Lawsuit: Louisiana Demands FDA End Biden’s ‘Illegal’ Mail-Order Abortion Pill Permissions
The filing is careful to note that many Louisiana women have suffered loss and injury from mail-order mifepristone.The filing is careful to note that many Louisiana women have suffered loss and injury from mail-order mifepristone.Leftists Feign Sympathy For Autistic Babies They’d Happily Abort
True compassion is equipping women to build strong, healthy pregnancies so fewer problems ever arise — not telling them to end the life of their child when challenges appear.Trump’s Tylenol Cautions Are Just Common Sense
If Tylenol kills significantly more people yearly than black forest ham, is it responsible for doctors to encourage pregnant moms to take it?Childbirth fear vs. faith: The battle every mother faces
Childbirth is often painted as beautiful and natural — but for many women, the fear is overwhelming.
And that fear has a name: tokophobia.
Tokophobia is defined as an extreme fear of childbirth that can cause some women to take excessive measures in order to avoid pregnancy. And Abbie Halberstadt, a mother of 10, while a major advocate for pregnancy and childbirth, understands those women who are paralyzed with fear.
When she was a few weeks out from her labor with her eighth child, she started having “significant anxiety in the evenings.”
“This is my number eight ... and I have tokophobia. I mean, I am like, ‘I can’t do this again. Like, I can’t,'” she tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable,” explaining that she had the closest thing she’s ever had to a “full-blown panic or anxiety attack.”
“I woke up contracting in the middle of the night ... in the middle of a contraction and could not catch my breath. My heart started racing,” she explains.
And while she understands the fear, she believes that there’s a problem with the way women think about pregnancy and childbirth that leads to this extreme fear.
“I think the problem is that the mindset that is feeding this is ‘hard things are bad things.’ Hard is not the same thing as bad,” she says.
“I think when we’re picturing birth or picturing pregnancy, and I’m even, you know, talking to myself, I have a lot of fear surrounding all of that, having done it three times already, it’s like I can trust that God is a good shepherd, that he’s going to lead me where He wants to lead me,” Stuckey agrees.
“Not that it’s going to be perfect or easy,” she continues, “and also that His goodness and His mercy will follow me and will accomplish in and through and behind and around me everything that God wants them to accomplish.”
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Taking Meds You Don’t Need To Spite Trump While Pregnant Makes You A Horrible Mother
Using your pregnancy to advance political agendas won’t affect Trump, but it could profoundly affect your child's health and future.Study warns of possible link between world's most popular painkiller and autism
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. raised the alarm earlier this year about the meteoric rise of reported autism cases in the United States, underscoring at a press conference, "We are doing this to our children, and we need to put an end to it."
"The [autism spectrum disorder] prevalence rate in 8-year-olds is now 1 in 31," said Kennedy, referring to a study that examined children born in 2014. The health secretary noted further that American boys face an "extreme risk" of ending up with autism, stating that they have a 1 in 20 chance of being diagnosed with the condition — or a 1 in 12.5 chance in California.
Kennedy promised President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting in April that "by September, we will know what has caused the autism epidemic and we'll be able to eliminate those exposures."
A study published this month in the peer-reviewed medical journal BMC Environmental Health could prove valuable to the Department of Health and Human Services' campaign to narrow down the possible causes of autism.
Researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, University of California Los Angeles' School of Public Health, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai systematically reviewed 46 "well-designed" studies incorporating data from over 100,000 participants regarding the relationship between neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and prenatal exposure to acetaminophen.
'The research team’s findings strengthen the evidence for a connection and raise concerns about current clinical practices.'
Acetaminophen, the drug sold under the brand Tylenol in the United States and Canada, is the most common over-the-counter pain and fever medication used during pregnancy and is reportedly used by well over 50% of pregnant women worldwide.
The researchers found that 27 of the studies reported "significant links" between acetaminophen exposure in the womb and NDDs and noted that "higher-quality studies were more likely to show positive associations."
"Overall, the majority of the studies reported positive associations of prenatal acetaminophen use with ADHD, ASD, or NDDs in offspring, with risk-of-bias and strength-of-evidence ratings informing the overall synthesis," said the study.
RELATED: FDA blasts 'politically motivated' criticism over review of SSRI health risks during pregnancy
When specifically evaluating the studies pertaining to Tylenol use and autism in children, the researchers found "strong evidence of a relationship between prenatal acetaminophen use and increased risk of ASD in children."
The drug freely crosses the placental barrier, "reaching levels in fetal circulation similar to maternal circulation within less than an hour of maternal ingestion."
According to the researchers, the drug:
- "undergoes oxidative metabolism via the enzyme CYP2E1 — present in fetal brains, placenta, and lungs — to produce toxic metabolites";
- "affects prostaglandin and endocannabinoid pathways, which are involved in prenatal neuronal development";
- has been shown in animal models to increase "oxidative stress markers in the fetal brain and is associated with neurodevelopmental deficits"; and
- "directly perturbs hormone-dependent processes, affects neurodevelopment and reproductive disorders, and might alter steroidogenesis in the placenta and induce placental damage."
Dr. Diddier Prada, an assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, said in a release, "Our findings show that higher-quality studies are more likely to show a link between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and increased risks of autism and ADHD."
"Given the widespread use of this medication, even a small increase in risk could have major public health implications," added Prada.
Mount Sinai noted that while the damning study "does not show that acetaminophen directly causes neurodevelopmental disorders," "the research team’s findings strengthen the evidence for a connection and raise concerns about current clinical practices."
RELATED: Jab first, ask questions never: Vaccine truths your doctor won't tell you
The medical community has long raised concern about the possible downsides of acetaminophen consumption during pregnancy.
An international coalition of public health experts said in a consensus statement published on Sept. 23, 2021, in the journal Nature Reviews Endocrinology that "increasing experimental and epidemiological research suggests that prenatal exposure to APAP [acetaminophen] might alter fetal development, which could increase the risks of some neurodevelopmental, reproductive, and urogenital disorders."
'This work is ongoing, and the department will follow the science wherever it leads.'
"Epidemiological studies consistently suggest prenatal APAP exposure might increase the risk of adverse neurodevelopmental and behavioral outcomes, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, language delay (in girls) and decreased intelligence quotient," said the experts. "Collectively, the studies suggest that the timing and duration of maternal APAP use are critical factors."
HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard told Blaze News that HHS does not comment on outside studies. Hilliard noted, however, that "under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS is taking action guided by gold-standard, evidence-based science. This work is ongoing, and the department will follow the science wherever it leads."
Tylenol does not appear to be particularly pleased with the study.
A company spokesperson for Kenvue, the maker of Tylenol, said in a statement to Blaze News, "Nothing is more important to us than the health and safety of the people who use our products. We continue to evaluate the science, and this study does not change our view that there is no causal link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and fetal developmental issues."
"To date, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and leading medical organizations agree on the safety of acetaminophen, its use during pregnancy, and the information provided on the label," added the spokesperson.
A source close to Tylenol noted further that "it appears the study was designed for litigation and not public health, as two of the authors are experts for the plaintiffs in the acetaminophen litigation."
Harvard University's Dr. Andrea Baccarelli, one of the authors on the study, served as an expert witness on matters of general causation involving acetaminophen use during pregnancy in a multi-district litigation class-action lawsuit against Tylenol.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Study: Abortion Doubles Women’s Risk Of Psychiatric Hospitalization
A recent study of women in Quebec, Canada, published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research revealed that those who chose induced abortion were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized for a mental health problem than women who gave birth. Researchers found that, per 10,000 person-years, 104 women who had an abortion were hospitalized […]IVF CEO says conceiving naturally is for those with 'genetic privilege'
The CEO of an in vitro fertilization company says sex is for fun and IVF is for conceiving babies.
Noor Siddiqui is the founder of Orchid, a company that screens embryos for those using IVF services and looks for possible genetic defects and disease.
Siddiqui recently equated the idea of using IVF screening to providing the maximum amount of love to a child, meaning that if parents choose not to use IVF, they are subjecting their offspring to untold risks.
'I didn't want to quote that to you because I thought it was so ridiculous, but go on.'
Siddiqui gave an interview to the New York Times podcast "Interesting Times with Ross Douthat," where the host saved his best question for last. After reciting a poem that describes the magic of a man and woman creating life, Douthat asked Siddiqui about the idea that she wants to take that magic away.
"You're imagining a future where that just goes away. And I'm wondering if you think anything would actually be lost if that goes away," Douthat asked.
In response, Siddiqui recalled her own quote: "Sex is for fun; Orchid and embryo screening is for babies."
Douthat immediately replied, "I didn't want to quote that to you because I thought it was so ridiculous, but go on."
The CEO claimed that because most sexual encounters do not result in a pregnancy, "it's actually not so strange of a concept" that IVF becomes the predominant way to conceive.
"But when you get a baby, most people get it from having sex," Douthat argued. "It is linked inextricably to having sex with your spouse. And you are saying it's time to sever that for the sake, I concede, of potential medical benefits."
While one might consider that Siddiqui is simply providing a service to those who cannot conceive naturally, the CEO made it clear that she believes those who do not use IVF are rolling the dice on their child's health.
RELATED: Lila Rosa challenges Christian support for IVF, debunks one of the most common arguments
"I think that if you have enormous genetic privilege and, for you to roll the dice and to get a outcome that isn't going to lead to disease is in the cards for you, then of course, go ahead and roll the dice," Siddiqui told the host.
The 29-year-old claimed "the vast majority of parents" will not want to "roll the dice," before stating that IVF screenings are actually the highest form of love a parent can give a child.
Parents are "going to see it as taking the maximum amount of care, the maximum amount of love, in the same way that they plan their nursery plan, their home plan, their preschool," she said.
Siddiqui then turned in vitro around on naturally conceiving parents and said it would be "denigrating and dismissive" to IVF parents to say that babies conceived through IVF are somehow "inferior to babies that are made the old-fashioned way."
RELATED: Surrogacy: Inside the industry that rents women’s bodies
BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey took a hard stance on the issue and said embryo screening is not a moral or ethical option.
"When technology takes us from what's natural to what's possible, we have the obligation to ask: But is it moral? Is it ethical? Is it biblical?" Stuckey told Blaze News. "The answer here is: no, no, and no. Embryos are human, and like all humans they have an inherent right to life."
Siddiqui said in a 2024 interview with Mercury that she has "always known" that she wanted to conceive through IVF, despite neither her nor her husband having any fertility issues.
In the interview, she argued it was actually "unethical" to stigmatize the embryo screenings and argued it is not "playing God" to get a cast for a broken leg or to have chemotherapy for cancer. Therefore, she is not interrupting "God's plan" with her services.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
FDA blasts 'politically motivated' criticism over review of SSRI health risks during pregnancy
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is pushing back against criticism from medical establishmentarians over the agency's willingness to take a closer look at the health risks posed by antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, during pregnancy.
Various health organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, accused FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, his agency, and the participants in an expert panel discussion that Makary hosted last month of disseminating "inaccurate" information and of making "outlandish" claims.
'Adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents.'
An FDA spokesperson defended the agency's discussions with experts on the topic, suggesting to Blaze News that the critiques of the agency's expert advisory process were "politically driven."
Dr. Jay Gingrich, professor of developmental psychology at the Columbia University Medical Center, noted during the July 21 panel discussion that while expectant mothers suffering depression have long been prescribed SSRIs, it was not until recently that any substantial research was undertaken to determine whether these drugs improved outcomes in the mothers' offspring.
JAMA Medical News confirmed that no randomized clinical trials have been undertaken, due partly to ethical concerns. Despite the absence of such trial data, 6%-8% of pregnant women are reportedly prescribed SSRIs in the United States.
After observing in rodent trials that the mice born of female mice exposed to SSRIs exhibited "stark changes in behavior" and "changes in the brain," Gingrich explored with Finnish researchers whether SSRI exposure in the womb was similarly consequential for human children and found that it was.
RELATED: 'It's immoral': RFK Jr. axes Biden vax reporting requirement, targets doctors' 'hidden incentives'
A study co-authored by Gingrich and published earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications provided further confirmation of negative impacts, revealing that "adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents and also had greater activation of the amygdala and other limbic structures when processing fearful faces."
The study concluded that "SSRIs are a common therapeutic strategy in perinatal maternal emotional disorders, however the present cross-species data and prior studies on single species indicate that we need more mechanistic understanding of how pharmacological factors like SSRIs impact early brain development and later result in maladaptive behaviors."
'The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings.'
Dr. Adam Urato, chief of maternal-fetal medicine at MetroWest Medical Center in Massachusetts, told his fellow panelists that he has observed in recent years women increasingly taking antidepressants during pregnancy, in many cases thinking SSRIs "don't affect the baby or cause complications."
"These drugs alter the mom’s brain. Why wouldn't they affect the baby’s?" said Urato. "We can see it on prenatal ultrasound. The ultrasound studies show SSRI-exposed fetuses have different movement and behavior patterns. After birth the newborn babies can have jitteriness, breathing difficulties, and higher rates of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit."
"The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings," Urato underscored. "For example, there's currently no warning regarding preterm birth or preeclampsia. The postpartum hemorrhage warning needs to be strengthened. But perhaps the major shortcoming is that the label doesn't make clear that SSRIs alter fetal brain development."
The concerns raised by Gingrich, Urato, and the other panelists evidently ruffled some feathers at organizations that champion the use of SSRIs during pregnancy.
Steven Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, rushed to complain, stating shortly after the conclusion of the panel discussion that it "was alarmingly unbalanced and did not adequately acknowledge the harms of untreated perinatal mood disorders in pregnancy," adding, "Robust evidence has shown that SSRIs are safe in pregnancy and that most do not increase the risk of birth defects.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' current practice guidelines reportedly recommend SSRIs as a first-line pharmacotherapy for mothers between the time of conception and up until a year after the baby's birth.
Fleischman told JAMA Medical News last week that the panel may "incite fear and cause patients to come to false conclusions that could prevent them from getting the treatment they need."
'Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health.'
Marketa Wills, CEO of the American Psychiatric Association, echoed Fleischman in a July 25 letter to Makary, stating, "We are alarmed and concerned by the misinterpretations and unbalanced viewpoints shared by several of the panelists."
"The inaccurate interpretation of data, and the use of opinion, rather than the years of research on antidepressant medications, will exacerbate stigma and deter pregnant individuals from seeking necessary care," wrote Wills.
In addition to stating that "the overall evidence suggests that individuals can and should take SSRIs prior to or during pregnancy, when they are clinically indicated for treatment," Wills claimed that "recent meta-analyses have found no association between prenatal SSRI exposure and overall risk of birth defects."
The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine similarly complained, suggesting that the panelists made "unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims."
RELATED: RFK Jr. pulls plug on mRNA jabs because they 'pose more risks than benefits'
Other groups similarly outraged by the discussion of possible downsides to drugs characterized as safe and effective include Postpartum Support International, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, and the Massachusetts General Hospital for Women's Mental Health.
An FDA spokesperson told Blaze News, "The claim that the FDA’s expert advisory process is 'one-sided' or politically driven is insulting to the independent scientists, clinicians, and researchers who dedicate their expertise to these panels."
"FDA expert panels are roundtable discussions with independent panels of scientific experts that will review the latest scientific evidence, evaluate potential health risks, explore safer alternatives, and individual experts may offer their recommendations for regulatory action," continued the spokesperson. "This initiative is part of the FDA’s broader efforts to apply rigorous, evidence-based standards to ingredient safety and modernize regulatory oversight, thoroughly considering evolving science and consumer health."
The spokesperson noted that "Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health" and stated that suggesting "his engagement on women’s health signals a desire to manipulate outcomes is politically motivated and undermines the serious work being done to improve care for millions of women."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com