulting fires to be put out, and millions of barrels of oil and hundreds of millions of cubic meters of natural gas were released into the environment – rather than being sold and used productively somewhere around the world.

Logistics can mess markets up too. For instance, closing critical maritime routes like the Strait of Hormuz or the Suez Canal can cause transportation delays.

Whether supply is lost from decreased production or blocked transportation routes, the effect is less oil available to the market, which not only causes prices to rise in general, but it also makes them more volatile – tending to change more frequently and by larger amounts.

On the flip side, demand can also shift radically. During the 1990-1991 Gulf War, demand rose: U.S. forces alone used more than 2 billion gallons of fuel, according to an Army analysis. By contrast, during the COVID-19 pandemic, industries shut down, travel came to a halt and energy demand plummeted.

When crisis looms, countries and companies often start stockpiling oil and other raw materials rather than buying only what they need right now. That creates even more imbalance, resulting in price volatility that leaves everyone, both consumers and producers, with a headache.

Regional considerations

In addition to uncertainties around market fundamentals, it’s important to note that many of the world’s energy reserves are located in regions that have not been models of stability. In the Middle East, wars, revolutions and diplomatic disputes there can raise concerns about supply, demand or both.

Those worries send shock waves through the world’s energy markets. It’s like walking on a tightrope: One wrong move – or even the perception of a misstep – can make the market wobble.

Governments’ economic sanctions, such as those restricting trade with Iran, Russia or Venezuela, can distort production and investment decisions and disrupt trade flows. Sometimes markets react even before sanctions are officially in place: Just the rumor of a possible embargo can cause prices to spike as buyers scramble to secure resources.

In 2008, for example, India and Vietnam imposed rice export bans, and rumors of additional restrictions fueled panic buying and nearly doubled prices in months.

In those scrambles, the role of investor speculation enters the picture. Energy commodities, such as oil and gas, aren’t just physical resources; they’re also traded as financial assets like stocks and bonds. During uncertain times, traders don’t wait around for actual changes in supply and demand. They react to news and forecasts, sometimes in large groups, which can shift the market just with the actions that result from their fears or hopes.

The events on June 22, 2025, are a good example of how this dynamic works. The Iranian parliament passed a resolution authorizing the country’s Supreme Council to close the Strait of Hormuz. Immediately, oil prices started rising, even though the strait was still open, with oil tankers steaming through unimpeded.

The next day, Iran launched a missile strike on Qatar, but coordinated in advance with Qatari officials to minimize damage and casualties. Traders and analysts perceived the action as a de-escalatory signal and anticipated that the Supreme Council was not going to close the strait. So prices started to fall.

It was a price roller coaster, fueled by speculation rather than reality. And computer algorithms and artificial intelligence, which assist in making automated trades, only add to the chaos of price changes.

A broader look

International crises can also cause wider changes in countries’ economies – or the global economy as a whole – which in turn affect the energy market.

If a crisis sparks a recession, rising inflation or high unemployment, those tend to cause people and businesses to use less energy. When the underlying situation stabilizes, recovery efforts can mean energy consumption resumes. But it’s like a pendulum swinging back and forth, with energy markets caught in the middle.

Renewable energy is not immune to international crisis and chaos. The supply is less affected by market forces: The amount of available sunlight and wind isn’t tied to geopolitical relations. But overall economic conditions still affect demand, and a crisis can disrupt the supply chains for the equipment needed to harness renewable energy, like solar panels and wind turbines.

It’s no wonder energy markets are so jittery during international crises. A mix of imbalances between supply and demand, vulnerable infrastructure, political tensions, corporate worries and speculative trading all weave together into a complex web of volatility.

For policymakers, investors and consumers, understanding these dynamics is key to navigating the ups and downs of energy markets in a crisis-prone world. The solutions aren’t simple, but being informed is the first step toward stability.

Skip York is a nonresident fellow for Global Oil and Energy with the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. He also is the Chief Energy Strategist at Turner Mason & Company, an energy consulting firm.

– ref. Why energy markets fluctuate during an international crisis – https://theconversation.com/why-energy-markets-fluctuate-during-an-international-crisis-259839

Source: – By Pablo Moyano Fernández, Assistant Professor of Architecture, Washington University in St. Louis

Wood is, by far, the most common material used in the U.S. for single-family home construction.

But wood construction isn’t engineered for long-term durability, and it often underperforms, particularly in the face of increasingly common extreme weather events.

In response to these challenges, I believe mass-produced concrete homes can offer affordable, resilient housing in the U.S. By leveraging the latest innovations of the precast concrete industry, this type of homebuilding can meet the needs of a changing world.

Wood’s rise to power

Over 90% of the new homes built in the U.S. rely on wood framing.

Wood has deep historical roots as a building material in the U.S., dating back to the earliest European settlers who constructed shelters using the abundant native timber. One of the most recognizable typologies was the log cabin, built from large tree trunks notched at the corners for structural stability.

In the 1830s, wood construction underwent a significant shift with the introduction of balloon framing. This system used standardized, sawed lumber and mass-produced nails, allowing much smaller wood components to replace the earlier heavy timber frames. It could be assembled by unskilled labor using simple tools, making it both accessible and economical.

In the early 20th century, balloon framing evolved into platform framing, which became the dominant method. By using shorter lumber lengths, platform framing allowed each floor to be built as a separate working platform, simplifying construction and improving its efficiency.

The proliferation and evolution of wood construction helped shape the architectural and cultural identity of the nation. For centuries, wood-framed houses have defined the American idea of home – so much so that, even today, when Americans imagine a house, they typically envision one built of wood.

Today, light-frame wood construction dominates the U.S. residential market.

Wood is relatively affordable and readily available, offering a cost-effective solution for homebuilding. Contractors are familiar with wood construction techniques. In addition, building codes and regulations have long been tailored to wood-frame systems, further reinforcing their prevalence in the housing industry.

Despite its advantages, wood light-frame construction presents several important limitations. Wood is vulnerable to fire. And in hurricane- and tornado-prone regions, wood-framed homes can be damaged or destroyed.

Wood is also highly susceptible to water-related issues, such as swelling, warping and structural deterioration caused by leaks or flooding. Vulnerability to termites, mold, rot and mildew further compromise the longevity and safety of wood-framed structures, especially in humid or poorly ventilated environments.

The case for concrete

Meanwhile, concrete has revolutionized architecture and engineering over the past century. In my academic work, I’ve studied, written and taught about the material’s many advantages.

The material offers unmatched strength and durability, while also allowing design flexibility and versatility. It’s low-cost and low-maintenance, and it has high thermal mass properties, which refers to the material’s ability to absorb and store heat during the day, and slowly release it during the cooler nights. This can lower heating and cooling costs.

Properly designed concrete enclosures offer exceptional performance against a wide range of hazards. Concrete can withstand fire, flooding, mold, insect infestation, earthquakes, hail, hurricanes and tornadoes.

It’s commonly used for home construction in many parts of the world, such as Europe, Japan, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, as well as India and other parts of Southeast Asia.

However, despite their multiple benefits, concrete single-family homes are rare in the U.S.

That’s because most concrete structures are built using a process called cast-in-place. In this technique, the concrete is formed and poured directly at the construction site. The method relies on built-in-place molds. After the concrete is cast and cured over several days, the formwork is removed.

This process is labor-intensive and time-consuming, and it often produces considerable waste. This is particularly an issue in the U.S., where labor is more expensive than in other parts of the world. The material and labor cost can be as high as 35% to 60% of the total construction cost.

Portland cement, the binding agent in concrete, requires significant energy to produce, resulting in considerable carbon dioxide emissions. However, this environmental cost is often offset by concrete’s durability and long service life.

Concrete’s design flexibility and structural integrity make it particularly effective for large-scale structures. So in the U.S., you’ll see it used for large commercial buildings, skyscrapers and most highways, bridges, dams and other critical infrastructure projects.

But when it comes to single-family homes, cast-in-place concrete poses challenges to contractors. There are the higher initial construction costs, along with a lack of subcontractor expertise. For these reasons, most builders and contractors stick with what they know: the wood frame.

A new model for home construction

Precast concrete, however, offers a promising alternative.

Unlike cast-in-place concrete, precast systems allow for off-site manufacturing under controlled conditions. This improves the quality of the structure, while also reducing waste and labor.

The CRETE House, a prototype I worked on in 2017 alongside a team at Washington University in St. Louis, showed the advantages of a precast home construction.

To build the precast concrete home, we used ultra-high-performance concrete, one of the latest advances in the concrete industry. Compared with conventional concrete, it’s about six times stronger, virtually impermeable and more resistant to freeze-thaw cycles. Ultra-high-performance concrete can last several hundred years.

The strength of the CRETE House was tested by shooting a piece of wood at 120 mph (193 kph) to simulate flying debris from an F5 tornado. It was unable to breach the wall, which was only 2 inches (5.1 centimeters) thick.

Building on the success of the CRETE House, I designed the Compact House as a solution for affordable, resilient housing. The house consists of a modular, precast concrete system of “rings” that can be connected to form the entire structure – floors, walls and roofs – creating airtight, energy-efficient homes. A series of different rings can be chosen from a catalog to deliver different models that can range in size from 270 to 990 square feet (25 to 84 square meters).

The precast rings can be transported on flatbed trailers and assembled into a unit in a single day, drastically reducing on-site labor, time and cost.

Since they’re built using durable concrete forms, the house can be easily mass-produced. When precast concrete homes are mass-produced, the cost can be competitive with traditional wood-framed homes. Furthermore, the homes are designed to last far beyond 100 years – much longer than typical wood structures – while significantly lowering utility bills, maintenance expenses and insurance premiums.

The project is also envisioned as an open-source design. This means that the molds – which are expensive – are available for any precast producer to use and modify.

Leveraging a network that’s already in place

Two key limitations of precast concrete construction are the size and weight of the components and the distance to the project site.

Precast elements must comply with standard transportation regulations, which impose restrictions on both size and weight in order to pass under bridges and prevent road damage. As a result, components are typically limited to dimensions that can be safely and legally transported by truck. Each of the Compact House’s pieces are small enough to be transported in standard trailers.

Additionally, transportation costs become a major factor beyond a certain range. In general, the practical delivery radius from a precast plant to a construction site is 500 miles (805 kilometers). Anything beyond that becomes economically unfeasible.

However, the infrastructure to build precast concrete homes is already largely in place. Since precast concrete is often used for office buildings, schools, parking complexes and large apartments buildings, there’s already an extensive national network of manufacturing plants capable of producing and delivering components within that 500-mile radius.

There are other approaches to build homes with concrete: Homes can use concrete masonry units, which are similar to cinder blocks. This is a common technique around the world. Insulated concrete forms involve rigid foam blocks that are stacked like Lego bricks and are then filled with poured concrete, creating a structure with built-in insulation. And there’s even 3D-printed concrete, a rapidly evolving technology that is in its early stages of development.

However, none of these use precast concrete modules – the rings in my prototypes – and therefore require substantially longer on-site time and labor.

To me, precast concrete homes offer a compelling vision for the future of affordable housing. They signal a generational shift away from short-term construction and toward long-term value – redefining what it means to build for resilience, efficiency and equity in housing.

This article is part of a series centered on envisioning ways to deal with the housing crisis.

Pablo Moyano Fernández does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. To spur the construction of affordable, resilient homes, the future is concrete – https://theconversation.com/to-spur-the-construction-of-affordable-resilient-homes-the-future-is-concrete-254561

Source: – By Heidi Hausse, Associate Professor of History, Auburn University

To think about an artificial limb is to think about a person. It’s an object of touch and motion made to be used, one that attaches to the body and interacts with its user’s world.

Historical artifacts of prosthetic limbs are far removed from this lived context. Their users are gone. They are damaged – deteriorated by time and exposure to the elements. They are motionless, kept on display or in museum storage.

Yet, such artifacts are rare direct sources into the lives of historical amputees. We focus on the tools amputees used in 16th- and 17th-century Europe. There are few records written from amputees’ perspectives at that time, and those that exist say little about what everyday life with a prosthesis was like.

Engineering offers historians new tools to examine physical evidence. This is particularly important for the study of early modern mechanical hands, a new kind of prosthetic technology that appeared at the turn of the 16th century. Most of the artifacts are of unknown provenance. Many work only partially and some not at all. Their practical functions remain a mystery.

But computer-aided design software can help scholars reconstruct the artifacts’ internal mechanisms. This, in turn, helps us understand how the objects once moved.

Even more exciting, 3D printing lets scholars create physical models. Rather than imagining how a Renaissance prosthesis worked, scholars can physically test one. It’s a form of investigation that opens new possibilities for exploring the development of prosthetic technology and user experience through the centuries. It creates a trail of breadcrumbs that can bring us closer to the everyday experiences of premodern amputees.

But what does this work, which brings together two very different fields, look like in action?

What follows is a glimpse into our experience of collaboration on a team of historians and engineers, told through the story of one week. Working together, we shared a model of a 16th-century prosthesis with the public and learned a lesson about humans and technology in the process.

A historian encounters a broken model

THE HISTORIAN: On a cloudy day in late March, I walked into the University of Alabama Birmingham’s Center for Teaching and Learning holding a weatherproof case and brimming with excitement. Nestled within the case’s foam inserts was a functioning 3D-printed model of a 500-year-old prosthetic hand.

Fifteen minutes later, it broke.

For two years, my team of historians and engineers at Auburn University had worked tirelessly to turn an idea – recreating the mechanisms of a 16th-century artifact from Germany – into reality. The original iron prosthesis, the Kassel Hand, is one of approximately 35 from Renaissance Europe known today.

As an early modern historian who studies these artifacts, I work with a mechanical engineer, Chad Rose, to find new ways to explore them. The Kassel Hand is our case study. Our goal is to learn more about the life of the unknown person who used this artifact 500 years ago.

Using 3D-printed models, we’ve run experiments to test what kinds of activities its user could have performed with it. We modeled in inexpensive polylactic acid – plastic – to make this fragile artifact accessible to anyone with a consumer-grade 3D printer. But before sharing our files with the public, we needed to see how the model fared when others handled it.

An invitation to guest lecture on our experiments in Birmingham was our opportunity to do just that.

We brought two models. The main release lever broke first in one and then the other. This lever has an interior triangular plate connected to a thin rod that juts out of the wrist like a trigger. After pressing the fingers into a locked position, pulling the trigger is the only way to free them. If it breaks, the fingers become stuck.

I was baffled. During testing, the model had lifted a 20-pound simulation of a chest lid by its fingertips. Yet, the first time we shared it with a general audience, a mechanism that had never broken in testing simply snapped.

Was it a printing error? Material defect? Design flaw?

We consulted our Hand Whisperer: our lead student engineer whose feel for how the model works appears at times preternatural.

An engineer becomes a hand whisperer

THE ENGINEER: I was sitting at my desk in Auburn’s mechanical engineering 3D print lab when I heard the news.

As a mechanical engineering graduate student concentrating on additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3D printing, I explore how to use this technology to reconstruct historical mechanisms. Over the two years I’ve worked on this project, I’ve come to know the Kassel Hand model well. As we fine-tuned designs, I’ve created and edited its computer-aided design files – the digital 3D constructions of the model – and printed and assembled its parts countless times.

Examining parts midassembly is a crucial checkpoint for our prototypes. This quality control catches, corrects and prevents any defects, such as misprinted or damaged parts. It’s crucial for creating consistent and repeatable experiments. A new model version or component change never leaves the lab without passing rigorous inspection. This process means there are ways this model has behaved over time that the rest of the team has never seen. But I have.

So when I heard the release lever had broken in Birmingham, it was just another Thursday. While it had never snapped when we tested the model on people, I’d seen it break plenty of times while performing checks on components.

After all, the model is made from relatively weak polylactic acid. Perhaps the most difficult part of our work is making a plastic model as durable as possible while keeping it visually consistent with the 500-year-old original. The iron rod of the artifact’s lever can handle more force than our plastic version, at least five times the yield strength.

I suspected the lever had snapped because people pulled the trigger too far back and too quickly. The challenge, then, was to prevent this. But redesigning the lever to be thicker or a different shape would make it less like the historical artifact.

This raised the question: Why could I use the model without breaking the lever, but no one else could?

The team makes a plan

THE TEAM: A flurry of discussion led to growing consensus – the crux of the issue was not the model, it was the user.

The original Kassel Hand’s wearer would have learned to use their prosthesis through practice. Likewise, our team had learned to use the model over time. Through the process of design and development, prototyping and printing, we were inadvertently practicing how to operate it.

We needed to teach others to do the same. And this called for a two-pronged approach.

The engineers reexamined the opening through which the release trigger poked out of the model. They proposed shortening it to limit how far back users could pull it. When we checked how this change would affect the model’s accuracy, we found that a smaller opening was actually closer to the artifact’s dimensions. While the larger opening had been necessary for an earlier version of the release lever that needed to travel farther, now it only caused problems. The engineers got to work.

The historians, meanwhile, created plans to document and share the various techniques to operating the model the team hadn’t realized it had honed. To teach someone at home how to operate their own copy, we filmed a short video explaining how to lock and release the fingers and troubleshoot when a finger sticks.

Testing the plan

Exactly one week after what we called “the Birmingham Break,” we shared the model with a general audience again. This time we visited a colleague’s history class at Auburn.

We brought four copies. Each had an insert to shorten the opening around the trigger. First, we played our new instructional video on a projector. Then we turned the models over to the students to try.

The result? Not a single broken lever. We publicly launched the project on schedule.

The process of introducing the Kassel Hand model to the public highlights that just as the 16th-century amputee who wore the artifact had to learn to use it, one must learn to use the 3D-printed model, too.

It is a potent reminder that technology is not just a matter of mechanisms and design. It is fundamentally about people – and how people use it.

Heidi Hausse received funding from the Herzog August Bibliothek; the Consortium for History of Science, Technology and Medicine; the American Council of Learned Societies; the Huntington Library; the Society of Fellows in the Humanities at Columbia University; and the Renaissance Society of America.

Peden Jones received funding from Renaissance Society of America.

– ref. 3D-printed model of a 500-year-old prosthetic hand hints at life of a Renaissance amputee – https://theconversation.com/3d-printed-model-of-a-500-year-old-prosthetic-hand-hints-at-life-of-a-renaissance-amputee-256670

Source: – By Michael R. Allen, Visiting Assistant Professor of History, West Virginia University

President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2026 discretionary budget is called a “skinny budget” because it’s short on line-by-line details.

But historic preservation efforts in the U.S. did get a mention – and they might as well be skinned to the bone.

Trump has proposed to slash funding for the federal Historic Preservation Fund to only $11 million, which is $158 million less than the fund’s previous reauthorization in 2024. The presidential discretionary budget, however, always heads to Congress for appropriation. And Congress always makes changes.

That said, the Trump administration hasn’t even released the $188 million that Congress appropriated for the fund for the 2025 fiscal year, essentially impounding the funding stream that Congress created in 1976 for historic preservation activities across the nation.

I’m a scholar of historic preservation who’s worked to secure historic designations for buildings and entire neighborhoods. I’ve worked on projects that range from making distressed neighborhoods in St. Louis eligible for historic tax credits to surveying Cold War-era hangars and buildings on seven U.S. Air Force bases.

I’ve seen the ways in which the Historic Preservation Fund helps local communities maintain and rehabilitate their rich architectural history, sparing it from deterioration, the wrecking ball or the pressures of the private market.

A rare, deficit-neutral funding model

Most Americans probably don’t realize that the task of historic preservation largely falls to individual states and Native American tribes.

The National Historic Preservation Act that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law in 1966 requires states and tribes to handle everything from identifying potential historic sites to reviewing the impact of interstate highway projects on archaeological sites and historic buildings. States and tribes are also responsible for reviewing nominations of sites in the National Register of Historic Places, the nation’s official list of properties deemed worthy of preservation.

However, many states and tribes didn’t have the capacity to adequately tackle the mandates of the 1966 act. So the Historic Preservation Fund was formed a decade later to alleviate these costs by funneling federal resources into these efforts.

The fund is actually the product of a conservative, limited-government approach.

Created during Gerald Ford’s administration, it has a revenue-neutral model, meaning that no tax dollars pay for the program. Instead, it’s funded by private lease royalties from the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas reserves.

Most of these reserves are located in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska. Private companies that receive a permit to extract from them must agree to a lease with the federal government. Royalties from their oil and gas sales accrue in federally controlled accounts under the terms of these leases. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue then directs 1.5% of the total royalties to the Historic Preservation Fund.

Congress must continually reauthorize the amount of funding reserved for the Historic Preservation Fund, or it goes unfunded.

Despite bipartisan support, the fund has been threatened in the past. President Ronald Reagan attempted to do exactly what Trump is doing now by making no request for funding at all in his 1983 budget. Yet the fund has nonetheless been reauthorized six times since its inception, with terms ranging from five to 10 years.

The program is a crucial source of funding, particularly in small towns and rural America, where privately raised cultural heritage funds are harder to come by. It provides grants for the preservation of buildings and geographical areas that hold historical, cultural or spiritual significance in underrepresented communities. And it’s even involved in projects tied to the nation’s 250th birthday in 2026, such as the rehabilitation of the home in New Jersey where George Washington was stationed during the winter of 1778-79 and the restoration of Rhode Island’s Old State House.

Filling financial gaps

I’ve witnessed the fund’s impact firsthand in small communities across the nation.

Edwardsville, Illinois, a suburb of St. Louis, is home to the Leclaire Historic District. In the 1970s, it was added to the National Register of Historic Places. The national designation recognized the historic significance of the district, protecting it against any adverse impacts from federal infrastructure funding. It also made tax credits available to the town. Edwardsville then designated LeClaire a local historic district so that it could legally protect the indelible architectural features of its homes, from original decorative details to the layouts of front porches.

Despite the designation, however, there was no clear inventory of the hundreds of houses in the district. A few paid staffers and a volunteer citizen commission not only had to review proposed renovations and demolitions, but they also had to figure out which buildings even contributed to LeClaire’s significance and which ones did not – and thus did not need to be tied up in red tape.

Edwardsville was able to secure a grant through the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office thanks to a funding match enabled by money disbursed to Illinois via the Historic Preservation Fund.

In 2013, my team created an updated inventory of the historic district, making it easier for the local commission to determine which houses should be reviewed carefully and which ones don’t need to be reviewed at all.

Oil money better than no money

The historic preservation field, not surprisingly, has come out strongly against Trump’s proposal to defund the Historic Preservation Fund.

Nonetheless, there have been debates within the field over the fund’s dependence on the fossil fuel industry, which was the trade-off that preservationists made decades ago when they crafted the funding model.

In the 1970s, amid the national energy crisis, conservation of existing buildings was seen as a worthy ecological goal, since demolition and new construction required fossil fuels. To preservationists, diverting federal carbon royalties seemed like a power play.

But with the effects of climate change becoming impossible to ignore, some preservationists are starting to more openly critique both the ethics and the wisdom of tapping into a pool of money created through the profits of the oil and gas industry. I’ve recently wondered myself if continued depletion of fossil fuels means that preservationists won’t be able to count on the Historic Preservation Fund as a long-term source of funding.

That said, you’d be hard-pressed to find a preservationist who thinks that destroying the Historic Preservation Fund would be a good first step in shaping a more visionary policy.

For now, Trump’s administration has only sown chaos in the field of historic preservation. Already, Ohio has laid off one-third of the staffers in its State Historic Preservation Office due to the impoundment of federal funds. More state preservation offices may follow suit. The National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers predicts that states soon could be unable to perform their federally mandated duties.

Unfortunately, many people advocating for places important to their towns and neighborhoods may end up learning the hard way just what the Historic Preservation Fund does.

Michael R. Allen is a member of the Advisor Leadership Team of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

– ref. Trump administration aims to slash funds that preserve the nation’s rich architectural and cultural history – https://theconversation.com/trump-administration-aims-to-slash-funds-that-preserve-the-nations-rich-architectural-and-cultural-history-258889

Source: – By Eric Zillmer, Professor of Neuropsychology, Drexel University

What makes you happy? Perhaps a good night’s sleep, or a wonderful meal with friends?

I am the director of the Happiness Lab at Drexel University, where I also teach a course on happiness. The Happiness Lab is a think tank that investigates the ingredients that contribute to people’s happiness.

Often, my students ask me something along the lines of, “Dr. Z, tell us one thing that will make us happier.”

As a first step, I advise them to spend more time outside.

Achieving lasting and sustainable happiness is more complicated. Research on the happiest countries in the world and the places where people live the longest, known as Blue Zones, shows a common thread: Residents feel they are part of something larger than themselves, such as a community or a city.

So if you’re living in a metropolis like Philadelphia, where, incidentally, the iconic pursuit of happiness charge was ratified in the Declaration of Independence, I believe urban citizenship – that is, forming an identity with your urban surroundings – should also be on your list.

Safety, social connection, beauty

Carl Jung, the renowned Swiss psychoanalyst, wrote extensively about the relationship between our internal world and our external environment.

He believed that this relationship was crucial to our psychological well-being.

More recent research in neuroscience and functional imaging has revealed a vast, intricate and complex neurological architecture underlying our psychological perception of a place. Numerous neurological pathways and functional loops transform a complex neuropsychological process into a simple realization: I am happy here!

For example, a happy place should feel safe.

The country of Croatia, a tourist haven for its beauty and culinary delights, is also one of the top 20 safest countries globally, according to the 2025 Global Peace Index.

The U.S. ranks 128th.

The availability of good food and drink can also be a significant factor in creating a happy place.

However, according to American psychologist Abraham Maslow, a pioneer in the field of positive psychology, the opportunity for social connectivity, experiencing something meaningful and having a sense of belonging is more crucial.

Furthermore, research on happy places suggests that they are beautiful. It should not come as a surprise that the happiest places in the world are also drop-dead gorgeous, such as the Indian Ocean archipelago of Mauritius, which is the happiest country in Africa, according to the 2025 World Happiness Report from the University of Oxford and others.

Happy places often provide access to nature and promote active lifestyles, which can help relieve stress. The residents of the island of Ikaria in Greece, for example, one of the original Blue Zones, demonstrate high levels of physical activity and social interaction.

Philly Happiness Map

I asked my undergraduate psychology students at Drexel, many of whom come from other cities, states and countries, to pick one place in Philadelphia where they feel happy.

From the 243 student responses, the Happiness Lab curated 28 Philly happy places, based on how frequently the places were endorsed and their accessibility.

Philadelphia’s founder, William Penn, would likely approve that Rittenhouse Square Park and three other public squares – Logan, Franklin and Washington – were included. These squares were vital to Penn’s vision of landscaped public parks to promote the health of the mind and body by providing “salubrious spaces similar to the private garden.” They are beautiful and approachable, serving as “places to rest, take a pause, work, or read a book,” one student told us.

Places such as the Philadelphia Zoo, Penn’s Landing and the Philadelphia Museum of Art are “joyful spots that are fun to explore, and one can also take your parents along if need be,” as another student described.

The Athenaeum of Philadelphia, a historic library with eclectic programming, feels to one student like “coming home, a perfect third place.”

Some students mentioned happy places that are less known. These include tucked-away gardens such as the John F. Collings Park at 1707 Chestnut St., the rooftop Cira Green at 129 S. 30th St. and the James G. Kaskey Memorial Park and BioPond at 433 S. University Ave.

My students said these are small, unexpected spots that provide an excellent opportunity for a quiet, peaceful break, to be present, whether enjoyed alone or with a friend. I checked them out and I agree.

The students also mentioned places I had never heard of even though I’ve lived in the city for over 30 years.

The “cat park” at 526 N. Natrona St. in Mantua is a quiet little park with an eclectic personality and lots of friendly cats.

Mango Mango Dessert at 1013 Cherry St. in Chinatown, which is a frequently endorsed happiness spot among the students because of its “bustling streets, lively atmosphere and delicious food,” is a perfect pit stop for mango lovers. And Maison Sweet, at 2930 Chestnut St. in University City, is a casual bakery and cafe “where you may end up staying longer than planned,” one student shared.

I find that Philly’s happy places, as seen through the eyes of college students, tend to offer a space for residents to take time out from their day to pause, reset, relax and feel more connected and in touch with the city.

Happiness principals are universal, yet our own journeys are very personal. Philadelphians across the city may have their own list of happy places. There are really no right or wrong answers. If you don’t have a personal happy space, just start exploring and you may be surprised what you will find, including a new sense of happiness.

See the full Philly Happiness Map list here, and visit the exhibit at the W.W. Hagerty Library at Drexel University to learn more.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

Eric Zillmer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Philly psychology students map out local landmarks and hidden destinations where they feel happiest – https://theconversation.com/philly-psychology-students-map-out-local-landmarks-and-hidden-destinations-where-they-feel-happiest-258790

Source: – By Terri Levien, Professor of Pharmacy, Washington State University

An expert committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted on June 26, 2025, to cease recommending the use of a mercury-based chemical called thimerosal in flu vaccines. Only a small number of flu vaccines – ones that are produced in multi-dose vials – currently contain thimerosal.

Thimerosal is almost never used in vaccines anymore, but vaccine skeptics have falsely claimed it carries health risks to the brain. Public health experts have raised concerns that the committee’s action against thimerosal may shake public trust and sow confusion about the safety of vaccines.

The committee, called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, was meeting for the first time since Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. abruptly replaced its 17 members with eight handpicked ones on June 11.

The committee generally discusses and votes on recommendations for specific vaccines. For this meeting, vaccines for COVID-19, human papillomavirus, influenza and other infectious diseases were on the schedule.

I’m a pharmacist and expert on drug information with 35 years of experience critically evaluating the safety and effectiveness of medications in clinical trials. No evidence supports the idea that thimerosal, used as a preservative in vaccines, is unsafe or carries any health risks.

What is thimerosal?

Thimerosal, also known as thiomersal, is a preservative that has been used in some drug products since the 1930s because it prevents contamination by killing microbes and preventing their growth.

In the human body, thimerosal is metabolized, or changed, to ethylmercury, an organic derivative of mercury. Studies in infants have shown that ethylmercury is quickly eliminated from the blood.

Ethylmercury is sometimes confused with methylmercury. Methylmercury is known to be toxic and is associated with many negative effects on brain development even at low exposure. Environmental researchers identified the neurotoxic effects of mercury in children in the 1970s, primarily resulting from exposure to methylmercury in fish. In the 1990s, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration established limits for maximum recommended exposure to methylmercury, especially for children, pregnant women and women of childbearing age.

Why is thimerosal controversial?

Fears about the safety of thimerosal in vaccines spread for two reasons.

First, in 1998, a now discredited report was published in a major medical journal called The Lancet. In it, a British doctor named Andrew Wakefield described eight children who developed autism after receiving the MMR vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps and rubella. However, the patients were not compared with a control group that was vaccinated, so it was impossible to draw conclusions about the vaccine’s effects. Also, the data report was later found to be falsified. And the MMR vaccine that children received in that report never contained thimerosal.

Second, the federal guidelines on exposure limits for the toxic substance methylmercury came out about the same time as the Wakefield study’s publication. During that period, autism was becoming more widely recognized as a developmental condition, and its rates of diagnosis were rising. People who believed Wakefield’s results conflated methylmercury and ethylmercury and promoted the unfounded idea that ethylmercury in vaccines from thimerosal were driving the rising rates of autism.

The Wakefield study was retracted in 2010, and Wakefield was found guilty of dishonesty and flouting ethics protocols by the U.K. General Medical Council, as well as stripped of his medical license. Subsequent studies have not shown a relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism, but despite the absence of evidence, the idea took hold and has proved difficult to dislodge.

Have scientists tested whether thimerosal is safe?

No unbiased research to date has identified toxicity caused by ethylmercury in vaccines or a link between the substance and autism or other developmental concerns – and not from lack of looking.

A 1999 review conducted by the Food and Drug Administration in response to federal guidelines on limiting mercury exposure found no evidence of harm from thimerosal as a vaccine preservative other than rare allergic reactions. Even so, as a precautionary measure in response to concerns about exposure to mercury in infants, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service issued a joint statement in 1999 recommending removal of thimerosal from vaccines.

At that time, just one childhood vaccine was available only in a version that contained thimerosal as an ingredient. This was a vaccine called DTP, for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Other childhood vaccines were either available only in formulations without thimerosal or could be obtained in versions that did not contain it.

By 2001, U.S. manufacturers had removed thimerosal from almost all vaccines – and from all vaccines in the childhood vaccination schedule.

In 2004, the U.S. Institute of Medicine Immunization Safety Review Committee reviewed over 200 scientific studies and concluded there is no causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. Additional well-conducted studies reviewed independently by the CDC and by the FDA did not find a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism or neuropsychological delays.

How is thimerosal used today?

In the U.S., most vaccines are now available in single-dose vials or syringes. Thimerosal is found only in multi-dose vials that are used to supply vaccines for large-scale immunization efforts – specifically, in a small number of influenza vaccines. It is not added to modern childhood vaccines, and people who get a flu vaccine can avoid it by requesting a vaccine supplied in a single-dose vial or syringe.

Thimerosal is still used in vaccines in some other countries to ensure continued availability of necessary vaccines. The World Health Organization continues to affirm that there is no evidence of toxicity in infants, children or adults exposed to thimerosal-containing vaccines.

This article was updated to include ACIP’s vaccine recommendations.

Terri Levien does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A preservative removed from childhood vaccines 20 years ago is still causing controversy today − a drug safety expert explains – https://theconversation.com/a-preservative-removed-from-childhood-vaccines-20-years-ago-is-still-causing-controversy-today-a-drug-safety-expert-explains-259442

Source: – By Jake Scott, Clinical Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University

In the four months since he began serving as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made many public statements about vaccines that have cast doubt on their safety and on the objectivity of long-standing processes established to evaluate them.

Many of these statements are factually incorrect. For example, in a newscast aired on June 12, 2025, Kennedy told Fox News viewers that 97% of federal vaccine advisers are on the take. In the same interview, he also claimed that children receive 92 mandatory shots. He has also widely claimed that only COVID-19 vaccines, not other vaccines in use by both children and adults, were ever tested against placebos and that “nobody has any idea” how safe routine immunizations are.

As an infectious disease physician who curates an open database of hundreds of controlled vaccine trials involving over 6 million participants, I am intimately familiar with the decades of research on vaccine safety. I believe it is important to correct the record – especially because these statements come from the official who now oversees the agencies charged with protecting Americans’ health.

Do children really receive 92 mandatory shots?

In 1986, the childhood vaccine schedule contained about 11 doses protecting against seven diseases. Today, it includes roughly 50 injections covering 16 diseases. State school entry laws typically require 30 to 32 shots across 10 to 12 diseases. No state mandates COVID-19 vaccination. Where Kennedy’s “92 mandatory shots” figure comes from is unclear, but the actual number is significantly lower.

From a safety standpoint, the more important question is whether today’s schedule with additional vaccines might be too taxing for children’s immune systems. It isn’t, because as vaccine technology improved over the past several decades, the number of antigens in each vaccine dose is much lower than before.

Antigens are the molecules in vaccines that trigger a response from the immune system, training it to identify the specific pathogen. Some vaccines contain a minute amount of aluminum salt that serves as an adjuvant – a helper ingredient that improves the quality and staying power of the immune response, so each dose can protect with less antigen.

Those 11 doses in 1986 delivered more than 3,000 antigens and 1.5 milligrams of aluminum over 18 years. Today’s complete schedule delivers roughly 165 antigens – which is a 95% reduction – and 5-6 milligrams of aluminum in the same time frame. A single smallpox inoculation in 1900 exposed a child to more antigens than today’s complete series.

Since 1986, the United States has introduced vaccines against Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis A and B, chickenpox, pneumococcal disease, rotavirus and human papillomavirus. Each addition represents a life-saving advance.

The incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type b, a bacterial infection that can cause pneumonia, meningitis and other severe diseases, has dropped by 99% in infants. Pediatric hepatitis infections are down more than 90%, and chickenpox hospitalizations are down about 90%. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that vaccinating children born from 1994 to 2023 will avert 508 million illnesses and 1,129,000 premature deaths.

Placebo testing for vaccines

Kennedy has asserted that only COVID-19 vaccines have undergone rigorous safety trials in which they were tested against placebos. This is categorically wrong.

Of the 378 controlled trials in our database, 195 compared volunteers’ response to a vaccine with their response to a placebo. Of those, 159 gave volunteers only a salt water solution or another inert substance. Another 36 gave them just the adjuvant without any viral or bacterial material, as a way to see whether there were side effects from the antigen itself or the injection. Every routine childhood vaccine antigen appears in at least one such study.

The 1954 Salk polio trial, one of the largest clinical trials in medical history, enrolled more than 600,000 children and tested the vaccine by comparing it with a salt water control. Similar trials, which used a substance that has no biological effect as a control, were used to test Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal, rotavirus, influenza and HPV vaccines.

Once an effective vaccine exists, ethics boards require new versions be compared against that licensed standard because withholding proven protection from children would be unethical.

How unknown is the safety of widely used vaccines?

Kennedy has insisted on multiple occasions that “nobody has any idea” about vaccine safety profiles. Of the 378 trials in our database, the vast majority published detailed safety outcomes.

Beyond trials, the U.S. operates the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Vaccine Safety Datalink and the PRISM network to monitor hundreds of millions of doses for rare problems. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System works like an open mailbox where anyone – patients, parents, clinicians – can report a post-shot problem; the Vaccine Safety Datalink analyzes anonymized electronic health records from large health care systems to spot patterns; and PRISM scans billions of insurance claims in near-real time to confirm or rule out rare safety signals.

These systems led health officials to pull the first rotavirus vaccine in 1999 after it was linked to bowel obstruction, and to restrict the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in 2021 after rare clotting events. Few drug classes undergo such continuous surveillance and are subject to such swift corrective action when genuine risks emerge.

The conflicts of interest claim

On June 9, Kennedy took the unprecedented step of dissolving vetted members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the expert body that advises the CDC on national vaccine policy. He has claimed repeatedly that the vast majority of serving members of the committee – 97% – had extensive conflicts of interest because of their entanglements with the pharmaceutical industry. Kennedy bases that number on a 2009 federal audit of conflict-of-interest paperwork, but that report looked at 17 CDC advisory committees, not specifically this vaccine committee. And it found no pervasive wrongdoing – 97% of disclosure forms only contained routine paperwork mistakes, such as information in the wrong box or a missing initial, and not hidden financial ties.

Reuters examined data from Open Payments, a government website that discloses health care providers’ relationships with industry, for all 17 voting members of the committee who were dismissed. Six received no more than US$80 from drugmakers over seven years, and four had no payments at all.

The remaining seven members accepted between $4,000 and $55,000 over seven years, mostly for modest consulting or travel. In other words, just 41% of the committee received anything more than pocket change from drugmakers. Committee members must divest vaccine company stock and recuse themselves from votes involving conflicts.

A term without a meaning

Kennedy has warned that vaccines cause “immune deregulation,” a term that has no basis in immunology. Vaccines train the immune system, and the diseases they prevent are the real threats to immune function.

Measles can wipe immune memory, leaving children vulnerable to other infections for years. COVID-19 can trigger multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. Chronic hepatitis B can cause immune-mediated organ damage. Preventing these conditions protects people from immune system damage.

Today’s vaccine panel doesn’t just prevent infections; it deters doctor visits and thereby reduces unnecessary prescriptions for “just-in-case” antibiotics. It’s one of the rare places in medicine where physicians like me now do more good with less biological burden than we did 40 years ago.

The evidence is clear and publicly available: Vaccines have dramatically reduced childhood illness, disability and death on a historic scale.

Jake Scott does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. I’m a physician who has looked at hundreds of studies of vaccine safety, and here’s some of what RFK Jr. gets wrong – https://theconversation.com/im-a-physician-who-has-looked-at-hundreds-of-studies-of-vaccine-safety-and-heres-some-of-what-rfk-jr-gets-wrong-259659

Source: – By Gregory J. Dick, Professor of Biology, University of Michigan

Federal scientists released their annual forecast for Lake Erie’s harmful algal blooms on June 26, 2025, and they expect a mild to moderate season. However, anyone who comes in contact with the blooms can face health risks, and it’s worth remembering that 2014, when toxins from algae blooms contaminated the water supply in Toledo, Ohio, was considered a moderate year, too.

We asked Gregory J. Dick, who leads the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research, a federally funded center at the University of Michigan that studies harmful algal blooms among other Great Lakes issues, why they’re such a concern.

1. What causes harmful algal blooms?

Harmful algal blooms are dense patches of excessive algae growth that can occur in any type of water body, including ponds, reservoirs, rivers, lakes and oceans. When you see them in freshwater, you’re typically seeing cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae.

These photosynthetic bacteria have inhabited our planet for billions of years. In fact, they were responsible for oxygenating Earth’s atmosphere, which enabled plant and animal life as we know it.

Algae are natural components of ecosystems, but they cause trouble when they proliferate to high densities, creating what we call blooms.

Harmful algal blooms form scums at the water surface and produce toxins that can harm ecosystems, water quality and human health. They have been reported in all 50 U.S. states, all five Great Lakes and nearly every country around the world. Blue-green algae blooms are becoming more common in inland waters.

The main sources of harmful algal blooms are excess nutrients in the water, typically phosphorus and nitrogen.

Historically, these excess nutrients mainly came from sewage and phosphorus-based detergents used in laundry machines and dishwashers that ended up in waterways. U.S. environmental laws in the early 1970s addressed this by requiring sewage treatment and banning phosphorus detergents, with spectacular success.

Today, agriculture is the main source of excess nutrients from chemical fertilizer or manure applied to farm fields to grow crops. Rainstorms wash these nutrients into streams and rivers that deliver them to lakes and coastal areas, where they fertilize algal blooms. In the U.S., most of these nutrients come from industrial-scale corn production, which is largely used as animal feed or to produce ethanol for gasoline.

Climate change also exacerbates the problem in two ways. First, cyanobacteria grow faster at higher temperatures. Second, climate-driven increases in precipitation, especially large storms, cause more nutrient runoff that has led to record-setting blooms.

2. What does your team’s DNA testing tell us about Lake Erie’s harmful algal blooms?

Harmful algal blooms contain a mixture of cyanobacterial species that can produce an array of different toxins, many of which are still being discovered.

When my colleagues and I recently sequenced DNA from Lake Erie water, we found new types of microcystins, the notorious toxins that were responsible for contaminating Toledo’s drinking water supply in 2014.

These novel molecules cannot be detected with traditional methods and show some signs of causing toxicity, though further studies are needed to confirm their human health effects.

We also found organisms responsible for producing saxitoxin, a potent neurotoxin that is well known for causing paralytic shellfish poisoning on the Pacific Coast of North America and elsewhere.

Saxitoxins have been detected at low concentrations in the Great Lakes for some time, but the recent discovery of hot spots of genes that make the toxin makes them an emerging concern.

Our research suggests warmer water temperatures could boost its production, which raises concerns that saxitoxin will become more prevalent with climate change. However, the controls on toxin production are complex, and more research is needed to test this hypothesis. Federal monitoring programs are essential for tracking and understanding emerging threats.

3. Should people worry about these blooms?

Harmful algal blooms are unsightly and smelly, making them a concern for recreation, property values and businesses. They can disrupt food webs and harm aquatic life, though a recent study suggested that their effects on the Lake Erie food web so far are not substantial.

But the biggest impact is from the toxins these algae produce that are harmful to humans and lethal to pets.

The toxins can cause acute health problems such as gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, fever and skin irritation. Dogs can die from ingesting lake water with harmful algal blooms. Emerging science suggests that long-term exposure to harmful algal blooms, for example over months or years, can cause or exacerbate chronic respiratory, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal problems and may be linked to liver cancers, kidney disease and neurological issues.

In addition to exposure through direct ingestion or skin contact, recent research also indicates that inhaling toxins that get into the air may harm health, raising concerns for coastal residents and boaters, but more research is needed to understand the risks.

The Toledo drinking water crisis of 2014 illustrated the vast potential for algal blooms to cause harm in the Great Lakes. Toxins infiltrated the drinking water system and were detected in processed municipal water, resulting in a three-day “do not drink” advisory. The episode affected residents, hospitals and businesses, and it ultimately cost the city an estimated US$65 million.

4. Blooms seem to be starting earlier in the year and lasting longer – why is that happening?

Warmer waters are extending the duration of the blooms.

In 2025, NOAA detected these toxins in Lake Erie on April 28, earlier than ever before. The 2022 bloom in Lake Erie persisted into November, which is rare if not unprecedented.

Scientific studies of western Lake Erie show that the potential cyanobacterial growth rate has increased by up to 30% and the length of the bloom season has expanded by up to a month from 1995 to 2022, especially in warmer, shallow waters. These results are consistent with our understanding of cyanobacterial physiology: Blooms like it hot – cyanobacteria grow faster at higher temperatures.

5. What can be done to reduce the likelihood of algal blooms in the future?

The best and perhaps only hope of reducing the size and occurrence of harmful algal blooms is to reduce the amount of nutrients reaching the Great Lakes.

In Lake Erie, where nutrients come primarily from agriculture, that means improving agricultural practices and restoring wetlands to reduce the amount of nutrients flowing off of farm fields and into the lake. Early indications suggest that Ohio’s H2Ohio program, which works with farmers to reduce runoff, is making some gains in this regard, but future funding for H2Ohio is uncertain.

In places like Lake Superior, where harmful algal blooms appear to be driven by climate change, the solution likely requires halting and reversing the rapid human-driven increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Gregory J. Dick receives funding for harmful algal bloom research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, the United States Geological Survey, and the National Institutes for Health. He serves on the Science Advisory Council for the Environmental Law and Policy Center.

– ref. Toxic algae blooms are lasting longer in Lake Erie − why that’s a worry for people and pets – https://theconversation.com/toxic-algae-blooms-are-lasting-longer-in-lake-erie-why-thats-a-worry-for-people-and-pets-259954

Source: – By Naomi Cahn, Professor of Law, University of Virginia

Having the freedom to choose your own health care provider is something many Americans take for granted. But the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority ruled on June 25, 2025, in a 6-3 decision that people who rely on Medicaid for their health insurance don’t have that right.

The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, is focused on a technical legal issue: whether people covered by Medicaid have the right to sue state officials for preventing them from choosing their health care provider. In his majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that they don’t because the Medicaid statute did not “clearly and unambiguously” give individuals that right.

As law professors who teach courses about health and poverty law as well as reproductive justice, we think this ruling could restrict access to health care for the more than 78 million Americans who get their health insurance coverage through the Medicaid program.

Excluding Planned Parenthood

The case started with a predicament for South Carolina resident Julie Edwards, who is enrolled in Medicaid. After Edwards struggled to get contraceptive services, she was able to receive care from a Planned Parenthood South Atlantic clinic in Columbia, South Carolina.

Planned Parenthood, an array of nonprofits with roots that date back more than a century, is among the nation’s top providers of reproductive services. It operates two clinics in South Carolina, where patients can get physical exams, cancer screenings, contraception and other services. It also provides same-day appointments and keeps long hours.

In July 2018, however, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order that barred Medicaid reimbursement for health care providers in the state that offer abortion care.

That meant Planned Parenthood, a longtime target of conservatives’ ire, would no longer be reimbursed for any type of care for Medicaid patients, preventing Edwards from transferring all her gynecological care to that office as she had hoped to do.

Planned Parenthood and Edwards sued South Carolina. They argued that the state was violating the federal Medicare and Medicaid Act, which Congress passed in 1965, by not letting Edwards obtain care from the provider of her choice.

A ‘free-choice-of-provider’ requirement

Medicaid, which mainly covers low-income people, their children and people with disabilities, operates as a partnership between the federal government and the states. Congress passed the law that led to its creation based on its power under the Constitution’s spending clause, which allows Congress to subject federal funds to certain requirements.

Two years later, due to concerns that states were restricting which providers Medicaid recipients could choose, Congress added a “free-choice-of-provider” requirement to the program. It states that people enrolled in Medicaid “may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required.”

While the Medicaid statute does not, by itself, allow people enrolled in that program to enforce this free-choice clause, the question at the core of this case was whether another federal statute, known as Section 1983, did give them a right to sue.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that Section 1983 protects an individual’s ability to sue when their rights under a federal statute have been violated. In fact, in 2023, it found such a right under the Medicaid Nursing Home Reform Act. The court held that Section 1983 confers the right to sue when a statute’s provisions “unambiguously confer individual federal rights.”

In Medina, however, the court found that there was no right to sue. Instead, the court emphasized that “the typical remedy” is for the federal government to cut off Medicaid funds to a state if a state is not complying with the Medicaid statute.

The ruling overturned lower-court decisions in favor of Edwards. It also expressly rejected the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings, which the majority criticized as taking a more “expansive view of its power to imply private causes of action to enforce federal laws.”

Restricting Medicaid funds

This dispute is just one chapter in the long fight over access to abortion in the U.S. In addition to the question of whether it should be legal, proponents and opponents of abortion rights have battled over whether the government should pay for it – even if that funding happens indirectly.

Through a federal law known as the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid cannot reimburse health care providers for the cost of abortions, with a few exceptions: when a patient’s life is at risk, or her pregnancy is due to rape or incest. Some states do cover abortion when their laws allow it, without using any federal funds.

As a result, Planned Parenthood rarely gets any federal Medicaid funds for abortions.

McMaster explained that he removed “abortion clinics,” including Planned Parenthood, from the South Carolina Medicaid program because he didn’t want state funds to indirectly subsidize abortions.

After the Supreme Court ruled on this case, McMaster said he had taken “a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina’s authority and values – and today, we are finally victorious.”

But only about 4% of Planned Parenthood’s services nationwide were related to abortion, as of 2022. Its most common service is testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Across the nation, Planned Parenthood provides health care to more than 2 million patients per year, most of whom have low incomes.

Consequences beyond South Carolina

This ruling’s consequences are not limited to Medicaid access in South Carolina.

It may make it harder for individuals to use Section 1983 to bring claims under any federal statute. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, wrote in her dissent, the court “continues the project of stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws.”

Enacted in 1871, the civil rights law has been invoked to challenge violations of rights by state officials against individuals. Jackson wrote that the court now limits the ability to use Section 1983 to vindicate personal rights only if the statutes use the correct “magic words.”

The dissent also criticized the majority decision as likely “to result in tangible harm to real people.” Not only will it potentially deprive “Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them,” Jackson wrote, but it could also “strip those South Carolinians – and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country – of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.’”

The decision could also have far-reaching consequences. Arkansas, Missouri and Texas have already barred Planned Parenthood from getting reimbursed by Medicaid for any kind of health care. More states could follow suit.

In addition, given Planned Parenthood’s role in providing contraceptive care, disqualifying it from Medicaid could restrict access to health care and increase the already-high unintended pregnancy rate in America.

States could also try to exclude providers based on other characteristics, such as whether their employees belong to unions or if they provide their patients with gender-affirming care, further restricting patients’ choices.

With this ruling, the court is allowing a patchwork of state exclusions of Planned Parenthood and other medical providers from the Medicaid program that could soon resemble the patchwork already seen with abortion access.

Portions of this article first appeared in another article published on April 2, 2025.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Supreme Court rules that states may deny people covered by Medicaid the freedom to choose Planned Parenthood as their health care provider – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-rules-that-states-may-deny-people-covered-by-medicaid-the-freedom-to-choose-planned-parenthood-as-their-health-care-provider-259953

Source: – By James L. Gibson, Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government, Washington University in St. Louis

For decades, Americans’ trust in one another has been on the decline, according to the most recent General Social Survey.

A major factor in that downshift has been the concurrent rise in the polarization between the two major political parties. Supporters of Republicans and Democrats are far more likely than in the past to view the opposite side with distrust.

That political polarization is so stark that many Americans are now unlikely to have friendly social interactions, live nearby or congregate with people from opposing camps, according to one recent study.

Social scientists often refer to this sort of animosity as “affective polarization,” meaning that people not only hold conflicting views on many or most political issues but also disdain fellow citizens who hold different opinions. Over the past few decades, such affective polarization in the U.S. has become commonplace.

Polarization undermines democracy by making the essential processes of democratic deliberation – discussion, negotiation, compromise and bargaining over public policies – difficult, if not impossible. Because polarization extends so broadly and deeply, some people have become unwilling to express their views until they’ve confirmed they’re speaking with someone who’s like-minded.

I’m a political scientist, and I found that Americans were far less likely to publicly voice their opinions than even during the height of the McCarthy-era Red Scare.

The muting of the American voice

According to a 2022 book written by political scientists Taylor Carlson and Jaime E. Settle, fears about speaking out are grounded in concerns about social sanctions for expressing unwelcome views.

And this withholding of views extends across a broad range of social circumstances. In 2022, for instance, I conducted a survey of a representative sample of about 1,500 residents of the U.S. I found that while 45% of the respondents were worried about expressing their views to members of their immediate family, this percentage ballooned to 62% when it came to speaking out publicly in one’s community. Nearly half of those surveyed said they felt less free to speak their minds than they used to.

About three to four times more Americans said they did not feel free to express themselves, compared with the number of those who said so during the McCarthy era.

Censorship in the US and globally

Since that survey, attacks on free speech have increased markedly, especially under the Trump administration.

Issues such as the Israeli war in Gaza, activist campaigns against “wokeism,” and the ever-increasing attempts to penalize people for expressing certain ideas have made it more difficult for people to speak out.

The breadth of self-censorship in the U.S. in recent times is not unprecedented or unique to the U.S. Indeed, research in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere have reported similar increases in self-censorship in the past several years.

How the ‘spiral of a silence’ explains self-censorship

In the 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a distinguished German political scientist, coined the term the “spiral of silence” to describe how self-censorship arises and what its consequences can be. Informed by research she conducted on the 1965 West German federal election, Noelle-Neumann observed that an individual’s willingness to publicly give their opinion was tied to their perceptions of public opinion on an issue.

The so-called spiral happens when someone expresses a view on a controversial issue and then encounters vigorous criticism from an aggressive minority – perhaps even sharp attacks.

A listener can impose costs on the speaker for expressing the view in a number of ways, including criticism, direct personal attacks and even attempts to “cancel” the speaker through ending friendships or refusing to attend social events such as Thanksgiving or holiday dinners.

This kind of sanction isn’t limited to just social interactions but also when someone is threatened by far bigger institutions, from corporations to the government. The speaker learns from this encounter and decides to keep their mouth shut in the future because the costs of expressing the view are simply too high.

This self-censorship has knock-on effects, as views become less commonly expressed and people are less likely to encounter support from those who hold similar views. People come to believe that they are in the minority, even if they are, in fact, in the majority. This belief then also contributes to the unwillingness to express one’s views.

The opinions of the aggressive minority then become dominant. True public opinion and expressed public opinion diverge. Most importantly, the free-ranging debate so necessary to democratic politics is stifled.

Not all issues are like this, of course – only issues for which a committed and determined minority exists that can impose costs on a particular viewpoint are subject to this spiral.

The consequences for democratic deliberation

The tendency toward self-censorship means listeners are deprived of hearing the withheld views. The marketplace of ideas becomes skewed; the choices of buyers in that marketplace are circumscribed. The robust debate so necessary to deliberations in a democracy is squelched as the views of a minority come to be seen as the only “acceptable” political views.

No better example of this can be found than in the absence of debate in the contemporary U.S. about the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, whatever outcome such vigorous discussion might produce. Fearful of consequences, many people are withholding their views on Israel – whether Israel has committed war crimes, for instance, or whether Israeli members of government should be sanctioned – because they fear being branded as antisemitic.

Many Americans are also biting their tongues when it comes to DEI, affirmative action and even whether political tolerance is essential for democracy.

But the dominant views are also penalized by this spiral. By not having to face their competitors, they lose the opportunity to check their beliefs and, if confirmed, bolster and strengthen their arguments. Good ideas lose the chance to become better, while bad ideas – such as something as extreme as Holocaust denial – are given space to flourish.

The spiral of silence therefore becomes inimical to pluralistic debate, discussion and, ultimately, to democracy itself.

James L. Gibson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Self-censorship and the ‘spiral of silence’: Why Americans are less likely to publicly voice their opinions on political issues – https://theconversation.com/self-censorship-and-the-spiral-of-silence-why-americans-are-less-likely-to-publicly-voice-their-opinions-on-political-issues-251979