California child suspected of getting bird flu after drinking raw milk
krisanapong detraphiphat/Getty Images
(MARIN COUNTY, Calif.) — Health officials in Marin County, California say a child with a suspected bird flu infection drank raw milk before getting sick.
“[Marin County Public Health] is reporting a suspected case of bird flu in a child who experienced fever and vomiting after drinking raw milk,” according to a statement. “The child has recovered, and no other family members became sick, indicating no person-to person transmission.”
“MCPH is actively investigating this possible case of bird flu linked to raw milk consumption with the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),” the statement continued, further noting that “raw milk, which hasn’t been pasteurized, poses a risk of spreading diseases, including influenza.”
For now, the child is only suspected of having bird flu, pending tests to confirm the diagnosis. However, officials are concerned about the risks of drinking raw milk in an ongoing bird flu outbreak in the state, with 32 human cases confirmed in the state so far, all but one of which officials say originated from exposure to cattle.
California health officials last week announced that it had “secured a broad, voluntary recall” of raw milk and cream products from supplier Raw Farm, LLC after it tested positive for the virus “at both retail and dairy storage and bottling sites.”
It’s not yet clear whether people can become infected with bird flu from drinking raw milk, but studies in cats and mice suggest the animals can get sick from drinking contaminated raw milk.
The CDC continues to warn against drinking raw milk, which can contain bacteria and viruses that can lead to gastrointestinal distress. In rare cases, it can lead to more severe illness such as Guillain-Barre syndrome, which can cause paralysis.
There have been at least 58 human cases of bird flu so far this year in the U.S., according to the CDC, almost all of which have been farm workers exposed to infected livestock.
(ATLANTA) — The Georgia state Supreme Court reinstated the state’s six-week abortion ban on Monday after a lower court allowed abortions to resume in the state.
The ruling goes into effect at 5 p.m. ET and will remain in place while the court hears the state’s appeal, which was filed by Christopher Carr, the state’s Republican attorney general.
Justice John J. Ellington dissented in part, arguing against the ban being reinstated before the state’s appeal is heard.
“Fundamentally, the State should not be in the business of enforcing laws that have been determined to violate fundamental rights guaranteed to millions of individuals under the Georgia Constitution,” he wrote. “The ‘status quo’ that should be maintained is the state of the law before the challenged laws took effect.”
On Sept. 30, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ruled that the ban was unconstitutional, writing in his decision that the Georgia state constitution guaranteed the right to “liberty,” which includes a “woman’s right to control what happens to and within her body.” The state appealed the decision two days later.
The ban, which was signed into law in 2019 by Gov. Brian Kemp, prevents abortions from being performed once fetal cardiac activity can be defected, which typically occurs at about six weeks’ gestation — before many women know they’re pregnant — and redefines the word “person” in Georgia to include an embryo or fetus at any stage of development.
There are exceptions for rape or incest until 20 weeks of pregnancy as long as the victim has reported the crime to the police. Additionally, a patient can have an abortion up until 20 weeks if the fetus has defects and would not be able to survive or if the patient’s life is in danger.
The ban was blocked in court but was reinstated after the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade in 2022.
“Seeing state politicians show such little empathy or respect for Georgians’ health and lives only doubles our resolve to keep fighting until every person has the freedom to make personal medical decisions during pregnancy and the power to chart the course of their own lives,” Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, a litigator on the case, said in a statement.
(NEW YORK) — The prevalence of obesity among adults has slightly decreased in the United States but remains higher than 10 years ago, new federal data shows.
Among adults aged 20 and older, about 40.3% were estimated to be obese between August 2021 and August 2023, according to a report released early Tuesday from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics.
This is lower than the 41.9% estimated to be obese between 2017 and 2020 but higher than the 37.7% figure recorded from 2013 to 2014.
Meanwhile, rates of severe obesity increased from 9.2% between 2017 and 2020 to 9.7% between August 2021 and August 2023. Between 2013 and 2014, an estimated 7.7% of adults were severely obese.
This means more than 100 million American adults have obesity, and more than 20 million adults have severe obesity, according to figures from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Dr. John Brownstein, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, and an ABC News contributor, said that although the data show a short-term slowdown of obesity rates, the prevalence is still quite high and higher than seen 10 years ago.
“The latest data reveals a persistent challenge with obesity rates holding steady at 40.3% among adults,” he said. “While this does not represent an increase, it is important to recognize that these rates are still alarmingly high — higher than they were a decade ago — underscoring the urgent need for targeted public health strategies.”
The prevalence of severe obesity was higher among women at 12.7% compared to 6.7% for men.
Among age groups, the prevalence of obesity was highest among adults between ages 40 and 59 at 46.4%. By comparison, the prevalence in adults between ages 20 and 39 was 35.5% and among those aged 60 and older was 38.9%. This pattern was seen in both men and women, according to the report.
Severe obesity prevalence was also highest among those aged 40 to 59 at 12% compared to 9.5% for those aged 20 to 29 and 6.6% for those aged 60 and older.
When it came to prevalence by education level, those with a bachelor’s degree or more had the lowest prevalence of obesity at 31.6% between August 2021 and August 2023.
There were no significant differences between men and women in obesity prevalence by education level, the report found.
Adults with obesity are at high risk of other chronic diseases. About 58% of obese adults in the U.S. have high blood pressure and about 23% have diabetes, according to the CDC.
Additionally, obesity can put a strain on the health care system. In 2019, the annual medical costs for adults with obesity were $1,861 higher per person than for adults with healthy weight. For those with severe obesity, excess costs were $3,097 per person, the CDC said.
“While there are some differences across demographics, this work really highlights that obesity is a broad health issue in the U.S. and that men, women, young and old are all affected,” Brownstein said. “Comprehensive approaches are essential to support individuals and communities in achieving healthier lifestyles.”
LW, who asked not to show her face, is a 16-year-old transgender teenager challenging Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical treatments that have improved her quality of life. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — Medical treatments for transgender children, endorsed by major American medical associations and safely used for decades, hang in the balance at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday as the Biden administration and three families with transgender teenagers ask the justices to strike down a state law banning some gender-affirming care for kids.
The landmark case — U.S. v. Skrmetti — comes from Tennessee, which is among 26 states that have moved to prohibit administration of puberty-blocking medication and hormone therapy to minors who seek to identify with, or live as, a gender identity inconsistent with his or her sex at birth.
Oral arguments mark the first time the nation’s highest court has openly considered a state law targeting transgender people. It is also the first time an openly transgender litigator, ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, will argue a case in the Supreme Court chamber.
The historic hearing thrusts the justices to the forefront of a cultural debate that has sharply divided the country and tested the limits of science and parental rights.
The outcome of the case could determine access to health care for hundreds of thousands of trans teens and more broadly influence how communities treat transgender people in hospitals, schools and on sports fields.
The government argues that Tennessee’s SB1, which was enacted in March 2023, violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause because it discriminates on the basis of sex to decide who can receive otherwise legal medical treatments available to youth.
“Put simply, an adolescent assigned female at birth cannot receive puberty blockers or testosterone to live as a male, but an adolescent assigned male at birth can,” the administration wrote in its brief to the court.
The Tennessee law expressly allows minors who are not transgender to receive gender-affirming treatments to address a “congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury.”
Denying discrimination, the state argues its law is a reasonable regulation of medical treatment based on its purpose, meant to protect children from potential long-term health risks and possible irreversible changes to the body.
The law’s Republican sponsors claim that contradictory scientific evidence and documented regret among some young people who have transitioned both warrant caution in developing standards of care.
The law also cites a “compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty” and preventing them from becoming “disdainful of their sex.” The government says the text proves an intent to enforce gender conformity.
Hundreds of Tennessee transgender children were receiving treatments before SB1 was enacted, legislators concluded. It is not known how many suffered alleged harm.
The plaintiffs in the case include 16-year-old LW and her parents Brian and Samantha Williams of Nashville. After several years of successful hormone therapy, LW now has to travel out of state to continue treatments she says have dramatically improved her quality of life.
“I feel normal now,” LW said in an exclusive interview with ABC News last month.
“Our state legislature had made such a big deal out of parents rights during COVID, about masks and vaccines — that that’s for parents to decide these medical decisions for their children,” noted Samantha Williams. “And then, they made this medical decision for our child.”
Nationwide, an estimated 300,000 Americans ages 13 to 17 identify as transgender, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. Of those, nearly 100,000 live in states that have banned access to gender-affirming medical treatments for minors.
“It’s a case of enormous significance that presents fundamental questions about the scope of state power to regulate medical care for minors, of the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children… and the level of scrutiny that courts should apply to laws that discriminate against transgender people in general,” said Deepak Gutpa, a veteran Supreme Court litigator. “This is a major, major constitutional civil rights issue.”
More than 60% of Americans say they oppose law banning certain types of gender-affirming medical treatment for minors, according to Gallup.
Major American medical associations have endorsed the treatments for more than a decade as part of “individually tailored interventions” to support trans kids and affirm their sense of self. Not all transgender children seek medical care to facilitate transition to another sex.
“It needs to be part of a very deliberate process that involves medical specialists, who are expert at doing this, and, again, are following the science,” said Dr. Ben Hoffman, a pediatrician and president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It all begins and ends with science. This is not about any sort of agenda.”
Clinical practice guidelines from the American Endocrine Society, based on more than 260 research studies, recommend the use of puberty-delaying medications and waiting until a child reaches adulthood to consider gender-affirming surgery.
The American Academy of Pediatrics says the effects of puberty blockers are not permanent if treatment is discontinued. Many effects of hormone therapy can also be reversed. Long-term risks may include fertility challenges and possible harm to bone density, but the group says those risks require further study.
In contrast to the U.S. medical establishment, several European countries, including the United Kingdom, have reversed course on the use of gender-affirming treatments as a standard-of-care for transgender children, citing insufficient scientific evidence of long-term benefits.
“When you look at the totality of the medical research, to me there is more than enough uncertainty and evidence of bad outcomes for kids who’ve gone through these treatments when they reach the later stages in life,” said Tennessee Senate GOP Leader Jack Johnson.
A federal district court sided with the plaintiffs, temporarily halting enforcement of SB1, but the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed. The panel of judges concluded Tennessee had a rational basis for enacting the law.
“Kind of the whole ballgame in the case is the debate about whether there actually is discrimination on the basis of sex,” said Erin Murphy, a Supreme Court litigator and former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts.
“It’s really not,” Murphy argued. “To say providing testosterone to a biological boy and biological girl is the same thing because testosterone is involved — it’s a different treatment that has different risks.”
David Cole, former legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the Williams family, says the court’s conservative majority will have to confront the legacy of its decision.
“I think there’s no question in 25 years that the court will have recognized that treating people differently because their gender identity is sex discrimination,” Cole said.
“The question is whether the court wants to write a decision will be overturned, you know, in the course of the next 10 years or 15 years,” he said, “or whether it wants to recognize what is going on, which is sex discrimination.”
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June 2025.
