New bill outlines federal grants for uterine fibrosis in bipartisan health push
The bill would establish a new grant program of unspecified amount and duration to support research on early detection of and intervention for uterine fibroids, including screening procedures.
Alsobrooks is also a cosponsor on a separate bipartisan measure, introduced by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), that would carve out $30 million over four years to study uterine fibroids, although not necessarily through a direct grant program.
A spokesperson for the Maryland senator's office said the two 'approaches need to work in tandem — supporting direct research dollars, while also empowering the [Health and Human Services] Secretary to support innovative programs across the country that can reach patients where they are in community.'
Eligible topics under the grant program would include disparities in pain control in surgery for uterine fibroids, as well as conditions like Asherman's Syndrome, where scar tissue builds up inside the uterus. Alsbrooks and Lummis's bill would also support programs to raise awareness for uterine fibroids.
'For too long, uterine fibroids have plagued women. We need to invest in research, raise public awareness, and develop programs for early treatment,' Alsobrooks said in a statement.
'I am proud to reach across the aisle and partner with Senator Alsobrooks to ensure women in Wyoming and across the country suffering from uterine fibroids no longer suffer in silence,' Lummis said in a statement. 'Our bipartisan legislation will expand access to screenings and intervention, providing hope to the millions of women who endure this painful condition.'
The push to study the health condition, estimated to affect 40 percent to 80 percent of women, comes after the Trump administration has pushed to cancel research grants related to 'diversity, equity and inclusion,' health equity and other topics it deemed to be wasteful.
The Department of Health and Human Services has pulled at least two grants this year directly studying uterine fibroids, including a $1.5 million study at the University of Texas and a doctoral student's fellowship at Columbia University.
The bill, officially called the Uterine Fibroid Intervention and Gynecological Health Treatment (U-FIGHT) Act, also has a companion in the House introduced by Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) as part of a larger legislation package on women's health. Brown's group of bills includes a law to study the relationship between hair straighteners and uterine cancer.
Lummis is the first Republican senator to support the U-FIGHT Act.
The bill has also won the support of actress Lupita Nyong'o, who was diagnosed with uterine fibroids and had surgery to remove them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Knox County Commission chair Gina Oster, a Republican, has a challenger from the right
Knox County Commission chair Gina Oster, a Republican, will face a challenge from the right in her 2026 reelection bid. Moms for Liberty executive board member Sheri Super plans to run in the primary. Earlier this month, Super appointed a campaign treasurer, which is the first step in running. Oster was elected in 2022 to represent District 3, which includes West Knox County neighborhoods like Amherst, Ball Camp and Cedar Bluff. She was appointed chair of the commission by her colleagues in September. "I'm running again because we still have a lot to get done in District 3," Oster said. "I feel like I give excellent constituent care to everyone in my district because I represent everyone in my district. I think experience, results and people over politics matter." Super has not held public office but has advocated at Knox County Board of Education meetings for the district to remove certain books from school libraries. "I am running to prevent high-density development in unsuitable areas, protect our existing communities, ensure authentic Republican representation instead of Democrats running the County Commission, and (to) uphold conservative values." A Republican challenge against an incumbent is noteworthy in District 3, where Democratic candidates have made gains. In 2024, Democratic Patricia Fontenot-Ridley beat Republican Angie Goethert to win the district's school board seat by a margin of 263 votes. Oster in 2022 beat Democratic candidate Stuart Hohl by just 87 votes to join the commission. Candiates have until Feb. 19 to enter the race. The primary is May 5 and the general election is Aug. 6. Oster's shift on the commission Super's campaign is managed by conservative consultant Erik Wiatr, who managed Oster's campaign in 2022. Oster's departure from Wiatr's camp isn't surprising given her hints at a shift toward some centrist stances since she was appointed chair. In May, she called out Wiatr-backed colleagues Andy Fox and Angela Russell for their attempts to limit funding to Knox County Schools and moves to delay passing the county budget. "It's disingenuous to act like we haven't had the time to do it when I've met with the mayor numerous times about this budget," Oster said. "I think the talking points and I think the showmanship needs to be called out for what it is. I think when you do that, it's disrespectful to your colleagues." On June 30, Oster led the appointment process of four county commissioners to the new oversight board of the troubled Richard L. Bean Juvenile Detention Center. Commissioner Rhonda Lee, who worked with Wiatr in 2022, wanted to be on the board but wasn't nominated by Oster or a majority of commissioners. "My question is, where did those four names come from?" Lee asked. "If this is not political, why were two Democrats selected to be on this panel?" Oster told Knox News the commission was seeking a broad scope of "different personalities, different walks of life, different experiences." "I feel like you're going to get more accomplished that way," Oster said. "That's why I was trying not to make it a partisan political board. It apparently hasn't played out that way." Super weighed in with a July 2 post to X saying, "Oster snubbed Commissioner Lee." Allie Feinberg is the politics reporter for Knox News. Email: Reddit: u/KnoxNewsAllie This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Knox County Commission chair Gina Oster has a Republican challenger Solve the daily Crossword
Axios
24 minutes ago
- Axios
GOP tax-spending bill sets path for direct primary care boost
Providers of "direct primary care" who charge patients a monthly fee for unlimited visits and workups are poised to become big winners from the new Republican tax-and-spending law. Why it matters: The law for the first time allows patients to tap their health savings accounts for the concierge-like primary care arrangements, and lets employers extend both benefits, in the belief they're more efficient than the traditional fee-for-service system. The change aligns with a Project 2025 goal to promote more personalized and flexible direct primary care, and a GOP penchant for expanding the use of high-deductible health plans and their tax-advantaged savings accounts. The legislation"takes an impediment out of the way" for employers who want to improve their employees' primary care, said Jim Winkler, chief strategy officer for the Business Group on Health. "It certainly is helpful at a time when employers are very interested in that space." Driving the news: Starting next year, people who have a high-deductible plan and direct primary care membership through their workplace can contribute to an HSA. The ability to invest pre-tax dollars and spend them later on eligible health care expenses can lessen the burden of a large insurance deductible. About 21% of U.S. workers with employer-sponsored health insurance were enrolled in HSA-eligible high-deductible plans in 2024, according to KFF. Until now, the tax code disqualified people who use concierge care from contributing to an HSA. Employers are among those who advocated for the change, which had some bipartisan support, Winkler said. The bill also makes direct primary care membership fees an allowable HSA expense for people who don't get a subscription through their employer. The change opens the direct primary care market to more employers, said Rebecca Springer, director of market development at health care investment bank Bailey and Co. The share of employers offering direct primary care subscriptions grew a staggering 800% between 2017 and 2022, according to a report from direct care software platform Hint Health. Still, a relatively small number of employers offer direct primary care benefits. "It's certainly a tailwind for direct primary care," she added. Yes, but: There are still underlying challenges, tempering expectations of a big boost for the sector, she noted. Direct primary care is still a relatively small segment of health care, and it can be difficult to scale. It's also not very integrated with the broader health system. "What makes a direct primary care model really good for a patient is that they get to spend more time with the physician," Winkler said. Doctors also like the smaller patient loads. "Finding more primary care physicians — and we have a scarcity of that in our country — will be a challenge as this model grows," he said. "It's true of any version of advanced primary care that's rooted in how that physician spend more time with the patient." What we're watching: Whether more physicians start or join concierge care practices going forward. Many have been interested but hesitant to make the leap because until now, there hasn't been a clear financial incentive to help patients afford the services, which can cost up to $150 per month — on top of insurance premiums and specialist copays — for an individual under the new law, said Shawn Martin, CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians. "Now that that exists, I think you'll see a lot more interest in the model," he said. AAFP's 2024 survey of doctors providing direct primary care found that 94% were satisfied with their overall practice, compared with 57% of doctors not practicing direct primary care.
The Intercept
an hour ago
- The Intercept
What to Do — And Not to Do — About a Judge Like Emil Bove
Emil Bove, the nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is sworn in before his confirmation hearing in the Senate on June 25, 2025, in Washington. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images President Donald Trump's second term has so far been a constant barrage of unconstitutional actions and illegal orders. So it was thus no surprise when the Senate on Monday confirmed Trump's former personal lawyer and Justice Department lackey, Emil Bove, to a lifetime appointment on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That 50 Republican senators would install this fascist bootlicker to one of the most powerful judicial positions in the land for life is, as MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann put it, 'a nail in the coffin' for a system of checks and balances on authoritarian presidential overreach. There's a risk, however, after a grave blow like this to legal, political, and constitutional norms, that liberal epitaphs to the American constitutional order will mourn the wrong thing. Bove's appointment confirms something worse than the Republican embrace of lawlessness. He represents the Republicans' use and abuse of our fraught constitutional order for the purposes of enacting profound, life-denying, and long-lasting injustices to uphold a white nationalist regime. Liberal epitaphs to the American constitutional order risk mourning the wrong thing. Calling on the restoration of preexisting norms of law and constitutionality to reverse course will be, at best, insufficient. After all, liberal reliance on a system of order above justice helped deliver us Trump and his jurist enablers in the first place. This is not to understate how appalling it is that Bove has been appointed a federal judge. 'It is one thing to put lab-designed Federalist Society members on courts across the country — and, to be clear, several of Trump's nominees from his first administration went far beyond that,' wrote legal journalist Chris Geidner when Trump nominated Bove, 'but it is another thing altogether to name a lawless loyalist to a federal appeals court.' Geidner called Bove's confirmation a 'line that cannot be crossed.' It has now been crossed. Bove is perhaps best known as the Justice Department official who dismissed corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams — a decision that led more than 10 Justice Department attorneys to resign in protest. He fired federal prosecutors who had worked on January 6 cases. According to three Justice Department whistleblower accounts, Bove also told federal attorneys that they 'would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you'' and ignore orders blocking the administration from sending immigrants to El Salvador's gulag. Over 900 former Justice Department attorneys, identifying with both parties, wrote letters opposing Bove's judgeship. Yet Republican senators refused to hear whistleblower testimony and dismissed the widespread concerns about Bove as Democratic meddling. As usual, they did what the president asked. Bove's new, permanent position assures more serious harms to come. Given how few cases are heard by the Supreme Court, the 3rd Circuit is most often the final voice in the law for cases from Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Bove has made unwaveringly clear that, for him, the law is the president's will. This position is now standard in the Republican Party and all too consistently affirmed by a Supreme Court majority committed to unitary executive theory to vest authoritarian powers in Trump's hands. Earlier this month, Geidner posted on social media that 'should Bove be confirmed — which he should not be — he should immediately be the subject of an impeachment inquiry should Dems retake Congress.' Based on his actions at the Department of Justice, there are ample grounds to call for impeachment. Democrats should vow to do this immediately. Senate Democrats carry significant blame for Bove's judgeship, too. Senate Democrats, after all, carry significant blame for Bove's judgeship, too. His seat should have been filled by Biden nominee, Adeel Mangi, who would have been the first Muslim judge on a federal appeals court. Instead of shutting down vile, Islamophobic Republican attacks against Mangi, Senate Democrats allowed the smears to gain ground and eventually stood down on the nomination. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Tuesday said, 'To confirm Mr. Bove is a sacrilegious act against our democracy.' He did not mention that, when he was Senate majority leader, he permitted a relentless Islamophobic campaign to tank Mangi, a qualified nominee, which left the judge's seat open for Trump's taking. The Democratic establishment may lament Bove's confirmation as 'a dark, dark day,' but we have no reason to think that this party leadership will bring us toward the light. Geidner's suggestion — to pursue impeachment — would be the very least that Democrats can do. What they should already be doing is using every tool in their power to hinder Trump's deportation machine. Given the Democrats' own vile embrace of harsh border rule, I am not holding my breath. The judges who have continued to push back directly against Trump's illegal actions, meanwhile, remain a crucial constraint on some of the administration's worst attacks on our rights. These judges are under unprecedented attack. On the same day Bove was confirmed, Trump's Justice Department filed a baseless misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. In March, Boasberg issued an order to block deportation flights to El Salvador under Trump's invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act — the very sort of order that Bove reportedly told attorneys to say 'fuck you' to. In an obscene retaliatory escalation, the Justice Department's complaint claims that Boasberg's alleged comments — that the administration could trigger a 'constitutional crisis' by disregarding court orders — 'have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.' The complaint says that the administration has 'always complied with all court orders.' The idea that it constitutes judicial misconduct to suggest otherwise, despite clear evidence of the executive's disregard for certain unfavorable court orders, is the sort of authoritarian logic that obviates concerns about a constitutional crisis in the worst way: There can be no crisis if fascist rule silences all constitutional pushback. Then the problem is not a constitutional order in crisis, but a fascist order without opposition. This is not yet the state of affairs. The courts — certain courts, at least — are not yet a dead end. It should be increasingly clear, however, that they will not deliver us from fascism either. As legal scholar Aziz Rana wrote earlier this year, the left should 'strongly back litigation efforts and condemn Trump's defiance of the courts,' but not because the courts are a terrain of liberatory struggle. Rana is clear that 'the reason to oppose Trump's violation of court orders is not out of a general faith in judges or constitutional norms,' but because they are a tool, however limited, for protecting people and holding the administration to account. The affront at the heart of Bove's confirmation is not that he does not respect the law — although that should no doubt be disqualifying for a judge. If that's where we object, however, we risk lionizing a criminal legal system that also gives rise to racist policing and mass incarceration. Bove's violence lies primarily in his commitment to a form of injustice that ensures impunity for the corrupt and powerful, while the poorest and most vulnerable are treated as wholly disposable. The infamous advice Bove allegedly gave to ignore court orders over deportations was a 'fuck you' to the Constitution and the rule of law, yes, but above all it was a 'fuck you' to the over 200 men who were rounded up, kidnapped, shaved, beaten, and tortured in a foreign gulag without any recourse. It was a 'fuck you' to human beings. It should go without saying that the constitutional order in and of itself has never in practice guaranteed equality and justice for all. The constitutionalization of slavery's abolition and many basic civil rights protections took extraordinary social struggle and political work. The successful dismantling of the constitutional right to an abortion took decades of political organizing, too. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees progress. 'The great social movements of the past, from abolition to civil rights, labour to women's suffrage, famously called for the defiance of unjust court judgments that sustained slavery, segregation and disenfranchisement, or criminalized union organizing,' Rana noted. 'Considering the current right-wing control over the courts, the left may find itself in a similar place in the coming years, calling for civil disobedience of judicial authority.' With judges like Bove in place, such action will likely be all the more necessary.
