Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Michael Childers, Associate Professor of History, Colorado State University

The Trump administration’s cuts to the National Park Service’s budget and staffing have raised concerns among park advocates and the public that the administration is aiming to further privatize the national parks.

The nation has a long history of similar efforts, including a wildly unpopular 1980 attempt by Reagan administration Interior Secretary James Watt to promote development and expand private concessions in the parks. But debate over using public national park land for private profit dates back more than a century before that.

As I explain in my forthcoming book, no park has played a more central role in that debate than Yosemite, in California.

Early concerns

In early 1864, Central American Steamship Transit Company representative Israel Ward Raymond wrote a letter to John Conness, a U.S. senator from California, urging the government to move swiftly to preserve the Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove of giant sequoia trees to prevent them from falling into private hands. Five months later, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Yosemite Grant Act, ceding the valley and the grove to the state of California, “upon the express conditions that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation.” This was years before Yellowstone became the first federal land designated a national park in 1872.

Controversy arose quickly at Yosemite. Two men – James Lamon and James Hutchings – had claimed land in the valley before the federal government gave it to California. Both began commercial operations, Lamon growing cash crops and Hutchings operating a hotel.

California said their businesses threatened the state’s ability to develop roads and trails in Yosemite by competing for tourist dollars. A legal battle ensued and was not resolved until an 1872 U.S. Supreme Court ruling found that the men’s land claims had not been fully validated according to the procedures of the time. The California legislature paid both men compensation for their land, and both left the park.

In 1890, neighboring parts of the Yosemite area became America’s third national park – and in 1906, the federal government again took possession of the Yosemite Valley itself and the Mariposa Grove, specifically to incorporate them into an expansion of the national park.

Development rights

Yet, as my research has found, the role of private interests in the park remained unsolved. Private companies under contract to the National Park Service have long provided needed amenities such as lodging and food within the national parks. But questions over what is acceptable in national parks in the pursuit of profit have shaped Yosemite’s history for generations.

In 1925, I found, the question centered on the right to build the first gas station inside the park, in Yosemite Valley. Two private businesses, the Curry Camping Company and the Yosemite National Park Company, had long competed for tourist dollars within the park. Each wanted to build a gas station to boost profits.

Frustrated over the need to decide, National Park Service Director Horace Albright ordered the rival firms to simplify management of the park’s concessions. The companies merged, and the newly formed Yosemite Park and Curry Company was granted the exclusive rights to run lodges, restaurants and other facilities within the park, including the new gas station.

But as I found in my research, the park service and the concessions company did not always see eye to eye on the purpose of the park. The conflict between profit and preservation is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the construction of a ski area within the park in the early 1930s. The park service initially opposed the development of Badger Pass Ski Area as not conducive to the national park ideal, but the Yosemite Park and Curry Company insisted it was key to boosting winter use of the park.

In 1973, the Music Corporation of America, an entertainment conglomerate, bought the Yosemite Park and Curry Company. The company already had a tourist attraction operating near Hollywood, where visitors could pay to tour movie sets, but had not yet changed its name to Universal Studios or launched major theme parks in Florida and California. Its purchase of the park’s concessions set off a firestorm of controversy over fears of turning Yosemite into a theme park.

That didn’t happen, but annual park visitor numbers climbed from 2.5 million to 3.8 million over the 20 years MCA ran the concessions, which sparked concerns about development and overcrowding in the park. Conservationists argued the park service had allowed the corporate giant to promote and develop the park in ways that threatened the very aspects of the park most people came to enjoy.

With three restaurants, two service stations with a total of 15 gas pumps, two cafeterias, two grocery stores, seven souvenir shops, a delicatessen, a bank, a skating rink, three swimming pools, a golf course, two tennis courts, kennels, a barbershop, a beauty shop, Badger Pass Ski Area and three lodges, the Yosemite Valley was a busy commercial district. Critics argued that such development contradicted the park service’s mandate to leave national parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

Who owns the names?

Falling profits and consolidation within the music industry led MCA to sell its concessions rights in Yosemite in 1993. The Delaware North Companies, a global hospitality corporation, took over and ran the park’s concessions until 2016, when it sold the rights to Aramark.

But in that sale, the question of public resources and private profits arose again. Delaware North demanded $51 million in compensation for Aramark continuing to use the names of several historic properties within the park, such as the Ahwahnee, a hotel, and Curry Village, another group of visitor accommodations. The company claimed those names were a part of its assets under its contract with the park service.

The park service rejected the claim, saying the names, which dated back more than a century, belonged to the American people. But to avoid legal problems during the transition, the agency temporarily renamed several sites, including calling the Ahwahnee the Majestic Yosemite Hotel and changing Curry Village to Half Dome Village. Public outrage erupted, denouncing the claim by Delaware North as commercial overreach that threatened to distort Yosemite’s heritage. In 2019, the park service and Aramark agreed to pay Delaware North a total of $12 million to settle the dispute, and the original names were restored.

Renewed interest in commercial efforts

In June 2025, Yosemite again took center stage in the dispute over the role of federal funding versus private interests at the start of the second Trump administration when a group of climbers unfurled an American flag upside down off El Capitan in protest of the administration’s cuts in personnel and slashing of the park service’s budget.

Conservationists, including former National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis, argued that by defunding the park service and laying off as much as a quarter of its workforce, the Trump administration was “laying the groundwork to privatize” the national parks by allowing corporate interests more access to public lands. Those concerns echo ones raised during the first Trump administration, when the White House argued privatization would better serve the American public by improving visitor experiences and saving federal dollars.

Whichever side prevails in the short term, the debate over the role of private interests within national parks like Yosemite will undoubtedly continue.

Michael Childers 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. Yosemite embodies the long war over US national park privatization – https://theconversation.com/yosemite-embodies-the-long-war-over-us-national-park-privatization-261133

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Joseph Sageman, Postdoctoral Researcher in Sociology, University of Pennsylvania

Zikia, a 12th grader in Philadelphia, was stressing over where she would attend college in the fall. Her charter school’s college decision ceremony was the next day, and she was torn between her two top choices.

At a crossroads, she reached out to her favorite teacher, the only Black educator on her course schedule. “I texted him at nighttime,” she recalled. “I didn’t feel like I could do that with my other teachers.”

In my research
on college and career readiness, I did not initially set out to study the impact of Black teachers, but students like Zikia readily brought up the topic.

In interviews, students insisted on the importance of having Black educators. They consistently named their Black teachers and counselors as the most influential adults in their planning for life after graduation.

Black educators, though, are severely underrepresented in the local teaching workforce. At Zikia’s school, over 75% of students are Black compared to only about 15% of teachers.

The picture is just as striking in Pennsylvania as a whole. Statewide, the share of Black students is four times the share of Black teachers – 14.5% of students are Black, while only 3.7% of teachers are. A majority of public schools in Pennsylvania do not employ a single teacher of color despite serving racially diverse communities.

These statistics are particularly concerning because strong evidence suggests that minority students benefit greatly from working with same-race teachers.

Over the past two decades, a wave of studies from economists and education scholars have documented that when Black students are assigned to Black teachers, their math and reading scores improve, their rates of absenteeism and suspensions drop, and over the long run, they are more likely to enroll in honors classes, complete high school and go to college.

This research is mostly quantitative and does more to establish that Black teachers are effective than explain why they are able to deliver such impressive results.

To answer this latter question, I went directly to the source.

I conducted interviews with roughly 100 Philadelphia 12th graders, asking them how they came to trust and depend on Black educators when weighing one of the most consequential decisions of their lives: whether and where to go to college. I spoke with students at five city high schools, including district-run and charter schools, as well as some of the teachers and counselors involved in their college decisions.

Zikia and the other names used in this story are pseudonyms to protect the confidentiality of research participants.

Inspiration, empathy and insight

The presence of Black educators mattered to students for several reasons.

Some of my respondents felt inspired by seeing Black people in school leadership positions. LaMont, for instance, said that taking classes from Black teachers motivated him: “Just to see success is achievable. A teacher is something in life. And it shows that people that look like me are able to overcome something. Having Black teachers gives you a sense of confidence.”

LaMont’s seeing his own identity and background reflected in his teachers is what sociologists and political scientists call descriptive representation. His classmates agreed that it was important to have teachers who looked like them. Their connection, they insisted, was more than skin deep. Most of them gravitated to Black teachers because of how those teachers did their jobs and advocated for minority students, a concept called substantive representation.

For instance, many students felt most comfortable asking for help from Black teachers because they regarded them as more empathetic listeners and felt they were invested in their holistic well-being, not just in their grades or academic performance.

When I asked Ramir to tell me about the teachers he had strong relationships with, he offered a typical answer: “Most of them are African American,” he said. “But it’s not even just about that. I like a teacher who tries to understand you for who you are. Not look at you as a student but as a human being and build with you.”

Students also credited Black teachers with making them feel like they belonged at school. They sought out advice from teachers who believed in their potential and held them to high academic and behavioral standards. These qualities were by no means unique to Black teachers, but white teachers sometimes found it difficult to balance authority with warmth in their relationships with students.

“There are some teachers that act like siblings and some that act like parents,” said Emily, a white social studies teacher. “And it’s very rare that a white teacher can act like a parent and have the kids still like them.”

Black educators also had culturally relevant insights into college that students valued highly. They often had deeper knowledge of local historically Black colleges and universities, or they could speak to the experience of being a racial minority at a predominantly white institution. Students valued guidance more when it came from a source they felt was relatable.

These findings suggest that Black educators are effective not only because of shared identity or experiences, but also because of the skills and dispositions they bring into the classroom: proactively building relationships, coupling high expectations with high levels of support, and bringing schoolwork to life. As a result, minority students held out hope not only for more representation in the classroom but also that all their teachers – regardless of race – would integrate these practices into their tool kits.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

Joseph Sageman 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. Black teachers are key mentors for Philly high school seniors navigating college decisions – https://theconversation.com/black-teachers-are-key-mentors-for-philly-high-school-seniors-navigating-college-decisions-261732

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Skip Mark, Assistant professor of political science, University of Rhode Island

Despite the strength of the U.S. economy, the gap between rich and poor Americans is increasing.

The wealthiest 1% of Americans have more than five times as much wealth as the bottom 50%, according to the U.S. Federal Reserve. That’s up from four times as much in the year 2000. In 2024 alone, the wealthiest 19 families got a total of US$1 trillion richer – the largest one-year increase on record.

And yet 59% of Americans don’t have enough money saved up to cover an unexpected $1,000 expense.

We are political scientists who study human rights and political economy.

In a 2023 study, our team looked at 145 countries, including the U.S., to understand the link between labor rights and inequality. We found evidence that strengthening collective labor rights may reduce economic inequality.

Empowering workers

Collective labor rights include the rights to form and join a union, bargain collectively for higher pay and better working conditions, go on strike, and get justice if employers punish workers who exercise these rights.

In the U.S., where less than 10% of workers belong to unions, union members typically earn higher wages than their nonunion counterparts.

Through negotiations on behalf of their members, unions can pressure employers to provide fair wages and benefits. If negotiations break down, the union can call for a strike – sometimes winning better benefits and higher wages as a result.

Some U.S. unions don’t have the right to strike, including air traffic controllers, teachers and those working on national security issues. But most unions have some ability to implement work stoppages and impose costs on employers to negotiate for raises and better benefits and conditions.

Reducing inequality

For our study, we analyzed the human rights in the CIRIGHTS dataset, which uses human rights reports from the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International and other sources to measure government respect for 24 human rights, including the rights to unionize and bargain collectively. The dataset is produced by the University of Rhode Island, Binghamton University and the University of Connecticut. One of us, Skip Mark, serves as a co-director of the project.

Using a scoring guide, a team of researchers reads human rights reports and gives each country a score of zero if they have widespread violations, one point if they have some violations, or two if they have no evidence of violations. The team has assigned scores for all 24 rights from 1994 through 2022.

Using this data, we created a measure of collective labor rights by adding scores for the right to workplace association and the right to collective bargaining. The resulting collective labor rights score ranges from zero to four.

Countries where workers’ rights are routinely violated, such as Afghanistan, China and Saudi Arabia, scored a zero. The United States, Macedonia and Zambia, three countries with little in common, were among those that tended to get two points, placing them in the middle. Countries with no reported violations of the rights to workplace association and collective bargaining, including Canada, Sweden and France, got four points.

According to the CIRIGHTS dataset, the strength of respect for collective labor rights around the world declined by 50%, from 2.06 in 1994 to 1.03 in 2022.

At the same time, according to the World Inequality Dataset, the share of income earned by the 1% with the biggest paychecks increased by 11%.

We used advanced statistical methods to figure out whether better worker protections actually reduce inequality or are just associated with it.

Gaps between individuals and ethnic groups

We also measured what’s been happening to economic inequality, using two common ways to track it.

One of them is vertical inequality, the gap between what people earn within a country – the rich versus the poor. The more unequal a society becomes, the higher its vertical inequality score gets. We measured it using the disposable income measure from the Gini index, a commonly used indicator of economic inequality that captures how much money individuals have to spend after taxes and government transfers.

We found that a one-point increase in collective labor rights on our four-point scale reduces vertical inequality by 10 times the average change in inequality. For the U.S., a one-point increase in collective labor rights would be about enough to undo the increase in inequality that occurred between 2008 and 2010 due to the Great Recession and its aftermath. It would also likely help stem the growing wealth gap between Black and white Americans. That’s because income disparities compound over time to create wealth gaps.

We also assessed the connection between horizontal inequality, which measures income inequality between ethnic or other groups, and collective labor rights.

Negative horizontal inequality measures the amount of a country’s income held by the poorest ethnic group. Higher scores for this metric indicate that the lowest-earning ethnic group has less income relative to the rest of society. Black Americans have the lowest median income of any racial or ethnic group, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Positive horizontal inequality measures the income earned by the richest ethnic group. When positive horizontal inequality rises, that means the richest ethnic group has more income relative to the rest of society. According to the same Census Bureau report, Asian Americans had the highest median earnings.

We found that stronger collective labor rights, both in law and in practice around the world, also reduce both types of horizontal inequality. This means they raise the floor by helping to improve the income of the poorest ethnic groups in society. They also close the gap by limiting the incomes of the richest ethnic group, which can reduce the likelihood of conflicts.

That is, our findings suggest that when workers are free to advocate for higher wages and better benefits for themselves, it also benefits society as a whole.

Stephen Bagwell is a researcher with the Human Rights Measurement Initiative, a charitable trust registered in New Zealand

Skip Mark 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. Strengthening collective labor rights can help reduce economic inequality – https://theconversation.com/strengthening-collective-labor-rights-can-help-reduce-economic-inequality-254258

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jay L. Zagorsky, Associate Professor Questrom School of Business, Boston University

Recently, Delta Air Lines announced it would expand its use of artificial intelligence to provide individualized prices to customers. This move sparked concern among flyers and politicians. But Delta isn’t the only business interested in using AI this way. Personalized pricing has already spread across a range of industries, from finance to online gaming.

Customized pricing – where each customer receives a different price for the same product – is a holy grail for businesses because it boosts profits. With customized pricing, free-spending people pay more while the price-sensitive pay less. Just as clothes can be tailored to each person, custom pricing fits each person’s ability and desire to pay.

I am a professor who teaches business school students how to set prices. My latest book, “The Power of Cash: Why Using Paper Money is Good for You and Society,” highlights problems with custom pricing. Specifically, I’m worried that AI pricing models lack transparency and could unfairly take advantage of financially unsophisticated people.

The history of custom pricing

For much of history, customized pricing was the normal way things happened. In the past, business owners sized up each customer and then bargained face-to-face. The price paid depended on the buyer’s and seller’s bargaining skills – and desperation.

An old joke illustrates this process. Once, a very rich man was riding in his carriage at breakfast time. Hungry, he told his driver to stop at the next restaurant. He went inside, ordered some eggs and asked for the bill. When the owner handed him the check, the rich man was shocked at the price. “Are eggs rare in this neighborhood?” he asked. “No,” the owner said. “Eggs are plentiful, but very rich men are quite rare.”

Custom pricing through bargaining still exists in some industries. For example, car dealerships often negotiate a different price for each vehicle they sell. Economists refer to this as “first-degree” or “perfect” price discrimination, which is “perfect” from the seller’s perspective because it allows them to charge each customer the maximum amount they’re willing to pay.

Currently, most American shoppers don’t bargain but instead see set prices. Many scholars trace the rise of set prices to John Wanamaker’s Philadelphia department store, which opened in 1876. In his store, each item had a nonnegotiable price tag. These set prices made it simpler for customers to shop and became very popular.

Why uniform pricing caught on

Set prices have several advantages for businesses. For one thing, they allow stores to hire low-paid retail workers instead of employees who are experts in negotiation.

Historically, they also made it easier for stores to decide how much to charge. Before the advent of AI pricing, many companies determined prices using a “cost-plus” rule. Cost-plus means a business adds a fixed percentage or markup to an item’s cost. The markup is the percentage added to a product’s cost that covers a company’s profits and overhead.

The big-box retailer Costco still uses this rule. It determines prices by adding a roughly 15% maximum markup to each item on the warehouse floor. If something costs Costco $100, they sell it for about $115.

The problem with cost-plus is that it treats all items the same. For example, Costco sells wine in many stores. People buying expensive Champagne typically are willing to pay a much higher markup than customers purchasing inexpensive boxed wine. Using AI gets around this problem by letting a computer determine the optimal markup item by item.

What personalized pricing means for shoppers

AI needs a lot of data to operate effectively. The shift from cash to electronic payments has enabled businesses to collect what’s been called a “gold mine” of information. For example, Mastercard says its data lets companies “determine optimal pricing strategies.”

So much information is collected when you pay electronically that in 2024 the Federal Trade Commission issued civil subpoenas to Mastercard, JPMorgan Chase and other financial companies demanding to know “how artificial intelligence and other technological tools may allow companies to vary prices using data they collect about individual consumers’ finances and shopping habits.” Experiments at the FTC show that AI programs can even collude among themselves to raise prices without human intervention.

To prevent customized pricing, some states have laws requiring retailers to display a single price for each product for sale. Even with these laws, it’s simple to do custom pricing by using targeted digital coupons, which vary each shopper’s discount.

How you can outsmart AI pricing

There are ways to get around customized pricing. All depend on denying AI programs data on past purchases and knowledge of who you are. First, when shopping in brick-and-mortar stores, use paper money. Yes, good old-fashioned cash is private and leaves no data trail that follows you online.

Second, once online, clear your cache. Your search history and cookies provide algorithms with extensive amounts of information. Many articles say the protective power of clearing your cache is an urban myth. However, this information was based on how airlines used to price tickets. Recent analysis by the FTC shows the newest AI algorithms are changing prices based on this cached information.

Third, many computer pricing algorithms look at your location, since location is a good proxy for income. I was once in Botswana and needed to buy a plane ticket. The price on my computer was about $200. Unfortunately, before booking I was called away to dinner. After dinner my computer showed the cost was $1,000 − five times higher. It turned out after dinner I used my university’s VPN, which told the airline I was located in a rich American neighborhood. Before dinner I was located in a poor African town. Shutting off the VPN reduced the price.

Last, often to get a better price in face-to-face negotiations, you need to walk away. To do this online, put something in your basket and then wait before hitting purchase. I recently bought eyeglasses online. As a cash payer, I didn’t have my credit card handy. It took five minutes to find it, and the delay caused the site to offer a large discount to complete the purchase.

The computer revolution has created the ability to create custom products cheaply. The cashless society combined with AI is setting us up for customized prices. In a custom-pricing situation, seeing a high price doesn’t mean something is higher quality. Instead, a high price simply means a business views the customer as willing to part with more money.

Using cash more often can help defeat custom pricing. In my view, however, rapid advances in AI mean we need to start talking now about how prices are determined, before customized pricing takes over completely.

Jay L. Zagorsky 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. What is personalized pricing, and how do I avoid it? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-personalized-pricing-and-how-do-i-avoid-it-262195

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Nicole Amoyal Pensak, Researcher of Caregiver Stress Management and Clinical Psychologist, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

At a meeting held by the Food and Drug Administration on July 21, 2025, a panel convened by the agency cast doubt on the safety of antidepressant medications called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, in pregnancy.

Panel members discussed adding a so-called black box warning to the drugs – which the agency uses to indicate severe or life-threatening side effects – about the risk they pose to developing fetuses. Some of the panelists who attended had a history of expressing deep skepticism on antidepressants.

SSRIs include drugs like Prozac and Zoloft and are the most commonly used medicines for treating clinical depression. They are considered the first-line medications for treating depression in pregnancy, with approximately 5% to 6% of North American women taking an SSRI during pregnancy.

We are a psychologist certified in perinatal mental health and a reproductive psychiatrist and neuroscientist who studies female hormones and drug treatments for depression. We are concerned that many claims made at the meeting about the dangers of those drugs contradict decades of research evidence showing that antidepressant use during pregnancy is low risk when compared with the dangers of mental illness.

As clinicians, we have front-row seats to the maternal mental health crisis in the U.S. Mental illness, including suicide and overdose, is the leading cause of maternal deaths. Like all drugs, SSRIs carry both risks and benefits. But research shows that the benefits to pregnant patients outweigh the risks of the SSRIs, as well as the risks of untreated depression.

The panel did not address the safety of SSRIs following delivery, but numerous studies show that taking SSRI antidepressants while breastfeeding is low risk, usually producing low to undetectable drug levels in infants.

The biology of maternal brain health

Pregnancy and the months following childbirth are characterized by so many emotional, psychological and physical changes that the transition to motherhood has a specific name: matrescence. During matrescence, the brain changes rapidly as it prepares to efficiently take care of a baby.

The capacity for change within the brain is known as “plasticity.” Enhanced plasticity during pregnancy and the postpartum period is what allows the maternal brain to become better at attuning to and carrying out the tasks of motherhood. For example, research indicates that during this period, the brain is primed to respond to baby-related stimuli and improve a mother’s ability to regulate her emotions. These brain shifts also act as a mental buffer against aging and stress in the long term.

On the flip side, these rapid brain changes, fueled by hormonal shifts, can make people especially vulnerable to the risk of mental illness during and after pregnancy. For women who have a prior history of depression, the risk is even greater.

Clinical depression interferes with brain plasticity, such that the brain becomes “stuck” in patterns of negative thoughts, emotions and behaviors.

This leads to impairment in brain functions that are essential to motherhood. New mothers with depression have decreased brain activity in regions responsible for motivation, regulation of emotion and problem-solving. They are often withdrawn or overprotective of their infants, and they struggle with the relentless effort needed for tasks that arise with child-rearing like soothing, feeding, stimulating, planning and anticipating the child’s needs.

Research shows that SSRIs work by promoting brain plasticity. This in turn allows individuals to perceive the world more positively, increases the experience of gratification as a mother and facilitates cognitive flexibility for problem-solving.

Assessing the risks of SSRIs in pregnancy

Prescription drugs like SSRIs are just one aspect of treating pregnant women struggling with mental illness. Evidence-based psychotherapy, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, can also induce adaptive brain changes. But women with severe symptoms often require medication before they can reap the benefits of psychotherapy, and finding properly trained, accessible and affordable psychotherapists can be challenging. So sometimes, SSRIs may be the most appropriate treatment option available.

Multiple studies have examined the effects of SSRIs on the developing fetus. Some data does show a link between these drugs and preterm birth, as well as low birth weight. However, depression during pregnancy is also linked to these effects, making it difficult to disentangle what’s due to the drug and what’s due to the illness.

SSRIs are linked to a condition called neonatal adaption syndrome, in which infants are born jittery, irritable and with abnormal muscle tone. About one-third of infants born to mothers taking SSRIs experience it. However, research shows that it usually resolves within two weeks and does not have long-term health implications.

The FDA-convened panel heavily focused on potential risks of SSRI usage, with several individuals incorrectly asserting that these drugs cause autism in exposed youth, as well as birth defects. At least one panelist discussed clinical depression as a “normal” part of the “emotional” experience during pregnancy and following birth. This perpetuates a long history of of women being dismissed, ignored and not believed in medical care. It also discounts the rigorous assessment and criteria that medical professionals use to diagnose reproductive mental health disorders.

A summary of the pivotal studies on SSRIs in pregnancy by the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women’s Health discusses how research has shown SSRIs to not be associated with miscarriage, birth defects or developmental conditions in children, including autism spectrum disorder.

The risks of untreated mental illness

Untreated clinical depression in pregnancy has several known risks. As noted above, babies born to mothers with clinical depression have a higher risk of preterm birth and low birth weight.

They are also more likely to require neonatal intensive care and are at greater risk of behavioral problems and impaired cognition in childhood.

Women who are clinically depressed have an increased risk of developing preeclampsia – a condition involving high blood pressure that, if not identified and treated quickly, can be fatal to both mother and fetus. Just as concerning is the heightened risk of suicide in depression. Suicide accounts for about 8% of deaths in pregnancy and shortly after birth.

Compared with these very serious risks, the risks of using SSRIs in pregnancy turn out to be minimal. While women used to be encouraged to stop taking SSRIs during pregnancy to avoid some of these risks, this is no longer recommended, as it exposes women to a high chance of depression relapse. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all perinatal mental health treatments, including SSRIs, continue to be available.

Many women are already reluctant to take antidepressants during pregnancy, and given the choice, they tend to avoid it. From a psychological standpoint, exposing their fetus to the side effects of antidepressant medications is one of many common reasons for women in the U.S. to feel maternal guilt or shame. However, the available data suggests such guilt is not warranted.

Taken together, the best thing one can do for pregnant women and their babies is not to avoid prescribing these drugs when needed, but to take every measure possible to promote health: optimal prenatal care, and the combination of medications with psychotherapy, as well as other evidence-based treatments such as bright light therapy, exercise and adequate nutrition.

The panel failed to address the latest neuroscience behind depression, how antidepressants work in the brain and the biological rationale for why doctors use them in the first place. Patients deserve education on what’s happening in their brain, and how a drug like an SSRI might work to help.

Depression during pregnancy and in the months following birth is a serious barrier to brain health for mothers. SSRIs are one way of promoting healthy brain changes so that mothers can thrive both short- and long-term.

Should the FDA, as a result of this recent panel, decide to place a black-box warning on antidepressants in pregnancy, researchers like us already know from history what will happen. In 2004, the FDA placed a warning on antidepressants describing potential suicidal ideation and behavior in young people.

In the following years, antidepressant-prescribing decreased, while the consequences of mental illness increased. And it’s easy to imagine a similar pattern in pregnant women.

I receive royalties for the sales of my book RATTLED, How to Calm New Mom Anxiety with the Power of the Postpartum Brain.

Dr Novick has a career development award from the National Institute of Child Health and Development (K23HD110435) to study the neurobiology of hormonal contraception. This funding was not used to support the preparation or publication of this article. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent those of the National Institutes of Health or the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

– ref. How FDA panelists casting doubt on antidepressant use during pregnancy could lead to devastating outcomes for mothers – https://theconversation.com/how-fda-panelists-casting-doubt-on-antidepressant-use-during-pregnancy-could-lead-to-devastating-outcomes-for-mothers-261825