he Trump Administration dropped a high-profile lawsuit over the right to emergency abortions in Idaho on March 5—a stark reversal from the Biden Administration, and a move that reproductive rights advocates, providers, patients, and legislators have called “devastating” and “troubling.” “Unfortunately, it was not a surprise at all. We have been nervous but ready for this decision to come down. I think the Trump Administration has abandoned pregnant women in medical crises by abandoning [this case],” says Idaho State Sen. Melissa Wintrow, a Democrat. “They dropped that case, which was only holding onto the sliver of protection in a crisis, and they can’t even allow that. Think about that: they can’t even allow a pregnant woman to go to the emergency room, and if her life and health are in jeopardy, to get medical treatment that could save it or preserve her health. That speaks volumes.” Advertisement On March 5, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which had initially been brought by the Biden Administration. Doing so would have permitted Idaho to fully enforce its near-total ban on abortion, even in medical emergencies, but Idaho U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill blocked that move by granting a temporary restraining order at the request of the state’s largest health care provider, St. Luke’s Health System, which had filed its own lawsuit on the issue in January, in anticipation of the Trump Administration dropping the case. Read More: Women Denied Abortions in Idaho Take on the State’s Near-Total Ban The initial case was one of the Biden Administration’s efforts to protect reproductive rights in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. At the heart of the lawsuit is a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires emergency rooms receiving Medicare funding to stabilize patients experiencing medical emergencies before discharging or transferring them, regardless of the patients’ ability to pay. The Biden Administration argued that emergency abortion care is required under EMTALA, and that Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion prevents doctors from providing that care in medical emergencies. The state of Idaho has insisted that the state’s ban doesn’t conflict with federal law.

obert F. Kennedy Jr., the new head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has long cast doubt on the safety of vaccines—particularly the one for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR). But in his opinion piece about the ongoing measles outbreak, published March 2 in Fox News Digital, Kennedy wrote that vaccines “not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons.” Advertisement Kennedy's acknowledgement of the value of the measles vaccine comes as the outbreak that began in Texas continues to grow. So far, nearly 150 cases and one death—the first U.S. fatality from the disease in more than 10 years—have been confirmed. It's the largest measles outbreak in the U.S. in decades. When Kennedy previously discussed the outbreak at a cabinet meeting last week, he did not mention vaccination. However, in the Fox piece, Kennedy also wrote about the importance of a good diet in protecting people from measles—a factor that experts say may not be very relevant for Americans. “Good nutrition remains a best defense against most chronic and infectious diseases,” he wrote. He also touted vitamin A for people with measles. On Feb. 27, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which HHS oversees, updated their guidance to say that while there is no antiviral treatment for measles, “supportive care, including vitamin A administration under the direction of a physician, may be appropriate.” Advertisement Restoring a city’s charm Branded Content Restoring a city’s charm By China Daily Here's what experts think about Kennedy's first major public communication in his new role at the helm of the top U.S. health agency. A (qualified) endorsement of vaccination Kennedy acknowledges what public-health experts have long maintained: that the best way to control measles is to vaccinate the public and give them immunity to the virus. Of the 146 cases reported so far, state health officials say 79 people were not vaccinated against MMR. But while he concedes the importance of population-level vaccination in order to achieve community-wide protection, he also maintains that “all parents should consult with their healthcare providers to understand their options to get the MMR vaccine. The decision to vaccinate is a personal one.” Read More: A Study Retracted 15 Years Ago Continues to Threaten Childhood Vaccines Unfortunately, herd immunity doesn't work that way, public-health experts say. Community-level protection—otherwise known as herd immunity—isn’t possible unless upwards of 90% of people are immunized. Experts agree that balancing personal choice and the scientific reality of herd immunity is critical for keeping outbreaks under control.

It’s like watching a rerun while you’re sleeping: Once again, you show up for a class not knowing there’s a test, or lose control of your car while driving, or get chased by a shadowy figure. Recurring dreams have a way of popping up again and again. “The dreams contain the same content, emotions, or narrative structure,” explains Antonio Zadra, a professor of psychology and senior researcher at the Center for Advanced Research in Sleep Medicine at the University of Montreal. Common themes include falling into space, losing teeth, feeling paralyzed in a threatening situation, enduring a natural disaster, or being ripped off or cheated on. But “a significant chunk of recurrent dreams are idiosyncratic,” says Zadra, who co-wrote the book When Brains Dream: Exploring the Science and Mystery of Sleep. “And some people have more than one recurrent dream.” Advertisement Here’s what to know about why they keep happening. How common are recurring dreams? The vast majority of adults have recurring dreams at some point in their lives, experts say. For several reasons, women tend to be most afflicted. “Overall, women recall their dreams more often than men, and women are also more likely to have disturbing dreams,” says Michael R. Nadorff, a professor of psychology at Mississippi State University and former president of the Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine. The strange makeup of recurring dreams Research has found that most recurring dreams have a negative tone with themes often related to helplessness, failure, or being chased. But sometimes they can have positive themes, such as discovering a new room in your home or excelling at an activity like skiing. Sometimes these recurring dream themes may feel random. Other times they may relate to an experience from your past or to something that’s currently worrying you. Research has found that people who feel ineffective in their lives and disconnected from others are more likely to experience negative recurring dreams.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is President Trump’s pick to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which has traditionally been the largest funder of biomedical research in the world. On March 5, the Stanford University professor of health policy will face questions from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee as he attempts to get confirmed to lead one of the country’s most powerful health agencies. Here’s what to know about Bhattacharya. Advertisement He's the son of immigrants Bhattacharya was born in Kolkata, India and said in a podcast interview that his mother came from a slum, while his father, an electrical engineer, was part of the country’s middle class. In the 1970s, his family immigrated to the U.S., settling first in Massachusetts and then in California, outside of Los Angeles. When he was 18, Bhattacharya converted from Hinduism to become a Presbyterian. He's interested in health economics Bhattacharya earned four degrees at Stanford: a bachelor's degree, master's, MD, and PhD. He worked as an economist at the RAND Corporation before returning to Stanford to join the faculty. Bhattacharya has researched health economics and studied the the U.S.'s vulnerable populations, analyzing how the country's health care system and government policies affect the health of these groups.

Even though it’s a natural part of a woman’s reproductive lifespan, menopause can be a lightning rod for emotional reactions. Some women are thrilled to have their periods come to an end, along with the risk of having an unplanned pregnancy. Others dread the prospect of hot flashes, night sweats, mood changes, and other unpleasant symptoms related to menopause. Meanwhile, still others worry about increased health risks—for conditions such as osteoporosis, heart disease, and dementia—that can come with the loss of ovarian function and the dramatic decline in estrogen levels that occur after menopause. That’s partly why some scientists and cultural influencers believe that delaying menopause may be a key to longevity. Advertisement “The ovary ages faster than many other organs, and often even faster than the woman herself,” says Dr. Zev Williams, director of the Columbia University Fertility Center and chief of the division of reproductive endocrinology and fertility at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center. “Today, as women enjoy longer lives, extending the functional lifespan of the ovary could have a meaningful impact on long-term health and quality of life.” It’s a controversial proposition for various reasons. “The idea of delaying menopause doesn’t make a lot of sense, because we’re not talking about fertility and women’s periods,” says neuroscientist Jennifer Garrison, co-director for the Center for Healthy Aging in Women at the Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, Calif. “The real conversation should be about preserving the part of ovarian function that’s related to health. The benefit of giving women options for preserving the endocrine function of ovaries will be to maintain a consistent quality of life for a number of years.”

This year, for the first time, TIME will debut a ranking of the World's Top HealthTech Companies, in partnership with Statista, a leading international provider of market and consumer data and rankings. The ranking aims to highlight health tech companies that drive innovation, enhance accessibility, and contribute to a more effective and sustainable health care system. Because many companies in this space are young, TIME and Statista are accepting applications as part of the research phase. An application guarantees consideration for the list, but does not guarantee a spot on the list, nor is the final list limited to applicants.

It’s times like this I wish I lived in Hawaii. Or Arizona. Or American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or on the Western lands of the Navajo nation. Those are the places under U.S. jurisdiction that do not observe the manifest folly of Daylight Saving Time, and will be leaving their clocks and watches exactly as they are when the rest of us are dialing ours an hour forward on Sunday, March 9. The switch will happen as it always does at the decidedly unhandy time of 2 a.m., when anyone with a decent circadian sense will have long since gone to bed. It will mean that the sun comes up an hour later in the morning, leaving early risers to wake up in darkness. The sun will also hang around an hour later in the evening, contributing to an unseemly 8:30 sunset in most of the continental U.S. and the absurdity of an 11:44 p.m. sunset in Alaska on the June 21 summer solstice. Advertisement The U.S. is not exactly alone in fiddling with the time twice a year—but we’re hardly in the majority either. Roughly 60% of countries follow standard time year-round, and there is a growing American constituency for joining them. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) endorses eliminating Daylight Saving Time and staying on Standard Time year round, citing the increased risk of heart attacks, stroke, atrial fibrillation, emergency room visits, and traffic accidents when the clocks spring forward. “The human biological clock is regulated by the timing of light and darkness, which then dictates sleep and wake rhythms,” the AASM wrote in a position statement in 2023. “In daily life, the timing of exposure to light is generally linked to the social clock. When the solar clock is misaligned with the social clock, desynchronization occurs between the internal circadian rhythm and the social clock…which has been associated with risks to physical and mental health and safety.” Holiday inbound tourism thrives Branded Content Holiday inbound tourism thrives By China Daily According to an AASM poll of 2,000 Americans, 63% support eliminating the seasonal time jumps—though the poll did not tease out whether they prefer Daylight Saving Time or Standard Time. Read More: Why Do I Keep Having Recurring Dreams? The American Medical Association agrees that Daylight Saving Time belongs on the cultural scrap heap. In 2022, the group called for the elimination of the spring-forward practice, writing, “Some studies suggest that the body clock does not adjust to Daylight Saving Time even after a few months.” A 2020 study in PLOS Computational Biology found that Daylight Saving Time adversely affects not just the body but the mind. When the clocks spring forward, the incidence of mood disorders, depression, anxiety, and substance abuse all rise. Studies show that adolescents and teens might be especially affected by the clock change, exhibiting attention, learning, and behavioral deficits. At school they are often sleepier and have slower reaction times.

On March 9, most people in the U.S. will set their clocks forward an hour, thanks to the start of Daylight Saving Time. But if President Donald Trump acts on what he’s said about the practice, Daylight Saving Time as we know it could change. Daylight Saving Time has long been controversial—most countries don’t participate in it, and many Americans have said they want to stop changing the clocks twice a year. Trump has expressed support for ending the practice, but recent efforts to do so have stalled, and only two states—Hawaii and most of Arizona—don’t participate in Daylight Saving Time. Advertisement Here’s what Trump has said about Daylight Saving Time, and what changes could potentially be on the horizon. Read More: When Do the Clocks Move Forward in the U.S.? Your 2025 Guide to Daylight Saving Time What has Trump said so far about Daylight Saving Time? On Dec. 13, 2024, Trump posted on his social media site, Truth Social, “The Republican Party will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Saving Time, which has a small but strong constituency, but shouldn’t! Daylight Saving Time is inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation.” But more than a month into his presidency, Trump has yet to make any moves on the issue since his Truth Social post, and experts are a little unsure as to what changes could be coming. David Prerau, author of Seize the Daylight: The Curious and Contentious Story of Daylight Saving Time and an expert on the topic, says there are three options. The first is to keep the existing system of changing the clocks twice a year; currently, most of America sets the clock forward an hour starting in March for Daylight Saving Time, and sets the clock back an hour starting in November for Standard Time. The second option is to make Daylight Saving Time permanent, and the third is to make Standard Time permanent.

Watching Netflix’s Apple Cider Vinegar can feel like you’ve ventured into the pit of a misinformation cesspool and are oscillating between horror, disgust, and bewilderment the entire time. The series tells the story of real-life health influencer Belle Gibson (played by Kaitlyn Dever), the Australian sensation who in 2015 confirmed that she had faked having brain cancer and that she had cured it through alternative medicine in order to achieve celebrity status. The true story is nightmarish, in part because Gibson’s practice of building a massive following based on lies that endangered everyone but herself is far from an anomaly, especially in the influencer space. Advertisement Apple Cider Vinegar frustratingly elides some of the nuances that made Gibson’s ascension possible, including her whiteness, race- and gender-based inequities in medicine that can lead patients to mistrust doctors, and a frightening disinterest in the truth amid our social media age. There’s been a widespread rise in misinformation from health and wellness influencers. And Apple Cider Vinegar is far from the first instance of people turning to other remedies to try and cure cancer. Liana Werner-Gray, who advocates for “natural health” remedies, wrote a bestselling 2014 book titled The Earth Diet, about how she overcame cancer by going on “a massive detox plan.” Fake truths like those are a particular source of concern for many medical professionals. Gail Cresci, a dietitian and researcher at Cleveland Clinic, says that people often come to her reciting whatever a health influencer has said with little regard for facts. Take, for instance, an apple cider vinegar antidote that’s portrayed in the Netflix series. While Cresci, who offers advice on product development as a member of Bragg’s Scientific Advisory Board, considers the benefits of apple cider vinegar “wonderfully diverse,” she quickly adds, “But can it cure cancer? No.” “I teach medical students, and I hear how they're even talking about things that are just on social media,” she says. “They listen to an influencer. I'm like, ‘There's no evidence for that.’” Why people are drawn to wellness influencers Apple Cider Vinegar reflects the clout health influencers have and the stark medical reality facing many patients. In one episode, a sarcoma patient named Milla (played by Alycia Debnam-Carey and partly inspired by the real-life Jessica Ainscough) dismisses her doctors’ recommendations to amputate her arm in favor of so-called cures like apple cider vinegar that she learned about from Gibson’s popular social media account. It isn’t until Milla’s illness progresses that she desperately returns to her doctor seeking his help. But by then, it’s too late. She dies at age 30. “I think a lot of patients, when you get that early diagnosis, don't feel pain,” says Cresci. “I deal with this all the time. People who have early pre-diabetes or hypertension, they don't really feel it until it gets more progressed. And then they start to feel what's going on.”

Most Americans view soap as essential to bathing as water. The daily grind confronts us with dirt, germs, and sweat, and a soapy shower provides the simple, pleasurable antidote. Uncontroversial though soap may seem, some people are very troubled by your sudsy lather: dermatologists. “If you talk to most dermatologists, probably none of them use actual soap, except on their hands,” says Dr. Erin Chen, herself a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital. Advertisement Here’s what Chen and four other experts say about avoiding soap, healthier substitutes, and tips to make sure your cleaning rituals aren’t accidentally undermining your skin health. The many downsides of soap Soap rubs skin the wrong way for several reasons. It “contains many ingredients that just don’t do well for the skin,” says Dr. Anthony Rossi, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Soap combines fats or oils with sodium hydroxide (in the case of soap bars) or potassium hydroxide (for liquid soap). These ingredients are very effective at breaking down dirt—too effective, in that they cause irritation and damage to the lipids that keep the skin strong and hydrated, Rossi says. A study in healthy volunteers showed that washing with soap disrupts the skin barrier, and the more times soap was applied and rinsed while cleaning, the more disruption occurred. Such affronts lead to dry skin, sensitivity, and increased risk of infection, says the study’s author, David Voegeli, an immuno-pharmacologist and nursing professor at the University of Winchester in England. Advertisement Restoring a city’s charm Branded Content Restoring a city’s charm By China Daily The study also showed that soap changed the skin’s acidity. This happens because soap has a lower acidity level than the skin, and the mismatch upsets the skin’s pH balance. Soap may be especially problematic if it’s not rinsed off thoroughly, which is more likely with bar soap than the liquid variety. “The residue just stays there and disrupts the pH balance for longer,” Voegeli says. Read More: 12 Weird Symptoms Dermatologists Say You Should Never Ignore Changing the pH level has a domino effect because “pH is also really important for the skin’s microbial defense,” Rossi says. A related problem is that soap’s chemicals clear out the bacteria from our skin. Nice as that may sound, many such bacteria are actually key to protecting skin health. Many soaps contain yet more chemicals that have nothing to do with cleaning and everything to do with creating a fragrant facade of cleanliness. These fragrance chemicals, while psychologically pleasing, can lead to irritation and allergies. “You would never tolerate perfume or scent in your eye drops,” says Dr. Rachel Nazarian, a dermatologist at Mt. Sinai Hospital. “Why do we disrespect the skin by putting all of this flowery, fluffy garbage in soap?