Oscar-winning actress Halle Berry has a new passion: menopause, a neglected area of medicine long in need of a little love. Doctors often downplay or fail to thoroughly treat the biological changes that trigger physical, emotional, and social shifts at midlife, and Berry is asking hard questions about why the medical community doesn't adequately address this important stage with patients. Berry talked to TIME about her advocacy work and Respin, the new company she created to provide women with reliable and comprehensive information about menopause. You’ve become a vocal advocate for more research and information about women in midlife. How did your personal experience bring you to this work? The more I started to talk about what I was going through, I started to realize how other women were suffering and how little other women had. I started to see the need to continue efforts in Washington to get a bill passed with substantive dollars [for more research on midlife and more clinical trials for menopause]. I saw the need for more education. I had no answers, no one to turn to. I was floored to find the dearth of nothingness in this space—and how little doctors knew. I thought I had the best doctors I could have. Holiday inbound tourism thrives Branded Content Holiday inbound tourism thrives By China Daily How are you working to change how we talk about menopause? We are working on the federal level to get the bill through, and working at the state level, too, with governors and leaders. We’re talking to them about what programs they might be willing to support in their states to support women. Why are more doctors not talking to women about menopause and midlife? It’s not really their fault. It’s not something that’s made important for them in medical school. But what I hold against doctors today is that now that we are out there talking about it—and screaming that women deserve better—they don’t go back to take it upon themselves to get an education. Every practitioner should know about the menopausal body. Women are living to their 80s, and menopause can start in your 40s. We spend half our lifetimes in it now. Read More: Why It’s Time to Uncouple Obstetrics and Gynecology If men went through this time of life in the same horrific way we do [with symptoms of hot flashes, night sweats, and mood changes], there would be lots of answers, research, and a lot of money raised to fund studies to help men live their best lives. But because we are women, we suffer sexism and ageism; when we get to this time of life, we’re expected to white-knuckle it and bow out gracefully. Because society told us our primary and best years are for childbearing, and all we are meant to do is make babies. When we are done making babies, we’re left to fend for ourselves. No one cares about us any more. You have testified in Congress on behalf of a bill that would increase research and clinical trials to better understand women’s midlife. Why is there so little funding for this work? We refuse to understand that menopause is a thing. It's a very important time in a woman’s life when she needs to be cared for and understand what is happening to her body so she can live her best life in the next 30 years. We haven’t acknowledged that, and that’s why we never support it with money. How can women change the current stigma and lack of knowledge about menopause? There are so many ideas and information and misinformation swirling around. That’s why I created Respin. It’s a community for women to talk to each other and learn from each other. But there is also a health component with health coaching, nutritionists, and experts to talk about exercise and learning how the lack of estrogen and changing hormones affect our heart, brain, bones, and entire body. I felt like there was something really missing in the market for women in midlife. How will Respin help women in menopause? Women can get whatever level of support and care they need. A woman in her 30s can get educated about menopause; a woman in perimenopause can get a health coach and devise a plan for her needs, whether that includes hormone replacement therapy or supplements, and a woman post-menopause can come for the services she needs, too. It all depends on where a woman is and what her needs are when she enters the community. Read More: Menopause Is Finally Going Mainstream How can the medical system change to be more supportive and knowledgeable? That’s my next crusade. After I get the bill passed in D.C. for more research and clinical trials, I’m going to the universities and putting pressure on them, too. We need to help them understand why this is important and reimagine their curriculum to make menopause and midlife for women more than one chapter in medical-school textbooks. And this isn’t just for gynecologists. This isn’t bikini medicine. Every doctor—every cardiologist, every neurologist, every general practitioner, every rheumatologist—should understand the effect that a woman’s loss of her hormones does to her body and every single one of her organs. We women have to start demanding more. That’s who I am today: a woman demanding more. I am demanding more because we deserve more.

In his first month in office, President Donald Trump and his Administration have taken a number of actions affecting abortion and reproductive healthcare access, both within the United States and internationally—and reproductive rights advocates worry that more is still to come. Trump has publicly expressed his anti-abortion views, but he was vague during his most recent presidential campaign about the specific moves he would make on abortion, sidestepping questions about whether he would veto a national ban if it crossed his desk. However, reproductive rights activists, medical providers, politicians, and legal experts feared and expected that his Administration would curtail access to abortion, as well as other reproductive health services. Mary Ziegler—a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law with an expertise in abortion—says that some of the actions the Trump Administration has taken so far on the issue are “part of the standard playbook for Republican presidents.” She adds, “There’s a sort of pendulum that swings back and forth depending on whether a Republican or Democrat is in the White House.” At the same time, Ziegler says Trump has taken some of these actions a step further, such as when his Justice Department said that it would be curtailing prosecutions against anti-abortion protesters accused of obstructing access to abortion and reproductive health clinics. While the Administration has already taken several significant steps on abortion, Ziegler says, “we’re still in kind of a wait and see mode” for others. “He didn’t ask day one for Congress to pass and deliver to his desk an abortion ban, [but] no one should take comfort in that,” says Nancy Northup, president and chief executive officer of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “This Administration is going to be the most anti-abortion Administration that we’ve ever seen in U.S. history, with no backstop of federal constitutional protection. The steps that he’s taken so far do reveal that it is going to be a vibrant anti-abortion agenda.” Restoring a city’s charm Branded Content Restoring a city’s charm By China Daily Here are the major moves the Trump Administration has made so far affecting reproductive healthcare access. What has the Trump Administration done to affect access domestically? In his first week in office, Trump pardoned several anti-abortion protesters convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a 1994 law meant to protect abortion clinics and their patients by prohibiting people from physically blocking or threatening force against patients. A day later, a top official in Trump’s Justice Department issued a memo that said prosecutions against people accused of violating the FACE Act will now “be permitted only in extraordinary circumstances” or in situations where there are “significant aggravating factors,” effectively ordering the department to curtail such prosecutions. Under former President Joe Biden, the Justice Department pursued cases against dozens of people accused of violating the FACE Act. While Ziegler says many expect that the law won’t be enforced as rigorously under a Republican president, this announcement takes it a step further by openly declaring that the department won’t be prioritizing these cases. Read More: The Powers Trump’s Nominees Will Have Over Abortion Northup says that six of the people who were pardoned by Trump’s order had been convicted last year of violating the FACE Act, after they had blocked patients from entering a Michigan reproductive healthcare clinic that the Center for Reproductive Rights represents. “This is sending a clear signal to anti-abortion extremists that the Trump Administration will turn a blind eye to the type of blockades and violence and threats of violence that women have to go through to get access to the clinics, and that clinic staff have to deal with on a daily basis,” Northup says. Also in his first week in office, Trump signed an Executive Order committing to enforcing the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion. The order revokes two Executive Orders that Biden had signed during his presidency—one that encouraged the government to widen and protect reproductive healthcare access, and another that categorized abortion as healthcare. Northup accuses Trump of slipping anti-abortion sentiment into other policies he’s enacted in his first month in office. She points to the Executive Order the President signed that proclaimed that the U.S. will only recognize “two sexes, male and female.” “That [order] obviously both guts access to gender-affirming care, which is of deep concern, but also in that Executive Order itself, it embedded personhood language because when it talked about there being a policy of the United States to recognize two genders, they basically said that a person begins at conception,” Northup says. “They are sneaking into all federal policy this notion of personhood beginning with a fertilized egg as opposed to all rights and privileges that begin at birth.” Reproductive rights advocates say that Trump and his Administration have made their anti-abortion views clear. Soon after Trump was sworn in, reproductiverights.gov, a federal website launched under the Biden Administration that shared information about abortion and reproductive healthcare, went dark. That same week, Vice President J.D. Vance gave an in-person speech at an annual anti-abortion rally, March for Life, in Washington, D.C., calling Trump the “most pro-life American President of our lifetimes” and praising the actions Trump took on abortion in his first presidential term, crediting him for the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. While Trump didn’t appear at the rally in person, he gave a pre-recorded video address, in which he promised to support anti-abortion protesters. What has the Administration done to affect access internationally? Experts say that one of the most significant actions Trump has taken in his first month affecting access to reproductive healthcare globally is the Administration’s freeze on foreign aid. The U.S. government provided more than 40% of all humanitarian aid that the United Nations tracked during 2024, and is the largest single aid donor in the world. For the 2024 fiscal year, Congress appropriated $575 million for family planning, in addition to $32.5 million for the United Nations Population Fund, the UN’s sexual and reproductive health agency, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which researches and supports sexual and reproductive health and rights. Elizabeth Sully, principal research scientist at the Institute, says that level of funding has generally received bipartisan support and has been stable for nearly a decade. Because of the Helms Amendment, which bars using foreign assistance to fund abortions, that money wasn’t going toward abortion care, Sully says. According to a recent Guttmacher analysis, those funds can provide 47.6 million women and couples with contraceptive care every year and prevent 17.1 million unintended pregnancies, which can save the lives of an estimated 34,000 women and girls who, without that care, could have died from pregnancy and childbirth complications. “Family planning is a life-saving intervention,” Sully says. But with the freeze, international family planning programs receiving U.S. aid have been forced to halt services, and the Guttmacher Institute estimates that more than 3 million women and girls have been denied contraceptive care so far as a result. The Guttmacher Institute predicts that, over the course of the full 90-day review period, about 11.7 million women and girls will be denied contraceptive care, leading to 4.2 million women and girls experiencing unintended pregnancies, and 8,340 dying from pregnancy and childbirth complications. On Feb.13, a federal judge ordered the Trump Administration to temporarily lift the suspension of foreign aid, but the Administration’s lawyers are defending the freeze, arguing that the judge’s order doesn’t prevent the State Department from suspending foreign assistance programs. At this point, it’s unclear if the judge’s order will lead to the resumption of foreign assistance programs. “What’s so hard right now is the unpredictability of all of this,” Sully says. “You can go to a clinic now that maybe you’d been to before, and that’s where you’d been receiving your injections or your contraceptive pills, or you were talking with a provider about an IUD, and you show up to that clinic now and its doors are closed, or there’s no commodities in stock, and no one can tell you when to come back.” Dr. Sierra Washington, director of Stony Brook’s Center for Global Health Equity and a member of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics’ Committee on Safe Abortion, practices medicine in Mozambique. She says the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) provides a lot of care in Mozambique, and that the impact the freeze will have “keeps [her] up at night.” She worries the freeze will lead to a resurgence of HIV, rise in unsafe abortions, and an increase in maternal mortality. “It’s just a matter of weeks before we’ll start to see real impact on shortages in condoms and contraceptives starting to plague the entire health system, and that just means we’re going to see more women dying of unsafe abortion and dying of unsafe delivery,” Washington says. “It’s just a real tragedy.” “I don’t believe that [Trump Administration officials] understand how interrelated we all are, and that condoms … actually prevent the spread of HIV, and that HIV doesn’t really respect international borders,” she continues, adding that a rise in HIV prevalence could “reach the American border and will permeate throughout the world.” Also in his first week in office, Trump reinstated the Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign organizations receiving U.S. aid from providing, referring to, or discussing abortion care. Many reproductive health experts anticipated the move, since it’s a policy often enacted by Republican presidents and rescinded by Democratic ones. During Trump’s first term in office, he expanded the order to apply to any global health funding distributed by the U.S., not just ones specific to family planning services, which Sully says had “far-reaching impacts” beyond abortion care. The Guttmacher Institute found that in some regions in Ethiopia and Uganda, the previously seen trend of increased contraceptive use came to a halt or even reversed course after the first Trump Administration enacted the Global Gag Rule. “Its supposed intended aim is abortion, but when you have declines in family planning, you have more people who end up having unintended pregnancies, and you actually have more abortions,” Sully says. The Trump Administration also announced that the U.S. was rejoining the Geneva Consensus Declaration, a non-binding pact the U.S. had joined toward the end of Trump’s first term that promotes anti-abortion policies and has garnered support from more than 30 countries, including Uganda and Hungary. Biden withdrew the U.S. from the declaration when he took office. Sorry, the video player failed to load. (Error Code: 104153) What could Trump do next? Most experts TIME spoke to agree that the Trump Administration will continue to take steps curtailing abortion and reproductive healthcare access. One of the most pressing issues experts are watching is what actions the Administration will take on mifepristone, a drug that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for abortion purposes more than two decades ago but has recently been unsuccessfully challenged in court by a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations. During his confirmation hearings to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gave vague responses when asked about mifepristone, saying only that the President asked him “to study the safety” of the drug but “has not yet taken a stand on how to regulate it.” Ziegler says it’s hard to say if the Trump Administration would revoke the FDA’s approval for mifepristone entirely, or if it would roll back Biden-era policies that made the drug more accessible, including allowing it to be prescribed via telehealth and received by mail. Either move would have a significant impact on abortion access nationwide; Northup says that access to medication abortion through telehealth and mail has been a “lifeline” to many patients in a post-Dobbs America. Read More: How the Biden Administration Protected Abortion Pill Access—and What Trump Could Do Next Experts are also waiting to see if the Department of Justice will use the Comstock Act, a 19th century anti-obscenity law, to ban the mailing of abortion pills. Looking further down the line, Ziegler says that Trump will likely continue to appoint conservative federal judges, as he did in his first term, who can have a major impact on abortion laws, now that many state-level restrictions are being fought in court. It can take time for Trump to pick judges and get them confirmed, let alone the years it can take for cases to be filed and work their way up through the court system, so the impact may not be immediate, but it could be considerable. “Those judges will be making decisions that impact access to abortion, contraception, in vitro fertilization, all kinds of reproductive health services,” Ziegler says. “Over time, the more the courts are transformed, the more, I think, explosive kinds of outcomes we can see on reproductive issues.” Some expected the Trump Administration to make even more dramatic moves on abortion soon after the President was sworn in. Part of the holdup may be because Trump and his Administration could have “some trepidation” about taking dramatic steps if Trump is trying to appeal to both the majority of Americans who support abortion rights and his anti-abortion supporters, Ziegler says. Sully also notes that, “Trump took office right away, but we’ve had to wait for confirmations for a number of leaders of these departments” who would oversee many abortion-related policy changes, including on mifepristone and the Comstock Act. Read More: Why Abortion Rights Won in Three States That Voted for Trump Advocates maintain that people should be concerned about what’s to come. Northup points out that Roe was in effect throughout Trump’s first presidency, offering a “really important protection” that restricted what steps his Administration could take on abortion. Now that Roe has been overturned, that constitutional right guaranteeing abortion access and limiting his authority is no longer in place, Northup says. “Everybody who cares about access to abortion care—and that is the strong majority of people in the United States—should be on red alert for what this Administration will do to try to cut off access in those states where abortion is still legal,” Northup says.

Cate Hall’s sex drive tanked when she hit 40. After months of trying—and failing—to boost it, she read a pamphlet in a doctor’s office about the effects of low testosterone in women, including low libido, lack of energy, loss of strength and muscle tone, and cognitive difficulties, like trouble concentrating. “I just had sort of an ‘aha’ moment,” says Hall, a 41-year-old in Berkeley, Calif. “It clicked that that might be what was going on, because there was such a good match between the things I was experiencing and the symptoms of low testosterone.” Hall scheduled an appointment with a specialist, and in 2024 started testosterone replacement therapy (TRT)—receiving regular small doses of the hormone that’s almost synonymous with male health. Within about a week, she started noticing improvements across most aspects of her life. “The cognitive effects were very dramatic,” she says; it quickly resolved her brain fog and memory problems. “I feel sharper now mentally than I did 10 years ago.” She has less anxiety and more confidence, gets at least eight hours of sleep a night (compared to six pre-testosterone), and has welcomed back the energy she needs to exercise regularly. She’s also lost 6% of her body fat since starting TRT—and her libido improved. “I honestly think it has been, by far, the biggest quality-of-life improvement I've ever made for myself,” she says. Hall’s story isn’t unique: Cisgender women across the internet are touting the anecdotal benefits of testosterone therapy, and some experts say those stories match what they’re hearing in their offices. Many describe being asked about TRT multiple times a day. “There’s been increasing attention to it,” says Dr. Kathleen Jordan, chief medical officer of Midi Health, a virtual care clinic focused on navigating perimenopause and menopause. “We call it the ‘book club effect’—women who have tremendous outcomes share it with their friends, and then we see friends of our patients coming in to inquire about similar solutions.” But can testosterone therapy for women really lead to such profound health improvements? We asked experts to explain its potential benefits—and limitations. What exactly is testosterone therapy? Contrary to popular perception, testosterone isn’t simply a male hormone. While women have smaller amounts than men, testosterone plays an important role in regulating the menstrual cycle, maintaining bone density and muscle mass, and enhancing cognitive health, mood, sexual function, and energy. “After 30, our testosterone levels decrease,” Jordan says. “And by the time we're in midlife, in the premenopause and menopausal phase, they’re down to about 25% of what they were when we were younger.” Enter testosterone replacement therapy. More than 30 different testosterone products are approved for men by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but the agency has never approved testosterone for women. However, doctors can still prescribe it off-label to women they feel would benefit. Historically, testosterone was used in combination with estrogen and progesterone, hormones that decline with age. But these days, it’s also prescribed as a standalone treatment, says Dr. Traci A. Kurtzer, a gynecologist at the Northwestern Medicine Center for Sexual Medicine and Menopause, opening the door to people who can’t or don’t want to take other hormones for various reasons.

Within the walls of a hospital, privacy is sacred—the intimate details of someone’s body and illness are meant to be as carefully guarded, as quietly delivered, as a sacramental confession. But days into my first year as a doctor, I delivered my first diagnosis of cancer in front of two armed correctional officers, to a man shackled to his bed in a hospital room that felt more like a prison cell. I was unsure where the rules of a prison ended and the rights of a patient began when someone entered our hospital in shackles. It never occurred to me to ask my patient whether he wanted the guards to hear his diagnosis, or even that I might have the authority to tell them to leave the room. In the decade since I delivered that first diagnosis, the population of our prison system has dramatically aged, and its healthcare needs have exploded. Now, with the Trump administration newly promising to radically accelerate mass incarceration through harsh measures like aggressive policing, reincarceration of people currently on home confinement, and extreme prison sentences, the question of how to ethically care for incarcerated patients within the walls of a hospital has become an even more urgent one. Read More: Trump Declared Himself the ‘President of Law and Order.’ Here’s What People Get Wrong About the Origins of That Idea In a moment when the dignity and humanity of these patients and other marginalized communities are increasingly being threatened, it’s also one we can’t afford to get wrong. For the more than 2 million incarcerated people awaiting trial in jails or serving sentences in prisons in the United States, imprisonment is a major determinant of health: a person’s life expectancy declines by two years for each year they serve in prison. And the effects of imprisonment on health are felt far beyond the walls of a jail or prison—people who have been incarcerated continue to suffer poor health outcomes and high mortality long after they are freed, and although few studies have focused on the partners and children of incarcerated people, the little data we do have suggests that their health is also at risk. Hospitals that fail to consider the rights and needs of incarcerated patients risk being complicit in an unjust system that values the health of some communities—and not others. Although the guards and shackles imply that health care workers are vulnerable when caring for incarcerated patients, the literature shows that, in fact, incarcerated people are the ones who are uniquely vulnerable when they need medical care. Health information and records are routinely lost during transitions between jails, prisons, hospitals, and the community, leading to fragmented care and diagnostic delays. Incarcerated people are less likely to receive routine screening tests like colonoscopies and mammograms than their nonincarcerated counterparts. Within hospital walls, the presence of shackles can keep doctors from fully examining their patients, the presence of guards can prevent patients from sharing important medical information or critical symptoms with their doctors, and doctors and nurses—influenced by their own implicit biases—may be inclined to disbelieve or distrust the symptoms or experiences of their incarcerated patients. And because the medical needs of an incarcerated patient must be filtered through the bureaucracy of a jail or prison, it may take much longer for someone to reach the hospital from a jail or a community, which means that they may be much sicker by the time they arrive. My patient’s path from prison to hospital, for instance, had been long and circuitous. In the gym and during brief walks outside, his cellmates noticed that he was staggering, falling against the walls as if he were balancing on the deck of a ship in stormy waters. Months after he first fell, he was seen in the hospital infirmary at their insistence. In the infirmary, he was barely examined—the scrawled, handwritten note that arrived at the hospital of his examination only said that he was “unsteady”—and sent back to his cell with no resolution. He returned to the infirmary several times before he was sent to a local hospital, where he spent six hours in the emergency department before he returned to the prison with a diagnosis of “malingering”—the doctor there had concluded that he was faking his falls to avoid incarceration without ever removing his shackles to determine whether his legs were weak. Weeks would pass before he was transported to our larger hospital. By then, he wasn’t walking at all. His cancer had begun in his lungs, a jagged mass of fecund, immortal cells that had slipped into his lymph nodes before finally reaching his brain, where they robbed him of first his balance and then his strength. Two weeks into his hospital stay, the tumor in his brain began to bleed, wrenching his body into the violent convulsions of a brief seizure. His limbs were still shackled to his bed, and I worried that if he seized again, the unyielding metal of the shackles would break his bones. Still, the shackles remained. I asked whether they were truly necessary, whether a man who could not walk needed to be restrained, and the officers shrugged. “It’s our policy,” they said. I didn’t argue, never said that the man was my patient and that the shackles were compromising his health. When it became clear that my patient would soon die of his cancer, I asked him who he wanted me to call. Before he could answer, one of the officers interrupted: Incarcerated patients in the hospital weren’t allowed visitors; family members weren’t even allowed to know that their loved ones were hospitalized. If a medical decision was needed and my patient could no longer speak for himself, the prison physician would act as his health care proxy. I asked for a compassionate exemption to the visitor restrictions and filled out the paperwork, but by the time it was granted, it was too late; my patient died of his cancer with only the correctional officers by his bedside, his limbs finally unshackled less than a day before he died. The prison would notify his family, I was told. Since caring for that patient, I’ve finished my internship, residency, and fellowship training. I’m now a professor at a safety-net hospital where I often care for incarcerated patients, and I’m ashamed to say that I am still murky on the rules. I’m not alone. While incarceration is far more common than many of the rare diseases taught in medical schools, most medical students are never trained on the rights and needs of the incarcerated patients they are likely to someday care for, and most doctors and nurses report that they don’t know what their hospital’s policies are on shackling, privacy, and surrogate decision-makers for incarcerated patients. As a result, those same doctors and nurses rarely unshackle patients or ask correctional officers to leave the bedside when they deliver sensitive information, even though most doctors and nurses I’ve spoken to also believe their incarcerated patients should receive the same medical care as other hospitalized patients. Often, there is no policy governing the care we provide for detained patients, some of whom may not yet have been tried and convicted despite the optics of their shackles. What we do have, though, are both ethics and policies governing how doctors should care for human beings within the walls of a hospital. There are no federal regulations that govern the use of shackles on hospitalized patients—with the exception of labor and delivery, in which case shackles are prohibited by the federal prison system and many states. (Though a horrifying 10 states still have no restrictions on shackling pregnant people.) But we do have federal regulations that govern how we use medical “restraints”—soft cuffs on the wrists or ankles of agitated patients—which begin with the premise that no hospitalized patient should be restrained unless a proven need arises. Instead of beginning with the assumption that every incarcerated person in a hospital should be indefinitely shackled, we should begin with the assumption that hospitalized patients should remain unchained unless there is a proven need. By the same token, we should assume that detained patients have the same federally protected rights to privacy, to consent to or refuse treatment, and to name a surrogate decision-maker as their nonincarcerated neighbors unless a proven need arises. We should insist that correctional officers leave the room when we learn our patient’s stories or share private information about their bodies or illnesses. And when illness robs our patients of their ability to speak for themselves, our patients—not their jailers—should choose who speaks on their behalf. The unequal toll of COVID-19 kindled a national conversation about health disparities. As the specter of mass incarceration haunts some communities—some bodies—more than others, and the racial chasm in policing and enforcement continues to widen, we cannot exclude incarcerated patients from that call to action. In a moment when hospitals are being made to feel less like places of healing than hunting grounds, honoring the rights of all our patients within hospital walls is more essential than ever.

Anxiety about flying is common during the best of times: Research suggests up to 40% of people worldwide have some degree of aerophobia. Add a string of recent plane crashes and other horrifying incidents to the mix, and feeling jittery about boarding a plane seems perfectly reasonable. “I’m hearing about it a lot from patients, and we talk about it within the psychiatry department, too,” says Dr. Nathan Carroll, chief resident of psychiatry at Jersey Shore University Medical Center, who’s scheduled to take a flight in two weeks. “People are like, ‘Ehhh, maybe I’ll drive instead.’” Such anxiety is natural—but, he stresses, shouldn’t overshadow the fact that flying is still safe in the U.S. “Despite it being in the news so frequently, we know it's really safe,” he says. “There are thousands and thousands of flights every day that don't crash. If we compare it to cars, it's still way safer.” According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), about 45,000 commercial and private flights take off each day in the U.S., carrying 2.9 million passengers, and the odds of dying in an air disaster are astronomically small: about 1 in 13.7 million. (That’s compared to 1 in 95 odds of dying in a car accident.) Here’s what to do if you’re anxious about flying right now. Grottoes bear the enduring touch of Tang Branded Content Grottoes bear the enduring touch of Tang By China Daily Accept your anxiety Martin Seif, a psychologist who co-founded the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, has treated thousands of people with aerophobia. He says the recent aviation disasters haven’t impacted his clients as much as you might think: They're already so anxious about flying that many avoid it altogether, so the news events are almost irrelevant to them. The most profound impact, he says, has been on reluctant flyers who have traditionally still managed to board the plane, though they don't relish the experience. “What’s happened is that the normally nervous people who go on airplanes—who don’t like thinking about it too much but say, ‘OK, I have to get there’—are having an uptick in their concerns and fear of flying,” Seif says. "Specifically, they’re having an uptick in anticipatory anxiety,” or excessive worry or fear about a future event. Read More: 8 Symptoms Doctors Often Dismiss As Anxiety If you have a flight booked and are feeling anxious about it, Seif recommends telling yourself: “I’m committed to going on this flight. I’m going no matter what.” That helps tamp down anticipatory anxiety, he says, because it reduces the amount of debating you’ll do with yourself about whether you should still go or not. “The first thing I tell people is to expect anxiety, accept it, and allow it,” he says. “Anxiety is very, very strange. The more you fight it, the greater it gets.” Instead of obsessing about trying to calm down—and giving your anxiety more oxygen—simply stand by your decision to fly and “learn to let the time pass,” he says. Focus on the perks of air travel If you’re nervous about flying, spend time thinking about the ways it enriches your life and allows you to meet your goals, says Madeline Marks, a practicing psychologist with the University of Maryland Medical Center. She suggests asking yourself why you bought a plane ticket in the first place, and listing the ways that flying serves you. “Flying might allow you to visit your loved ones, because one of your core values is your family, and spending time with friends celebrating milestones,” she says. “Maybe one of your big values is appreciating other cultures and food, so seeing the world is important to you.” Or, jetting across the country to attend a work-related conference might allow you to network and advance in your field. Remind yourself that “airline travel has allowed us to be more globally connected,” Marks says, “and to connect more with these activities that give our life meaning.” Cut off your news consumption It might feel impossible to escape headlines about what caused American Eagle Flight 5342 to crash in Washington, D.C., or videos from inside the Delta plane that flipped on its roof during a landing in Toronto. But Carroll advises looking away from aviation-related news—including speculation about how firings of FAA staff could potentially impact safety. We don't yet know how things will play out, he says, and worrying isn’t going to help ensure your flight goes smoothly. If possible, start tuning out the news at least two weeks before your flight. “It might sound like a long period of time for someone who really is a news junkie,” he says. “You don’t have to go cold turkey, but gradually decreasing the amount of news you consume will make you calmer in general.” Start calming yourself down well before you get on the plane Aim to be as relaxed as possible on your travel day—which might mean starting to get ready for your trip early, rather than jamming all your errands, chores, and packing into the day before you leave. If the airport isn't close to home, it can even be helpful to book a hotel nearby, Carroll says, so you don't have the added stress of a long drive. Read More: Do You Really Store Stress in Your Body? Throughout your travels, practice progressive muscle relaxation or deep-breathing exercises, which can, for example, be helpful as you wait in the security line. Once you’re on the plane, you could even put the dreaded barf bag into use: Breathing into a paper bag can help curb anxiety attacks, allowing people to resume normal breathing patterns. “Your neighbors might get a little nervous,” Carroll says. “But it actually works.” Take comfort in your past flying experiences Anxious flyers can think themselves out of their fear, Carroll says. The key is identifying and challenging negative thought patterns, instead reframing them so they're more realistic and productive. You might tell yourself, for example, that you’ve gone on dozens of flights before, and every single one has landed safely. Or you could remind yourself that the pilots in the cockpit have spent hundreds of hours training for this very flight. “You’re using the rational and logical part of your brain to confront the emotion-driven limbic part of your brain,” he says. “It’s very effective.” Avoid triggers Avoid anything that might exacerbate your anxiety on flight day. That includes caffeine, alcohol, and illicit drugs, says Dr. Lokesh Shahani, a psychiatrist with UTHealth Houston. “We know that caffeine makes people anxious, so avoiding coffee the morning of flying is an important thing you could do,” he says. Similarly, while you might be inclined to order an in-flight cocktail to dull your nerves, opt for a soda or juice instead: “Alcohol could actually worsen your anxiety,” he says.

In an interview just hours after his confirmation as Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. outlined his priorities in response to specific prompts by Fox News host Laura Ingraham. “It’s MAHA time” read a chyron as Kennedy joined the program, later changing to “MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN!”—a variation on Trump’s Make America Great Again slogan. Kennedy asserted that the U.S. is “the sickest country in the world,” a talking point he has repeated many times in reference to its low ranking on various metrics among developed nations. He said that Americans face not only a health crisis but also a “spiritual crisis.” Kennedy suggested that addressing “diseases of isolation” would be a major focus of his role in the Trump Administration, saying that disconnection from communities drives chronic diseases, suicide, depression, alcoholism, and addiction. “I think we have to address all of those things at the same time. We can’t just say we’re going to make you physically healthy.” “That’s a tall order,” Ingraham responded before discussing how unconventional a pick Kennedy was for the role he is assuming, playing a clip of Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer criticizing Kennedy’s qualifications. “The qualifications that Senator Schumer is talking about there, are the very qualifications that got us to where we are today,” Kennedy said. “We do need a break. We need somebody different who can come in and say, ‘I’m going to be a disruptor. I’m not going to let the food industry and the pharmaceutical industry run health policy anymore.’” Here’s what else Kennedy spoke about. Read More: ‘Terrifying’: Public Health Experts React to Senate’s Confirmation of RFK Jr. to Lead HHS ‘We shouldn't be subsidizing people to eat poison’ When asked by Ingraham what food additives he’d effectively remove from the U.S., Kennedy did not say he would outright ban any, arguing that Americans should have “freedom of choice.” “If you want to eat Twinkies,” he said, “you ought to be able to eat them.” But he promised to bring about “radical transparency” in informing people of food ingredients and their health effects. Kennedy did say, however, that he would target the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) as well as school lunches for changes. Kennedy has previously criticized the programs for prioritizing ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks, calling for a reorientation toward healthier options. “We shouldn't be subsidizing people to eat poison,” he said. Read More: RFK Jr. Says Ultra-Processed Foods Are ‘Poison’—But That He Won’t Ban Them ‘I’m not going to take away anybody’s vaccine’ Kennedy also said, “I’m not going to take away anybody’s vaccine,” promising instead to publicize more information on their efficacy and side effects, claiming currently insufficient safety studies and surveillance of vaccine effects. “If people are happy with their vaccines, they ought to be able to get them,” Kennedy said. “What we’re going to do is give people good science.” Asked whether he thought the COVID-19 vaccine was safe, Kennedy told Ingraham: “We don’t have good data on it. And that is a crime.” Read More: RFK Jr. Denied He Is Anti-Vaccine During His Confirmation Hearing. Here’s His Record ‘I have a list in my head’ Kennedy also promised firings in the Department and its subagencies—including the world’s major research funder National Institutes of Health. “I have a list in my head,” Kennedy told Ingraham when asked if he had a list of specific people to remove. Kennedy said that lower-level federal employees were “public-spirited, good public servants, good American patriots, and hardworking people.” and that he was more interested in “moving away the people who have made really bad decisions.” When asked if he would cut the Department’s workforce in half, Kennedy said there are 90,000 employees and he’d “be surprised if there were 50% cuts.” “If you’ve been involved in good science—you have nothing to worry about. If you care about public health, you’ve got nothing to worry about.” Read More: Get Ready for a Catastrophic Four Years for Public Health ‘We have now a capacity to really study it’ Ingraham also asked Kennedy about marijuana and abortion drugs, to which he replied that more studies need to be done. Kennedy said he was “worried” about the “catastrophic impacts” that high-THC marijuana can have on youth but added “that worry also has to be balanced” with how 24 states and Washington, D.C., have legalized recreational use of the drug and too many people have been incarcerated over the drug. Kennedy said state-level legalization allows for more intensive studies on the effects of marijuana. Kennedy also said similar safety studies will be done on abortion-inducing drugs, but he didn’t say whether he thinks access to those pills need to be tightened.

Infant mortality and births increased in the majority of states that had abortion bans in the year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, according to two new studies. The studies, which were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on Thursday, indicate that these impacts can be especially felt by people with socioeconomic disadvantages. Researchers said that the results “suggest that abortion bans may exacerbate racial disparities and disproportionately affect communities in southern states, where more than half of the U.S. Black population resides and infant mortality was already high.” The investigators analyzed data from birth and death certificates, as well as the U.S. Census Bureau, for all 50 states and Washington, D.C. from January 2012 through December 2023 to compare data from previous years and the 18 months after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. One of the studies estimated that, overall, infant mortality was 5.6% higher than expected in states that enacted near-total abortion bans or bans after six weeks of pregnancy, resulting in about 478 more infant deaths than expected based on data from previous years. The other study estimated that, overall, the birth rate in those states was 1.7% higher than expected, amounting to about 22,000 more births than expected based on previous years’ data. Fourteen states had enacted near-total or six-week abortion bans during the window that the researchers studied. As of mid-February 2025, 16 states have implemented such bans. Grottoes bear the enduring touch of Tang Branded Content Grottoes bear the enduring touch of Tang By China Daily Researchers acknowledged that Texas had an “outsized influence” on the overall findings, which they attributed partly to the state’s large population, greater distances to travel to get an abortion compared with other states that had bans at the time, and the fact that Texas had enacted a ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy before the other states did (about nine months before the Dobbs ruling, in September 2021). The authors also found that increases in infant mortality were larger among groups that already had higher than average infant mortality rates, such as Black infants and those living in southern states. For Black infants in states with abortion bans, mortality was 11% higher than would have been expected if there hadn’t been abortion bans, according to one of the studies.

Dr. Frank Frizelle has operated on countless patients in his career as a colorectal surgeon. But there’s one case that stayed with him. In 2014, he was treating a woman in her late 20s suffering from bowel cancer—already a rare situation, given her age. But it became even more unusual when her best friend visited her in the hospital and told Frizelle that she had many of the same symptoms as his patient. Subsequent testing revealed that his patient’s friend had a lesion that, had it not been caught early, likely would have become cancerous. “That really brought it home to me—how it’s much more common than you think,” says Frizelle, a professor of surgery at the University of Otago in New Zealand. Still, like any good scientist, Frizelle was skeptical. Was it simply a fluke that he kept treating strikingly young patients? Or was his practice one tiny data point in a larger trend? He found his answer after sifting through national health data: colorectal cancer, he discovered, was indeed being diagnosed more often than in previous years among New Zealanders under 50. Further research by Frizelle analyzing populations in Sweden and Scotland showed the same thing. A bigger picture was emerging. Here were three different countries, with different populations and health challenges—but united by a spike in colorectal cancers among young adults.

The first time you tell someone you love them, they might go weak in the knees. The millionth time? It’s probably still nice to hear—but also a bit, well, familiar. “Words do matter,” says Lauren Farina, a psychotherapist in Chicago. “If we’re only using the same words over and over again—as meaningful as the phrase ‘I love you’ can be—it does begin to feel overdone, and therefore loses some of its meaning.” After a while, you might not even consciously think about what you’re saying. That three-word phrase—once so weighty—becomes a default expression of affection, the words rolling off your tongue automatically when you walk out the door or hang up the phone. Switching up what you say to someone you care about can indicate that you’re putting a heightened level of thought and intention into nurturing the relationship, Farina says. We asked experts to share their favorite alternate ways to let a romantic partner, friend, or family member know you care about them, rather than those three little words. “You hold a place in my heart that no one else can touch.” You might think you’re already communicating this to your loved ones via your actions. Yet making it a point to remind them how much they matter to you can strengthen your bond, says Sejginha Williams-Abaku, a marriage and family therapist who’s trained in the Gottman Method, a couple’s therapy technique that emphasizes healthy communication. “It shows them how unique and special and important they are to us,” she says, especially if you say it at a moment when you feel highly emotionally connected. That way it comes off as “authentic and real, and they can feel how much you mean it.” “I trust you and respect you.” Trust and respect are the cornerstones of a loving relationship. When you tell someone you trust them, you’re essentially saying that you know they’ll show up for you when you need them. Plus, it’s validating for the person on the receiving end, because “it demonstrates your perception of their character,” says Marisa Cohen, a marriage and family therapist who’s a relationship expert with the dating app Hily. Respect is similarly vital and makes it clear that you value your partner’s feelings and desires as much as your own. By sharing either or both of these sentiments, you’ll cultivate a secure connection and deeper level of emotional intimacy, she adds. “I feel safe with you.” Emotional safety allows you to feel protected and loved—and confident that your partner will take care of your heart. Otherwise, you might find you’re constantly on edge, replaying conversations, struggling to let your guard down, or avoiding asking for what you need because you’re afraid of being rejected. That’s why conveying a sense of safety is so powerful. “It’s a big one,” Cohen says. You’re letting your partner know that “in times of distress, they’re like a safe port—someone you can find security from.” “You matter to me.” Sometimes, people need to hear how much they mean to you in a straightforward way. “You matter to me” lets them know their presence in your life is important without over-complicating the message, says Melissa Legere, a licensed marriage and family therapist who’s the clinical director and co-founder of California Behavioral Health in Palm Springs. “It can be especially comforting during tough times, or when someone feels overlooked,” she adds. You might say it during a quiet one-on-one conversation, or in a heartfelt text. “Keep it simple and genuine,” Legere advises. “Your tone will do the rest.” Read More: 13 Things to Say When Someone Asks Why You Haven’t Had a Baby Yet “You are my home.” If you say this to a loved one, you’ll communicate a deep sense of comfort and belonging. “It tells the person they’re more than just someone you care about—they’re your safe space and the person you turn to when you need grounding,” Legere says. “It’s a beautiful way to express that they bring a sense of stability and warmth into your life.” Use it during an emotional moment, or when you want to remind them how much they mean to you; it could be whispered during a hug, written in a card, or even shared casually in a quiet moment together, she adds. “You add so much value and joy to my life.” If you haven’t told a friend what they mean to you lately, seize the moment. “A lot of friendships are born out of fun,” Williams-Abaku points out. “Knowing that a friendship is more than just fun, and that we’re adding value to the life of a friend, can make us feel really good." You might also add: “I'm so grateful for all the ways you've shown up for me,” she suggests, which reinforces your connection. “You have my heart.” Telling someone they have your heart conveys trust, devotion, and deep affection. “It’s intimate and special—showing that you’ve chosen to give them a piece of yourself,” Legere says. “It works well when you’re being vulnerable and want your partner to know they hold a unique, irreplaceable place in your life.” “I heard a song that reminded me of you.” Sharing a specific way you’re reminded of someone you care about—like a song you heard on the radio, a poem you read, or a beautiful patch of flowers you saw on your walk to work—can make them feel special and valued. Plus, it lets them know you’re thinking of them, even when you’re not together. “It’s a great opportunity to strengthen your connection," says April Davis, founder and president of LUMA Luxury Matchmaking. Just make sure there’s a clear positive association—you probably don’t want to tell your boyfriend that Taylor Swift's The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived reminded you of him. Read More: Love Languages Actually Do Improve Your Relationship “I love being your [husband, wife, partner, parent, friend] because _____.” Specificity is key when you’re expressing affection—so make it a point to regularly tell your loved ones your favorite thing(s) about them, like their creativity, sense of humor, or loyalty. Zeroing in on a particular quality or tendency indicates you’re paying attention; plus, it helps ensure your compliment feels sincere. “My personal philosophy is that what each of us seeks in a relationship is really being seen and known for who we are as individuals,” Farina says, “and this statement really drives that.”

The Senate confirmed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of America’s most notorious vaccine skeptics, to run the country’s leading health agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), on Thursday, sparking outrage among public health experts who worry that Kennedy will harm public health and further erode trust in science and medicine. “I think it’s a sad day for America’s children. I think it’s a sad day for public health when someone who is a science denialist, conspiracy theorist, and virulent anti-vaccine activist is [leading] the biggest public health agency in the United States,” says Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who has served on vaccine advisory committees for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “I think every Senator who voted for his confirmation should be ashamed of themselves for their unwillingness to stand up for the health of the American public.” Kennedy, 71, was one of President Donald Trump’s most controversial Cabinet nominees. For years, Kennedy has spread medical disinformation, enraging experts in the field. He’s repeated the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism—even though research overwhelmingly proves that vaccines are both safe and effective—and has made controversial statements about raw milk and fluoride in water. During his confirmation hearings, he faced heated questioning by Senators over his anti-vaccine views, flip-flopping stance on abortion, and previous support for some conspiracy theories, such as his assertions that Lyme Disease and COVID-19 were engineered bioweapons. He appeared unfamiliar with certain issues he would oversee as the head of HHS, at times seemingly confusing Medicaid and Medicare. All the same, Kennedy was confirmed by a vote of 52 to 48, with Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky—a polio survivor—the only Republican who voted against his confirmation. Read More: RFK Jr. Outlines His Health Secretary Priorities in Post-Confirmation Interview With Fox News Public health experts first sounded the alarm when Trump announced Kennedy as his nominee to lead HHS back in November. As head of HHS, Kennedy will oversee health agencies like the CDC and the FDA. At the forefront of experts’ concern is the influence Kennedy would have over vaccines. Kennedy tried to distance himself from his previous anti-vaccine statements during his confirmation hearings, saying that he’s not “anti-vaccine” but “pro-safety,” and he has said that he and the Trump Administration wouldn’t take vaccines off the market. But experts cast doubt on whether the Administration would hold true to that statement, and many worry that Kennedy could appoint people to agencies like the FDA and CDC who could impede or revoke vaccine approvals, not only limiting access to but also sowing distrust in a powerful public health tool. Dr. Rob Davidson is an emergency physician in Michigan and executive director of the Committee to Protect Health Care, which had circulated a petition garnering more than 22,000 signatures from physicians calling on the Senate to reject Kennedy. Davidson says he worries about how Kennedy will respond to emerging diseases, such as H5N1, more commonly known as bird flu. In addition to his anti-vaccine rhetoric, Kennedy has previously suggested putting a pause on infectious disease research, sparking backlash from many public health experts. “He’s just a dangerous individual when it comes to public health,” Davidson says. “It’s dangerous to have a guy who’s led [the vaccine skepticism] movement being the head of this agency, the mouthpiece of the U.S. government when it comes to public health. So that is truly terrifying.” “I think a lot of lives are at risk potentially because of this person running this agency,” Davidson continues. Read More: RFK Jr. Denied He Is Anti-Vaccine During His Confirmation Hearing. Here’s His Record Experts are also concerned about the actions Kennedy could take on abortion. Kennedy, who had previously expressed support for people’s right to choose, has since shared anti-abortion statements, saying during his confirmation hearings that he agrees with Trump “that every abortion is a tragedy” and abortion policy should be left up to individual states. During the hearings, Kennedy was asked about the abortion medication mifepristone, which was approved by the FDA for abortion purposes more than twenty years ago but has recently been unsuccessfully challenged in court by a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations. Kennedy gave vague answers when asked about the drug, saying that Trump asked him “to study the safety of mifepristone” and that the President “has not yet taken a stand on how to regulate it.” Davidson worries that, under Kennedy’s leadership, HHS and the FDA could make mifepristone less available or accessible. Read More: The Powers Trump’s Nominees Will Have Over Abortion The one area in which Kennedy has garnered some favor among health experts is his stance on food and nutrition. Kennedy has shared a plan to “Make America Healthy Again,” in which he vows to “ban the hundreds of food additives and chemicals that other countries have already prohibited” and “change regulations, research topics, and subsidies to reduce the dominance of ultra-processed food.” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and director of the Food Is Medicine Institute at Tufts University, says he thinks Kennedy and the Trump Administration “have a chance to really coalesce around the top crisis facing our country, which is food-related chronic conditions.” While he hopes that Kennedy will focus on addressing this issue and turn away from his more controversial statements on vaccines, Mozaffarian says he was disappointed by Kennedy’s responses to questions over his anti-vaccine rhetoric during his confirmation hearings. “I think he had a chance there to put that controversy to rest and show he’s going to really focus on where the consensus is, which is that our food system is broken,” Mozaffarian says. Many health experts are skeptical that Kennedy will actually take meaningful steps on food and nutrition. “It is absolutely eclipsed by his other controversial views,” Davidson says of Kennedy’s stance on food. “The danger of him is so much greater than any potential benefit of those views.” Experts worry that Kennedy could exacerbate public distrust in science and medicine, and many say that his confirmation and the support he’s received is already a concerning sign of that. “I think today really is a marker in the road, marking growing mistrust in institutions, marking power of changing information landscape, but most prominently, the marker that the lines between truth and falsehoods are blurred and how we navigate this new world is going to require a different approach,” says Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist and founder of the newsletter Your Local Epidemiologist. “What I’m most concerned about is the rhetoric and the sowing of doubt and the confusion … that we’re all going to be facing.”