Kentucky Supreme Court declines to block abortion ban

The Kentucky Supreme Court on Thursday declined to block the state’s near-total abortion ban while it reviews legal challenges to the law.

A state court of appeals allowed two abortion bans to go into effect in an Aug. 1 ruling and the state Supreme Court kept that ruling in place, finding that the “circumstances presented” by the challengers “do not rise to the level of extraordinary cause.” 

The courts have yet to rule on the merits of the challenge to the abortion bans, and abortion rights groups said they will continue to fight.

“Make no mistake: abortion bans result in tragic health outcomes and are a form of control over our bodies. Despite this setback, the fight continues,” Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Kentucky said in a statement.

“We will proceed with our case to restore and protect reproductive freedom in Kentucky. Politicians and the government should never have the authority to force a person to remain pregnant against their will,” the groups said.

The appeals court’s Aug. 1 decision lifted a temporary injunction against two 2019 bans. The near-complete ban on abortions was passed in the form of a “trigger” law, and took effect when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.  

The six-week “heartbeat bill” had previously been blocked by a federal court.

The laws together effectively outlaw abortion in Kentucky except in limited instances when the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant person. Neither law contains an exception for victims of the crimes of rape or incest to obtain an abortion if they become pregnant.

In the ruling, the state’s highest court set oral arguments for Nov. 15, which is after the upcoming general election when voters will decide whether the state constitution should be amended to make clear there are no protections for abortion rights.

Source: TEST FEED1

Scientists unveil method to destroy certain 'forever chemicals'

Scientists at Northwestern University say they have devised a method for breaking apart some of the infamously unbreakable toxins known as “forever chemicals.”

These chemicals, called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), earned the “forever” qualifier due to their propensity to linger in the human body and the environment. There are thousands of types of PFAS, none of which are naturally occurring and many of which can take decades to degrade.

But a group of chemists at Northwestern say they have developed a simple method that employs low temperatures and inexpensive reagents to break down two major classes of PFAS, while leaving behind only harmless byproducts.

They published their findings — which they acknowledged as a “seemingly impossible” but potentially “powerful solution” — in Science on Thursday afternoon.

“PFAS has become a major societal problem,” lead author William Dichtel, a professor of chemistry at Northwestern, said in a statement. “Even just a tiny, tiny amount of PFAS causes negative health effects, and it does not break down.”

Scientists have already found connections between PFAS exposure and a long list of illnesses, including testicular cancer, thyroid disease and kidney cancer.

Notorious for their presence in jet fuel firefighting foam and industrial discharge, PFAS are also found in many household products, including nonstick pans, waterproof apparel and cosmetics.

“We can’t just wait out this problem,” Dichtel said. “We wanted to use chemistry to address this problem and create a solution that the world can use. It’s exciting because of how simple — yet unrecognized — our solution is.”

The reason that PFAS are usually so indestructible is that they are made up of many carbon-fluorine bonds, which are the strongest such bonds in organic chemistry, the authors explained.

But the researchers said they identified a weakness that enabled them to disrupt this formidable attachment.

While PFAS contain long “tails” of powerful carbon-fluorine bonds, at one end of these molecules is often a “head group” of charged oxygen atoms, the authors explained.

By heating the compounds in a solvent called dimethyl sulfide with a common reagent called sodium hydroxide, the scientists said they “decapitated the head group” — exposing a vulnerable, reactive PFAS tail.

“Although carbon-fluorine bonds are super strong, that charged head group is the Achilles heel,” Dichtel said.

This head group “falls off and sets off a cascade of reactions that ultimately breaks these PFAS compounds down to relatively benign products,” the professor explained at a live-streamed press conference this week.

The byproducts include fluoride ions and “small carbon-containing products that are in many cases found in nature already and do not pose serious health concerns,” he added.

Dichtel’s team successfully degraded 10 types of PFAS from two classes: perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids — PFCAs — and perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids, or PFECAs.

Among the compounds they were able to break down were perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, and GenX — two of the most infamous types of PFAS.

“The importance of this understanding is that it really provides for the first time a way to map these reactions out,” Dichtel said at the press conference.

Dichtel and first co-author Brittany Trang, who recently completed her PhD in his laboratory, worked alongside Ken Houk, an organic chemistry professor at the University of California, Los Angeles and Yuli Li, a student at China’s Tianjin University, who employed powerful computational methods to simulate PFAS degradation. 

Understanding the path to degradation, according to Dichtel, is important to the future development of “actual practical methods to remove these pollutants” from contaminated water.

Dichtel said he could envision this type of technique being integrated in the future with technologies that extract PFAS from water, such as reverse osmosis. Reverse osmosis pulls contaminants out of water by forcing the offending molecules through a semi-permeable membrane — and while this process purifies the water, the PFAS is left behind as waste. 

But an approach like the one devised in Dichtel’s laboratory could be applied to this waste stream and break down concentrated quantities of PFAS, he explained.

Acknowledging that other PFAS degradation methods have been emerging, Dichtel said that the uniqueness of their method lies in its inexpensive nature and low temperature requirements.

Now that they’ve successfully broken down these 10 types of PFAS, the scientists said they plan to test out the strategy on others.

They next plan to focus on another large class of PFAS called perfluoroalkyl sulfonates, which include common compounds like perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, according to Dichtel. 

With each class, however, comes a different head group that the scientists need to figure out how to decapitate. But if they “can knock that sulfonated head group off the molecule,” the compounds should degrade through similar pathways, the professor explained.

Although it’s difficult to anticipate exactly what will be required to eliminate that head group, Dichtel said that they are exploring several different possibilities. And identifying that mechanism would be one step closer to figuring out how to break down the thousands of types of PFAS that are lurking in the environment.

“PFAS pollution is so pervasive, and it is in more than just drinking water,” Dichtel added. “It’s in soils, it’s in dust, it’s airborne — we really polluted the whole world with this stuff.”

Source: TEST FEED1

What’s the crime in keeping classified documents? Trump — and the nation — may find out

“No person is above the law.” This is the common refrain we’ve heard from the Department of Justice (DOJ), Attorney General Merrick Garland and many analysts to justify the FBI search of Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago, reportedly to obtain classified documents that the former president allegedly kept.  

It is true that a U.S. president is not “above the law.” The problem with this scenario, however, is that, in general, the law that applies to a president — including a former president — for acts connected to their presidency is the Constitution.

As a country, we have always operated with a trust that our presidents will follow and uphold the duties they promised to carry out upon taking their oath of office. The remedy for violating a president’s oath — to include the commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors” — is also found in the Constitution: impeachment, not criminal prosecution.  

Garland and many Democrats, in their quest to hold Donald Trump accountable under federal statutes relating to record retention and classified information, are operating under the premise that Trump can be treated like any other government employee — someone who can be caught up in a legalistic debate about the possession of documents that are arguably classified, and their responsibilities associated with such.  

But that’s just not the case.

Even if Trump did have documents that were once classified containing information critical to the nation’s security, documents that he did not readily return to the National Archives or the DOJ, he may well have violated no criminal statute.

The president of the United States has unlimited access to all classified information. Any other government employee who accesses secret or top-secret information must possess the proper security clearance to do so, which typically entails their undergoing detailed background checks, polygraphs, and continuing responsibilities to report any information that could impact their trustworthiness such as arrests, foreign contacts, and the like.

But U.S. presidents do not possess any security clearance at all. To the contrary, the president is the classification authority, with the power to determine who can access classified information, who can be granted security clearances (or have theirs revoked), and even to determine what is considered classified in the first place. The president possesses this power because he is entrusted, among other things, with both the command of our military forces and the international relations that we have with other countries, functions that obviously require access to information of the highest sensitivity.

The president is inherently trusted to act in the best interests of the nation in determining when and under what circumstances to release information that ordinarily would be presumed to be classified at any level.

Trump’s foes can sound all the alarms they want, alleging that Trump had access to and retained important documents without authority, but their logic is shallow at best. While in office, Trump was given top secret briefings every day. As a former president, he knows many of the nation’s secrets, whether they’re on paper or in his memory. There are no constitutional requirements that, upon leaving office, a former president must forget all that he learned or shred all documents to which he had access. Basic notions of the separation of powers substantially limit the ability of Congress to micromanage the function of the presidency.

Now, there are some caveats to our opinion. First and foremost, a president is not protected by the powers of the presidency after the conclusion of his term of service. This means that any alleged violation of the criminal code that occurred on or after Jan. 20, 2021, would — and should — mean that Trump must be treated like any other U.S. citizen. Similarly, being a sitting or former president would not excuse jeopardizing the nation’s security by mishandling sensitive materials or risk allowing them to fall into the wrong hands, regardless of any legalities.

But the nature of the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump appears so far to concern primarily the documents and information that would have been squarely related to and generated from Trump’s time in office. For what it’s worth, criminal law typically resolves ambiguities in the law in favor of those accused.

In reality, Trump could have unclassified these documents at any time for any reason — although there is no clear indication that he did (and some experts insist a specific process must be followed to declassify) — so, to a degree, it defies logic that he now might be held criminally responsible for possessing the same information. (Remember, the Presidential Records Act has no criminal or administrative enforcement mechanism.) Even more than that, it makes no sense that someone could be convicted of a crime for acts that would have been made perfectly legal by the stroke of a pen by that same person. 

On the other hand, if Trump retained documents that he failed to declassify prior to the expiration of his time in office and which he insisted on holding in a manner that he knew to be unlawful, or if he otherwise knowingly misled investigators regarding the status of such, then he may, in fact, have some legal issues. The search warrant indicates that the case may be even more about the status of certain documents alleging obstruction of justice or even espionage.

Certainly, if Trump leaked information to foreign entities after his time in office with an intent to injure our nation, that would be a whole different ball game. But the totality of the information with which we’ve been presented thus far indicates that’s not where this case is headed. We are also unconvinced that the DOJ is hot on the trail of an obstruction of justice offense, a crime that involves intentionally misleading or frustrating a criminal investigation. It is not an obstruction to debate or legally challenge the demands of the National Archives, the DOJ, or the Democratic Party. And it is not obstruction for Trump to have declassified documents that those in power currently believe contain sensitive information, if he indeed did have those.

As we await more information about what occurred, the path to proving criminal conduct by Trump is for the DOJ to establish criminality — in whole — after he left office. We should not get caught up in a debate about whether Trump has proven these records to be declassified because, as soon as the DOJ turned this into a criminal matter, Trump’s constitutional right to a presumption of innocence took over. Where there is ambiguity about the nature of what is or is not classified, our Constitution demands that these questions be resolved in favor of the presumption of innocence.  

President Biden’s continued refusal to interject in this matter is somewhat unsettling. Yes, the DOJ should operate free of partisan influence — yet it is not ​Attorney General Garland who is ultimately in charge of the administration of justice in our nation; the attorney general serves at the president’s pleasure and his office carries out the duties and responsibilities of the president to enforce justice, a core function of the executive branch. It is the president who retains the power to supervise the functions of the DOJ, and to pardon individuals if the DOJ has gone too far.

The attorney general and others, including Biden, risk creating a constitutional crisis because their actions resulting in the FBI search at Trump’s residence to repossess “sensitive” or “classified” documents are an implicit attack on the autonomy of the executive branch during a predecessor’s term of office, with little or no sound legal basis — at least, based on what we now know — to successfully prosecute the former president. 

Katie Cherkasky (@CherkaskyKatie) and Andrew Cherkasky (@CherkaskyLaw) are both military veterans, former federal prosecutors and current criminal defense attorneys. As co-owners of the civil rights law firm, Golden Law Inc., they focus their legal practice on federal felony trial defense and appellate representation and other civil rights related issues.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Suffering from burnout, doctors are working drunk or high on the job: report

Story at a glance


  • A report by All Points North found a growing number of physicians are turning to alcohol and drugs while working. 

  • Over the last three months, 1 in 7 physicians admitted to consuming alcohol or controlled substances at work. 

  • At the same time, 1 in 5 healthcare workers said they chose to check into rehab or a detox facility in the last three months.

Doctors have been on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic for over two years — and the pressure has taken its toll. A new report found a rising number of physicians are suffering from substance abuse, with some even showing up to work drunk or high. 

At the same time, the U.S. has been experiencing a growing mental health crisis, with Surgeon General Vivek Murthy warning last year that anxiety and depression levels rose during the pandemic—and were already climbing before COVID-19 arrived.  

For example, around 1.5 million U.S. children experienced depression or anxiety during the first year of the coronavirus pandemic, a 26 percent jump for children aged 3 to 17 between 2016 and 2020. 

Now the crisis is becoming evident within the country’s healthcare industry, with 40 percent of health care workers indicating they felt anxiety or dread about going to work. Nearly half, 49 percent, also said they are either at their breaking point or looking for a new job due to the stress and trauma they endured while working in healthcare. 


America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 


That’s from a report produced by All Points North (APN), a mental health company, that interviewed 1,000 U.S. healthcare workers aged 22 and older. Noah Nordheimer, founder and CEO of APN, said the results indicated an industry, “that’s been slow to respond to the growing demand for behavioral health services and often treating mental health as secondary to physical health.” 

Even more alarming, APN found that over the last three months 1 in 7 physicians admitted to consuming alcohol or controlled substances at work—and more than 1 in 5 said they consumed alcohol or controlled substances multiple times per day. 

However, 1 in 5 health care workers said they have checked into rehab or a detox facility in the last three months. 

APN noted that there are serious barriers to seeking help, with nearly 1 in 3 health care workers indicating they are too overworked and don’t have time, 23 percent are concerned colleagues and family will judge them and another 23 percent said they’re afraid of getting their medical license revoked. 

Men were also found to be struggling with mental health stigma more than women with 58 percent of male health care workers reporting they are at their breaking point or looking for a new job due to stress, burnout and trauma they experienced on the job.  

Men were also found to be 4.5 timed more likely to consume alcohol or controlled substances while at work than women and 2.5 times more likely to consume alcohol or controlled substances up to 12 hours before their shift. 

The bottom line: the country’s mental health crisis will continue if the necessary access and tools are not destigmatized as appropriate mental health treatment.  

“We must act now, not only to support those in the healthcare system, but the country as a whole, before it’s too late,” said Nordheimer.  

The risks could not be greater, as Murthy noted in an advisory specifically addressing health worker burnout, patient care and safety could be jeopardized through increased medical errors, hospital-acquired infections among patients and staffing shortages. 

Murthy said annual burnout-related turnover costs are $9 billion for nurses and ranges from $2.6 to $6.3 billion for physicians. 

Source: TEST FEED1

CNN cancels 'Reliable Sources,' host Brian Stelter to depart network

CNN has canceled media news and talk show “Reliable Sources” and its host, Brian Stelter is leaving the network.

“It was a rare privilege to lead a weekly show focused on the press at a time when it has never been more consequential,” Stelter told The Hill, noting Sunday would be the last edition of the “Reliable Sources” program he has hosted on the network for almost a decade.

CNN President Chris Licht reportedly informed Stelter of the network’s decision to cancel “Reliable Sources” earlier this week.

In a statement to NPR, Amy Entelis, CNN’s executive vice president for talent and content development, said Stelter leaves the company “an impeccable broadcaster.”

“We are proud of what Brian and his team accomplished over the years, and we’re confident their impact and influence will long outlive the show,” Entelis said.

Stelter is considered one of the top media reporters and critics in the country, serving as the New York Times’s chief media correspondent after getting his start blogging about the television news industry while still a student in college.

Much of his coverage, and that of CNN’s entire media team in recent years, has focused on former President Trump, Fox News and the conservative media ecosystem generally.

Stelter was on a list of hosts that Licht was evaluating as the network’s president looks to refocus its editorial strategy, Axios reported earlier this year. The media company suffered a major blow after investing in its now-defunct streaming service CNN+.

Stelter was among other hosts on a list reported by Axios this year that Licht was evaluating as the network’s president looks to refocus its editorial strategy. The media company suffered a major blow after investing in its now-defunct streaming service CNN+. Stelter was slated to host a daily streaming show on CNN+ before it was shuttered. 

Licht, in public statements to advertisers and internal town hall meetings and memos, has signaled he would like to see CNN move away from what critics have said is a tilt to the left in its commentary and moderation, as well as sensationalism that left the network touting “breaking news” frequently. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Zelensky warns of 'catastrophic consequences' from Russian actions at nuclear plant

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky blasted Russia on Thursday for shelling around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, calling on the United Nations to secure the site.

Zelensky’s comments come as Ukraine and Russia have blamed each other for shelling the Russian-operated plant in southern Ukraine. The conflict has heightened fears of a nuclear disaster.

“This deliberate terror on the part of the aggressor can have global catastrophic consequences for the whole world,” the Ukrainian president said. “Therefore, the U.N. must ensure the security of this strategic site, its demilitarization and complete liberation from Russian troops.”

Zelensky also warned earlier this week that the situation at the nuclear site could develop into a catastrophe if the plant is not properly defended and that the “consequences may also hit those who remain silent so far.”

“Any radiation incident at the Zaporizhzhia NPP can affect the countries of the European Union, Turkey, Georgia and countries from more distant regions,” the Ukrainian leader said.

Zelensky and U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres agreed Thursday for a group from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit the plant, though it was not immediately clear if Russia would submit to the arrangement. Zelensky asked Guterres to secure the safety of the plant and execute its demilitarization.

Zelensky also pushed for Russian military to leave Zaporizhzhia in a video address Wednesday, claiming that “only absolute transparency and control of the situation” could deliver nuclear safety.

Source: TEST FEED1

Strippers at LA club move to unionize

Dancers at a Los Angeles.-based adult club have moved to form a labor union with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 

In a news release on Wednesday, the Actors’ Equity Association (AEA) said that majority of dancers at North Hollywood’s Star Garden Topless Dive Bar filed a petition to have a union recognition election with NLRB. 

AEA will help out with the dancer’s union bargaining unit, as it already represents more than 51,000 professional actors and stage managers employed in live theater. 

If the dancers win their election, they will be the only strippers in the U.S. to be represented by a union. 

“Strippers are live entertainers, and while some aspects of their job are unique, they have much in common with other Equity members who dance for a living,” AEA President Kate Shindle said in a statement, adding that Star Garden Topless Dive Bar dancer’s reported issues such as  wage theft, health and safety violations, health benefits, sexual harassment and discrimination and unjust firings. 

“Equity is well situated to advocate for these workers, and we are excited to welcome them into the labor movement at this extraordinary time,” Shindle said in a statement. “We applaud their efforts to seize their collective power and unionize, like so many others across the country who are fed up with toxic workplaces. When they approached us for support, we did what unions should do: we said yes.”

The dancer’s move to form a union started earlier in March after the club’s security guards failed to protect dancers from threatening and abusive behavior from customers, leading them to form a demonstration outside the strip club to protest unsafe working conditions. 

Star Garden Topless Dive Bar’s dancers’ union follows San Francisco, Calif-based Lusty Lady forming their own labor union in 1996, Deadline.com reported. The Lusty Lady’s union, the Exotic Dancers union, was affiliated with the Service Employees International Union and lasted until the club’s closure in 2013. 

“We like what we do,” Star Garden dancer Valveeta said in a statement.”We would like our jobs even more if we had basic worker protections. We’re like so many other workers who have learned that it’s not a choice between suffering abuse or quitting. With a union, together, we can make needed improvements to our workplace.”

The Hill has reached out to Strippers United (SU) for comment and more information.

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch Live: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis will deliver a major announcement

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis will deliver remarks Thursday afternoon.

The event is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. ET.

Watch the video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

America’s environmental policy is actually crystal clear — but ignored

It’s not clear what the U.S. Supreme Court had in mind recently when it ruled the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) does not yet have the authority to regulate climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions. Was it protecting Congress’s authority from incursion by the executive branch? Or was its aim to throw the crackdown on power plant pollution back to the wolves?

Something else is unclear, too. What is the obligation of the federal government’s three branches to respect the precedents set by their predecessors? On the one hand, times change. Some rulings, laws and executive actions also must change to remain relevant.

On the other hand, insufficient respect for precedent causes instability in the economy, environmental stewardship, governance and society.

Regarding Congress, what weight must it give to the intent of previous congresses, not only as expressed in the text of “settled statutes” but also regarding what Congress had in mind when it passed them? To prevent uncertainty about its motives, Congress often includes explanations of its intentions in the laws it passes.

Sometimes its intentions, as well as its laws, are overtaken by circumstances as time passes. But other times, Congress intends to clarify its intentions for the ages, explaining obligations fundamental to America’s values and role in the world.

That’s the case in the central environmental law Congress passed, and a Republican president signed 53 years ago, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). I’ve quoted it many times:

“The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.”

The “continuing policy of the Federal Government” is clear, timeless and even more relevant today as the nation deals with its growing impact on natural resources, ecosystems and biodiversity within and beyond its borders.

So, as they interpret existing laws, the separation of powers and other governance issues, the justices of the Supreme Court would serve us best by keeping NEPA’s opening words in mind. The same is true for the other two branches because modern civilization has created a future that will test us severely.

If the president of the United States, the justices of the Supreme Court or members of Congress have any question about what the lawmaking branch of government had in mind about our obligations to one another and the natural world on which we depend, they need only go back to the opening words of NEPA.

We huddled masses can refer to those words, too, to judge how well the government is helping us achieve the productive harmony Congress envisioned 26 sessions ago.

William S. Becker is a former U.S. Department of Energy central regional director who administered energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies programs, and he also served as special assistant to the department’s assistant secretary of energy efficiency and renewable energy. Becker is also executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project, a nonpartisan initiative founded in 2007 that works with national thought leaders to develop recommendations for the White House as well as House and Senate committees on climate and energy policies. The project is not affiliated with the White House.

Source: TEST FEED1

Millions of American adults use hallucinogenic drugs, study finds

Story at a glance


  • Columbia University researchers found the use of hallucinogens in the past 12 months, based on 2019 data, increased among adults over the age of 26 while decreasing among Americans aged 12-17 since 2015. 

  • For the study, the team analyzed data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) from 2002 to 2019 for participants 12 years of age and older.

  • Data shows that LSD use rose within all age groups between 2002 and 2019 but especially among those aged 17 to 25. 

More than 5.5 million U.S. adults use hallucinogenic drugs – such as LSD and PCP –according to estimates in a new study.  

Columbia University researchers found the use of hallucinogens in the past 12 months, based on 2019 data, increased among adults over the age of 26 and decreased among Americans aged 12 to 17 since 2015.  

For the study, the team analyzed data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) from 2002 to 2019 for participants 12 years of age and older. 

Data shows that LSD use rose within all age groups between 2002 and 2019 but especially among those aged 17 to 25. This group saw an increase from 0.9 percent in 2002 to 4 percent in 2019. 

“Our finding of an upward trend in 12-month LSD use, overall and by age, matches our finding of a downward trend in perception of LSD as risky,” the study’s senior author and professor of epidemiology at Columbia University Deborah Hasin said in a news release

“Factors such as changes in risk perception, in the specific types of drugs available and in expectations of beneficial effects of ‘micro dosing’ may all have led to increased use of certain hallucinogens in recent years.” 

The team warned that the use of hallucinogens could lead to delusional states, confusion and other anxious reactions, among others, as well as to a series of health issues involving the heart, brain and endocrine system.  

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

Hasin said growing interest in microdosing hallucinogens for possible health benefits could alter one’s perception of risk and warrants oversight from clinicians and policymakers. 

“Our results highlight such use as a growing public health concern and suggest that the increasing risk of potentially unsupervised hallucinogen use warrants preventive strategies. “ 

Source: TEST FEED1