Managing menopause, perimenopause, and beyond: Essential health tips for women


Women’s sexual and reproductive health evolves across life stages, with needs changing from contraception in the 20s and 30s to menopause care in the 50s and beyond.


StatePoint - A woman’s sexual and reproductive health needs evolve throughout her life. What’s important at age 25 may look very different at 55. But are women talking about their experiences?

Woman with pillows over her head

Photo: Samuel Regan-Asante/Unsplash

Your body changes, and so do your health needs. Open conversations about women’s evolving health can make all the difference.

Mayne Pharma is committed to breaking stigmas and unabashedly encourages informed conversations. This framework guides women as they discuss and seek to understand their sexual and reproductive health needs throughout their lives.

20s and 30s: Building the Foundation: In these years, women should explore various contraception options and find the right fit for their lifestyle and family planning needs. Today’s methods offer safe and effective choices, including both short-term and long-acting birth control solutions. A dialogue with one’s healthcare provider can help women better understand the benefits of each option available.

Women should prioritize preventive care by performing breast self-examinations at home and by making regular visits with their primary care physician and gynecologist for screenings and further education. Open communication with healthcare providers is essential for addressing sexual health issues, and to tailor treatments (if needed) that best fit a woman’s health and lifestyle goals.

40s: Recognizing Change: For most women, their 40s is when they begin experiencing hormonal shifts due to the onset of perimenopause. Symptoms of perimenopause are wide-ranging and can include everything from irregular periods and low libido to changes in mood and even muscle and joint pain. Women should discuss their symptoms with their healthcare providers to understand what medical and non-medical interventions are best for them to help manage symptoms.


Talking openly with a healthcare provider is the best way to identify the right path forward to ensure individual needs are met.

Despite the onset of perimenopause during this time, women must remain proactive about their reproductive health as they are fertile until menopause and may become pregnant. They should also continue with all recommended screenings, including mammograms.

50s and Beyond: Navigating Menopause and Post-Menopausal Health: The average age of menopause in the United States, according to the National Institute on Aging, is 52. This stage often brings noticeable changes, such as hot flashes, sleep disturbances, and shifts in mood or sexual comfort that can affect daily life and overall well-being. Another common symptom of menopause is vulvar and vaginal atrophy, which can cause pain during sex and vaginal discomfort. While these changes are a natural part of aging, they don’t need to be ignored or endured in silence- women should openly discuss these symptoms with their healthcare providers.


Women should not feel alone managing their changing bodies.

Fortunately, safe and effective treatment options exist that address menopause symptoms while treating their underlying causes, providing lasting relief. From hormone therapy and non-hormonal medications to simple lifestyle adjustments, women have more tools than ever to support their comfort and health. Talking openly with a healthcare provider is the best way to identify the right path forward to ensure individual needs are met.

Women’s sexual health and aging is much more than symptom management. Maintaining bone strength, supporting cardiovascular health, and staying active can all help women feel strong and vibrant in their post menopause years. With the right care and resources, menopause can be seen as a new phase-of-life, one that emphasizes confidence, comfort and overall well-being.

For more than 40 years, Mayne Pharma has been dedicated to bringing patients new and trusted medicines that are safe, effective, and easier to access, and to supporting women at different stages of life with treatment options that meet their evolving needs. For more information, visit www.maynepharma.com.

Women should not feel alone managing their changing bodies. By speaking openly with their healthcare providers about contraception, hormones and reproductive health, women have a partner to support their well-being through every age and stage of life.



Tags: Women’s Health, Reproductive Health, Menopause, Perimenopause, Sexual Health

Viewpoint |
Kamala Harris’ and Donald Trump’s records on abortion policy couldn’t be more different – here’s what actions they both have taken while in office


Rachel Rebouché, Temple University


Abortion is a critical, if not the most important, issue for many voters – especially women, according to polls – ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November.


Harris and Trump have starkly different track records on abortion.

Since Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic presidential nominee in August 2024, she has been vocal about her support for abortion rights. Specifically, she supports Congress passing a federal law that would protect abortion rights in the wake of the Supreme Court in 2022 overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which recognized a constitutional right to abortion.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, meanwhile, has boasted about nominating three Supreme Court justices who were among the court majority that voted in 2022 to abandon a constitutional right to abortion. However, in September 2024, Trump said he would not sign a federal abortion ban, reversing course from his previous statements. He also did not answer a question during the September presidential debate about whether he would veto legislation that bans abortion.

Harris and Trump have starkly different track records on abortion. As an academic, my scholarship focuses on reproductive health law, health care law and family law. In this piece, and in anticipation of the election, I briefly consider the broad strokes of each candidate’s past positions on and actions regarding abortion.

Harris’ abortion record

As California’s attorney general, Harris co-sponsored the Reproductive FACT Act, which, among other requirements, mandated that crisis pregnancy centers inform patients that they are not licensed medical facilities and that abortion services are available elsewhere. These centers are nonprofit organizations that counsel pregnant people against abortion, sometimes using deceptive tactics.

Anti-abortion groups sued to block the law once it went into effect. And, in 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law on First Amendment grounds.


As a U.S. senator, Harris opposed anti-abortion bills that would have conferred personhood rights on fetuses.

In 2017, Harris investigated the tactics of undercover videographers at Planned Parenthood clinics who, through deception and fraud, sought to entrap clinicians into making controversial, though legal, statements, and who possibly contravened state law on secret recordings.

As a U.S. senator, Harris opposed anti-abortion bills that would have conferred personhood rights on fetuses. None of them ultimately passed.

Conversely, Harris championed various bills that would have protected and advanced reproductive rights. In 2019, for example, Harris was a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have enacted a federal statutory right to abortion. It also did not pass.

Finally, during Harris’ tenure as vice president, the Biden administration has used its executive power to ease barriers to abortion access, primarily through federal agency actions. The Food and Drug Administration, for example, removed a rule in 2021 that prohibited mailing medication abortion.

The Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance affirming that federal law requires emergency rooms to perform an abortion when it is medically necessary to stabilize a patient needing urgent care.

The Biden-Harris administration also supported federal legislation that includes accommodations for abortion. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, enacted in 2023, requires employers to provide time off for a worker’s miscarriage, stillbirth or abortion.


Trump began his presidency in 2016 by promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who wouldoverturn Roe v. Wade.

Although the Biden-Harris administration’s abortion policy is not necessarily based on just the vice president, Harris, since Roe’s reversal, has been at the helm of the administration’s “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour, speaking nationally in support of a right to abortion. Harris has also stressed the damage done in 14 states, in particular, where abortion is banned throughout pregnancy or after six weeks of gestation.

Trump’s abortion record

During Trump’s tenure as president, he supported various changes – in the form of judicial appointments, federal funding and agency actions, some led by anti-abortion federal employees – in the service of making it harder for people to gain access to abortion care.

Trump began his presidency in 2016 by promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He nominated three justices – Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch – who joined the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, reversing Roe in June 2022.

The Senate confirmed 226 judges whom Trump nominated to the lower levels of federal courts. Trump’s nominations followed a campaign pledge in 2016 that he “would appoint pro-life judges.” Some were on record as being against abortion, and some believed that embryos should be treated like children.

Subscribe

From the start, Trump’s administration prioritized defunding Planned Parenthood clinics, which offer abortion care and receive federal funding under the federal Title X program for other family planning services. Trump signed a bill in 2017 to allow states to strip funding from Planned Parenthood clinics and other organizations that offer abortion, even though abortion care was not supported by the Title X funding.

The Trump administration unsuccessfully tried to replace the Affordable Care Act and undermine its coverage for contraceptives as well as its neutral stance on insurance coverage for abortion. Trump supported bills such as the never-passed American Health Care Act to limit abortion coverage in private health insurance plans.

Trump also appointed several people with anti-abortion positions to his administration, including Charmaine Yoest, the former CEO for the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, who served as a top communications official at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Trump administration advanced numerous other anti-abortion policies. For instance, the Department of Human and Health Services’ 2017 strategic plan defined life as beginning at conception – a decision that supported funding for crisis pregnancy centers and abstinence-only education programs.

Finally, the Trump administration adopted an anti-abortion approach when it came to foreign policy. Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign nongovernmental organizations that receive U.S. funding from performing abortions or referring patients for abortion care elsewhere. Under the Mexico City Policy, Trump in 2017 removed US$8.8 billion in U.S. foreign aid for overseas programs that provide or refer for abortions.

In 2017, Trump also suspended U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund, an agency focused on family planning for low-income people around the world, among other issues, which does “not promote abortion” but “supports the right of all women to get post-abortion care.” Biden restored funding to the U.N. agency in 2021.

In the coming weeks, both candidates will have a lot to say about abortion, possibly refining or changing their stances on aspects of abortion law. In assessing what both candidates have to say about how their administration will approach abortion, voters might consider what we know about their past actions.


The Conversation About the author:
Rachel Rebouché is a Professor of Law at Temple University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Viewpoint |
Maternal health equity begins with nurse leaders



Representation, access, and education are key to saving lives. Nurses must lead the charge to end racial gaps in maternal healthcare.

Viewpoints
by Teya Mongsaithong


In the U.S., giving birth has become a death sentence for many women of color. In fact, Black/African American mothers are three to four times more likely to die from birth-related complications than white women regardless of socioeconomic status or education level. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2023), the number of preterm births was about 50% higher for Black women (14.6%) than White (9.4%) or Hispanic women (10.1%).

This shocking disparity goes beyond medical issues, it is rooted in implicit bias, structural racism, and gaps in delivering culturally competent care. Without realizing it, even the most compassionate nurses can cause harm. To address this public health crisis, nurse leaders must empower change through standardizing implicit bias training, enhancing community services in high-risk populations, and promoting nurses of color into leadership roles.


Nurse leaders have a responsibility to bridge the gap between underserved communities.

First, implicit bias training should be a national standard across all hospitals. It is important for healthcare providers to confront their assumptions and stereotypes when caring for minorities. Specifically for Black women, there is a misconception that their pain tolerance is higher, and they are “forced to endure pain beyond what [is] considered normal" during labor and delivery.

Delivering culturally competent care in this case is necessary for patients to feel safe to express their needs and highlights the importance of implicit bias training. Nurse leaders can standardize this training through embedding it within onboarding and continuing education requirements. By institutionalizing this training, we can ensure black maternal equity is not optional, but foundational to nursing practice. Beyond education, nurse leaders must also recognize the impact of the barriers to accessing quality care.

Limited access to prenatal and postpartum care is a key factor for poor maternal outcomes. In the U.S., over 35% of counties are considered maternity health deserts, which affects approximately 2.3 million women of reproductive age. To address this, nurse leaders collaborate with organizations to push for policies that would: increase the use of mobile maternity units, incentivize the use of telehealth for obstetrics/gynecologists, midwives, and extend Medicaid coverage for prenatal and postpartum care.

Furthermore, nurse leaders can promote virtual training for nurses to provide telehealth care to increase access for patients with limited transportation means. Nurse leaders have a responsibility to bridge the gap between underserved communities and access to care to ensure mothers of color receive quality and equal treatment. To serve these communities to a higher degree, it is necessary to diversify the workforce.

Representation in healthcare matters deeply. Being able to address the unique needs and experiences of individuals allows mothers to have a more active role in their care. To do this, nurse leaders can create mentorship programs for students, advocate for targeted scholarships, and promote more nurses of color into leadership positions.


Black mothers continue to face disproportionately higher health risks due to systemic bias, neglect, and structural racism.

When underrepresented populations see themselves reflected in authority positions, it enhances trust and promotes cross-cultural care for patients and healthcare professionals alike. Moreover, embracing diversity ensures health care equity for marginalized communities and they “report better health experiences from healthcare practitioners from the same background” . However, many believe that nurse leaders are incapable of leading changes in health outcomes.

It is a misconception that physicians or policy makers hold more power over nurse leaders to drive systemic change. This view underscores the significant role of nurses and their expansive expertise. The role of nursing has evolved into a multifaceted position that not only involves caring for patients, but also educating, advocating, and leading change. Nurses are the most trusted profession, and they are often the first ones to notice when something is “off”. This unique position allows nurses to offer powerful insights during policy decision-making that directly impacts maternal health care.

The racial disparities in maternal mortalities in modern healthcare are unacceptable. Black mothers continue to face disproportionately higher health risks due to systemic bias, neglect, and structural racism that exists in our healthcare system. Nurse leaders must demand policy reform, mandate implicit bias training for all staff, and support diversifying the workforce. With unwavering commitment, nurse leaders can transform the healthcare system to ensure every mother, regardless of race, has an equal opportunity of survival.


Teya Mongsaithong is a nursing student at University of West Florida. After graduation, she plans to pursue Mother Baby or NICU. "I want to be the kind of nurse that patients feel safe around and that they can trust me with their care." When she isn't studying, Mongsaithong loves crocheting stuffed animals - which she sells online, and reading fantasy novels.



More stories ~
Tags: racial disparities in maternal health care, implicit bias training for nurses, Black maternal mortality crisis USA, nurse leadership in healthcare equity, improving care for women of color


Illinois reproductive-rights organizations protest bans before SCOTUS session


By Lily Bohlke, Public News Service
Photo: Gayatri Malhotra/Unsplash


Reproductive-rights advocates took to the streets across Illinois and the U.S. over the weekend to protest the new Texas law banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, the nation's most restrictive abortion law. It is one of 90 anti-abortion bills that have been passed by state legislatures.

Brigid Leahy, senior director of public policy for Planned Parenthood Illinois, said they already are seeing Texas patients fleeing the ban and traveling long distances to get care.

"It's over 1,000 miles to get to Illinois, but people are doing that," Leahy reported. "And there are people who cannot travel. The barriers are just too much, and they are being forced to continue pregnancies that they do not want to continue."

The events -- 600 total nationwide -- came days before today's start of the U.S. Supreme Court session, during which judges plan to hear a case concerning a 15-week Mississippi abortion law, which, if upheld, could overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Leahy noted when former President Donald Trump took office and promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would be amenable to overturning Roe v. Wade, Illinois lawmakers began working on bills to protect the right to abortion at the state level, such as the Reproductive Health Act of 2019.

She pointed out many states are taking similar steps, but many others are now going the other way, including many Midwestern states.

"It was really important to recognize the full range of those rights and put them in our state law so that when Roe v Wade falls, we are protected in Illinois, not just for the people in Illinois, but the people in the states surrounding us," Leahy contended.

Polls show nearly 7 in 10 Americans support the decision establishing a woman's right to an abortion, and more than 900 state lawmakers from 45 states recently signed a letter urging the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade in their decision on the Mississippi law.

Judge rules Illinois cannot be denied federal emergency funds



A federal judge rules that Illinois cannot be denied emergency funding for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.


by Ben Szalinski
Capitol News Illinois


Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul
Photo: Capitol News Illinois/Andrew Adams

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul discusses a lawsuit against the federal government at a news conference in January 2025.

SPRINGFIELD - The Trump administration cannot withhold federal emergency funding from Illinois because the state refuses to participate in federal immigration enforcement, a Rhode Island federal judge ruled on Wednesday.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January requiring the Department of Homeland Security and agencies under its command, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to stop providing federal funds to states that don’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

The move was designed to force states like Illinois to abandon laws that prohibit law enforcement from participating in civil immigration enforcement. Trump’s order could have applied to hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding Illinois receives for natural disaster responses and other emergencies. But a judge ruled it unconstitutional after Illinois and other states sued.

“I appreciate the court’s conclusion that DHS’ decision-making process was ‘wholly under-reasoned and arbitrary,’” Attorney General Kwame Raoul said in a statement. “The court’s ruling will ensure vital dollars that states rely on to prepare for and respond to emergencies are not withheld simply for political purposes.”

The 2017 TRUST Act, signed by Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, prohibits Illinois law enforcement from arresting a person based solely on their immigration status. In most cases, law enforcement cannot assist immigration officials with detaining people based solely on immigration status, according to Raoul’s office.

The judge ruled that the order violates the Constitution because Congress controls spending. The attorneys general filed the suit in the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island.

“Sweeping immigration-related conditions imposed on every DHS-administered grant, regardless of statutory purpose, lack the necessary tailoring,” U.S. District Judge William E. Smith wrote. “The Spending Clause requires that conditions be ‘reasonably calculated’ to advance the purposes for which funds are expended ... and DHS has failed to demonstrate any such connection outside of a few programs.”

Abortion funding

Raoul also filed a new motion on Wednesday alongside 21 other states and Washington, D.C., that seeks to stop a new federal law from blocking funding to Planned Parenthood and other health care facilities that provide abortion services.

The attorneys general originally filed the lawsuit at the end of July to challenge a provision in congressional Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill” that prohibits abortion clinics from using Medicaid funding for reproductive health services for one year.

The attorneys general argue the timeline of the law and details about which providers are included is too vague.

“We are urging the court to halt enforcement of the Defund Provision, which is clearly intended to shutter Planned Parenthood,” Raoul said in a statement. “Planned Parenthood facilities play a key role in our nation’s health and wellness by providing preventative care to more than 1 million Americans.”

The motion comes as Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin announced Wednesday that it will pause scheduling abortions because of the bill, causing fears for Illinois abortion providers about a surge in demand. Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul is also part of the lawsuit.


Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

More stories ~

TAGGED: Illinois federal funding, Trump immigration order, DHS grant ruling, Planned Parenthood lawsuit, state emergency funding

America's rising "War on Culture" is becoming a factor in choosing the right college


Thousands of students visit Quad Day on the University of Illinois campus in 2003. The university hosts hundreds of student-lead recreational, social and political organizations each semester.
Photo: PhotoNews Media Archives

Students have long picked schools based on their academic reputations and social life.

By Jon Marcus
for The Hechinger Report and courtesy Illinois News Connection

When Angel Amankwaah traveled from Denver to North Carolina Central University for incoming student orientation this summer, she decided she had made the right choice.

She had fun learning the chants that fans perform at football games. But she also saw that “there are students who look like me, and professors who look like me” at the historically Black university, said Amankwaah, 18, who is Black. “I knew that I was in a safe space.”

This has now become an important consideration for college-bound students from all backgrounds and beliefs.

Students have long picked schools based on their academic reputations and social life. But with campuses in the crosshairs of the culture wars, many students are now also taking stock of attacks on diversity, course content, and speech and speakers from both ends of the political spectrum. They’re monitoring hate crimes, anti-LGBTQ legislation, state abortion laws and whether students like them — Black, rural, military veterans, LGBTQ or from other backgrounds — are represented and supported on campus.

“There’s no question that what’s happening at the state level is directly affecting these students,” said Alyse Levine, founder and CEO of Premium Prep, a private college admissions consulting firm in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. When they look at colleges in various states now, she said, “There are students who are asking, ‘Am I really wanted here?’ ”

For some students on both sides of the political divide, the answer is no. In the chaotic new world of American colleges and universities, many say they feel unwelcome at certain schools, while others are prepared to shut down speakers and report faculty with whose opinions they disagree.

It’s too early to know how much this trend will affect where and whether prospective students end up going to college, since publicly available enrollment data lags real time. But there are early clues that it’s having a significant impact.

One in four prospective students has already ruled out a college or university for consideration because of the political climate in its state, according to a survey by the higher education consulting firm Art & Science Group.


Students from a campus club demonstrate Capoeira, an Afro-Brazilian martial art and game that includes elements of dance, acrobatics, music and spirituality at Quad Day in 2003.
Photo: PhotoNews Media Archives

Among students who describe themselves as liberal, the most common reason to rule out colleges and universities in a particular state, that survey found, is because it’s “too Republican” or has what they consider lax gun regulations, anti-LGBTQ legislation, restrictive abortion laws and a lack of concern about racism. Students who describe themselves as conservative are rejecting states they believe to be “too Democrat” and that have liberal abortion and gay-rights laws.


One in eight high school students in Florida say they won’t go to a public university in their own state because of its education policies.

With so much attention focused on these issues, The Hechinger Report has created a first-of-its-kind College Welcome Guide showing state laws and institutional policies that affect college and university students, from bans on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and “critical race theory” to rules about whether student IDs are accepted as proof of residency for voting purposes.

The interactive guide also lists, for every four-year institution in the country, such things as racial and gender diversity among students and faculty, the number of student veterans enrolled, free-speech rankings, the incidence of on-campus race-motivated hate crimes and if the university or college serves many students from rural places.

Sixty percent of prospective students of all backgrounds say new state restrictions on abortion would at least somewhat influence where they choose to go to college, a separate poll by Gallup and the Lumina Foundation found. Of these, eight in 10 say they would prefer to go to a state with greater access to reproductive health services. (Lumina is among the funders of The Hechinger Report.)

“We have many young women who will not look at certain states,” said Levine. One of her own clients backed out of going to a university in St. Louis after Missouri banned almost all abortions in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, she said.

Institutions in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Texas are the most likely to be knocked off the lists of liberal students, according to the Art & Science Group survey, while conservative students avoid California and New York.

One in eight high school students in Florida say they won’t go to a public university in their own state because of its education policies, a separate poll, by the college ranking and information website Intelligent.com, found.

With 494 anti-LGBTQ laws proposed or adopted this year, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, prospective students who are LGBTQ and have experienced significant harassment because of it are nearly twice as likely to say they don’t plan to go to college at all than students who experienced lower levels of harassment, according to a survey by GLSEN, formerly the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

“You are attacking kids who are already vulnerable,” said Javier Gomez, an LGBTQ student in his first year at Miami Dade College. “And it’s not just queer students. So many young people are fed up.”

It’s not yet evident whether the new laws are affecting where LGBTQ young people are choosing to go to college, said Casey Pick, director of law and policy at The Trevor Project, which supports LGBTQ young people in crisis. But LGBTQ adults are moving away from states passing anti-LGBTQ laws, she said. And “if adult employees are taking this into account when they decide where they want to live, you can bet that college students are making the same decisions.”


Students protest Israel's Independence Day on the Quad in May 2006. Universities have always been an environment for political and cultural awareness and ideas. Today, campuses are becoming more hostile to diversity in race, religion, and sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, in an era of pushback against diversity, equity and inclusion policies in many states, and against affirmative action nationwide, Amankwaah is one of a growing number of Black students choosing what they see as the relative security of an HBCU. Enrollment at HBCUs increased by around 3 percent in 2021, the last year for which the figure is available, while the number of students at other universities and colleges fell.


College students of all races and political persuasions report feeling uncomfortable on campuses that have become political battlegrounds.

“The real attack here is on the feeling of belonging,” said Jeremy Young, who directs the Freedom to Learn program at PEN America, which tracks laws that restrict college and university diversity efforts and teaching about race. “What it really does is hoist a flag to say to the most marginalized students, ‘We don’t want you here.’ ”

More than 40 percent of university and college administrators say the Supreme Court ruling curbing the use of affirmative action in admissions will affect diversity on their campuses, a Princeton Review poll found as the school year was beginning.

College students of all races and political persuasions report feeling uncomfortable on campuses that have become political battlegrounds. Those on the left are bristling at new laws blocking programs in diversity, equity and inclusion and the teaching of certain perspectives about race; on the right, at conservative speakers being shouted down or canceled, unpopular comments being called out in class and what they see as an embrace of values different from what they learned at home.

One Michigan father said he supported his son’s decision to skip college. Other parents, he said, are discouraging their kids from going, citing “binge-drinking, hookup culture, secular teachings, a lopsided leftist faculty mixed with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-free speech and a diversity, equity and inclusion emphasis” that he said is at odds with a focus on merit. The father asked that his name not be used so that his comments didn’t reflect on his daughter, who attends a public university.

More than one in 10 students at four-year universities now say they feel as if they downright don’t belong on their campus, and another two in 10 neither agree nor strongly agree that they belong, another Lumina and Gallup survey found. It found that those who answer in these ways are more likely to frequently experience stress and more likely to drop out. One in four Hispanic students report frequently or occasionally feeling unsafe or experiencing disrespect, discrimination or harassment.

Military veterans who use their G.I. Bill benefits to return to school say one of their most significant barriers is a feeling that they won’t be welcome, a survey by the D’Aniello Institute for Veterans and Military Families at Syracuse University found. Nearly two-thirds say that faculty and administrators don’t understand the challenges they face, and 70 percent say the same thing about their non-veteran classmates.

Colleges should be “safe and affirming spaces,” said Pick, of the Trevor Project — not places of isolation and alienation.


An anthropology lecturer at the University of Chicago who taught an undergraduate course called “The Problem of Whiteness” said she was deluged with hateful messages when a conservative student posted her photo and email address on social media.

Yet a significant number of students say they don’t feel comfortable sharing their views in class, according to another survey, conducted by College Pulse for the right-leaning Sheila and Robert Challey Institute for Global Innovation and Growth at North Dakota State University. Of those, 72 percent say they worry their opinions would be considered unacceptable by classmates and 45 percent, by their professors. Conservative students are less likely than their liberal classmates to believe that all points of view are welcome and less willing to share theirs.

“Is that really an intellectually diverse environment?” asked Sean Stevens, director of polling and analytics at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, which has launched a campus free-speech ranking based on students’ perceptions of comfort expressing ideas, tolerance for speakers and other measures.

“Anecdotally and from personal experience, there’s certainly a pocket of students who are weighing these factors in terms of where to go to college,” Stevens said.

Eighty-one percent of liberal students and 53 percent of conservative ones say they support reporting faculty who make comments that they find offensive, the same survey found. It used sample comments such as, “There is no evidence of anti-Black bias in police shootings,” “Requiring vaccination for COVID is an assault on individual freedom” and “Biological sex is a scientific fact.”

A professor at Texas A&M University was put under investigation when a student accused her of criticizing the state’s lieutenant governor during a lecture, though she was ultimately exonerated. An anthropology lecturer at the University of Chicago who taught an undergraduate course called “The Problem of Whiteness” said she was deluged with hateful messages when a conservative student posted her photo and email address on social media.

More than half of all freshmen say that colleges have the right to ban extreme speakers, according to an annual survey by an institute at UCLA; the College Pulse poll says that sentiment is held by twice the proportion of liberal students as conservative ones.

An appearance by a conservative legal scholar who spoke at Washington College in Maryland last month was disrupted by students because of his positions about LGBTQ issues and abortion. The subject: free speech on campus.


Many conservative critics of colleges and universities say faculty are indoctrinating students with liberal opinions.

A group of Stanford students in March disrupted an on-campus speech by a federal judge whose judicial record they said was anti-LGBTQ. When he asked for an administrator to intervene, an associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion confronted him and asked: “Is it worth the pain that this causes and the division that this causes?” The associate dean was put on leave and later resigned.

“Today it is a sad fact that the greatest threat to free speech comes from within the academy,” pronounced the right-leaning American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which is pushing colleges to sign on to its Campus Freedom Initiative that encourages teaching students about free expression during freshman orientation and disciplining people who disrupt speakers or events, among other measures.


University of Illinois
The University of Illinois welcomes students from all backgrounds who wish to pursue a higher education.
Photo: PhotoNews Media Archives

“I have to imagine that universities that have a bad track record on freedom of expression or academic freedom, that it will affect their reputations,” said Steven Maguire, the organization’s campus freedom fellow. “I do hear people saying things like, ‘I’m worried about what kind of a college or university I can send my kids to and whether they’ll be free to be themselves and to express themselves.’ ”

Some colleges are now actively recruiting students on the basis of these kinds of concerns. Colorado College in September created a program to ease the process for students who want to transfer away from institutions in states that have banned diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; Hampshire College in Massachusetts has offered admission to any student from New College in Florida, subject of what critics have described as a conservative takeover. Thirty-five have so far accepted the invitation.

Though many conservative critics of colleges and universities say faculty are indoctrinating students with liberal opinions, incoming freshmen tend to hold left-leaning views before they ever set foot in a classroom, according to that UCLA survey.

Fewer than one in five consider themselves conservative. Three-quarters say abortion should be legal and favor stricter gun control laws, 68 percent say wealthy people should pay more taxes than they do now and 86 percent that climate change should be a federal priority and that there should be a clear path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Prospective students say they are watching as new laws are passed and controversies erupt on campuses, and actively looking into not just the quality of food and available majors at the colleges they might attend, but state politics.

“Once I decided I was going to North Carolina Central, I looked up whether North Carolina was a red state or a blue state,” Amankwaah said. (North Carolina has a Democrat as governor but Republicans control both chambers of the legislature and hold a veto-proof supermajority in the state Senate.)

Florida’s anti-LGBTQ laws prompted Javier Gomez to leave his native state and move to New York to go to fashion school. But then he came back, transferring to Miami Dade.

“People ask me, ‘Why the hell are you back in Florida?’ ” said Gomez. “The reason I came back was that there was this innate calling in me that you have to stick around and fight for the queer and trans kids here. It’s overwhelming at times. It can be very mentally depleting. But I wanted to stay and continue the fight and build community against hatred.”


Jon Marcus wrote this article for The Hechinger Report. This article is provided by the Illinois News Connection.


Chemical contaminates found in Illinois rivers threaten food chain


SNS - Scientists tested nine fish species from four northern Illinois rivers for contamination with per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances, synthetic chemicals found in numerous industrial and commercial products and known to be harmful to human health. They found fish contaminated with PFAS in every one of their 15 test sites. Elevated levels of PFOS, one type of PFAS compound, were found in nearly all fish tested.


Study found that there were high levels of PFASs contamination levels in channel catfish found in Illinois waterways.
G.C./Pixabay

The qualities that make PFAS desirable for industrial uses — their durability and stability under stresses such as high heat or exposure to water, for example — also make these chemicals particularly problematic in the environment and hazardous to human and animal health, said Joseph Irudayaraj, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who led the new study.

The findings are reported in the journal Science of the Total Environment.

Short-chain PFASs (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are widely used as alternatives to long-chain PFASs. Long-chain PFASs become gradually regulated under REACH (EC No. 1907/2006) and other international regulations, due to having persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic properties and/or being toxic for reproduction. The increasingly used short-chain PFASs are assumed to have a lower bioaccumulation potential.

“PFAS contain multiple carbon-fluorine bonds, one of the strongest bonds in organic chemistry,” Irudayaraj said, who is also a professor in the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology and an affiliate of the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology and the Carle Illinois College of Medicine at the U. of I. “Because of this, they are also very hard to break down. They persist for a long time because they are very, very stable.”


Considering such permanent exposure, it is very difficult to estimate long-term adverse effects in organisms. Enriched in edible parts of plants, the accumulation in food chains is unknown.

There are nearly 15,000 PFAS chemicals, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These are classified either as short-chain PFAS, which have less than six carbon-fluorine bonds, and long-chain PFAS, with six or more of these bonds, Irudayaraj said.

Long-chain PFAS were widely used before awareness grew about the hazards of these chemicals. More recently, many industries switched to using short-chain PFAS.

“It was thought that the short-chain PFAS were less toxic, and that they could more easily degrade,” he said. “But surprisingly, that was not the case.”

Now, both types of PFAS are found in groundwater, soil and human tissues.

Short-chain PFASs have a high mobility in soil and water, and final degradation products are extremely persistent. This results in a fast distribution to water resources, and consequently, also to a contamination of drinking water resources. Once emitted, short-chain PFASs remain in the environment. A lack of appropriate water treatment technologies results in everlasting background concentrations in the environment, and thus, organisms are permanently and poorly reversibly exposed. Considering such permanent exposure, it is very difficult to estimate long-term adverse effects in organisms. Enriched in edible parts of plants, the accumulation in food chains is unknown.

“About 99% of people living in the U.S. have PFAS in their system,” Irudayaraj said.

Studies on animals have shown that short-chain PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are almost completely absorbed when ingested or inhaled but not much through the skin. Both short- and long-chain PFAS don't break down easily in the body due to their strong chemical bonds. Even if these chemicals start off in different forms, they eventually turn into acids through several steps, which can be more toxic than the original chemicals. One such toxic substance, perfluorohexyl ethanoic acid (FHEA), has been found in various tissues from deceased people, according to research published by The Danish Environmental Protection Agency in 2015.

The time it takes for these acids to leave the blood varies depending on the specific chemical, the species, and even the sex of the animal. In general, sulfonates (a type of PFAS) take longer to be eliminated than carboxylates (another type), and longer chains take longer to leave the body than shorter ones. In animals, the time is often shorter for females due to differences in how their bodies process these chemicals. The time these substances stay in the blood can range from a few hours to days in rodents, a bit longer in monkeys, and much longer in humans, sometimes lasting years. However, shorter-chain PFAS tend to leave the body faster, except for PFHxS (a six-carbon chain PFAS), which has a longer half-life in humans than some other PFAS like PFOA and PFOS.

Despite a voluntary phasing out of some PFAS in industry in the U.S. and efforts to reduce PFAS pollution, these chemicals are still found in drinking water, household products, food packaging and agricultural products, he said.


Fish from the Rock River had the highest concentrations of PFAS in their tissues.

The manufacturers of chemical products using PFAS argue that the newer short-chain PFAS is safer than the widely known long-chain contaminants. Despite this assertion, the Auburn study's significant findings challenge these statements. The research indicates that short-chain chemicals are frequently present in drinking water systems and could potentially endanger human and environmental well-being. Additionally, current removal methods are relatively less efficient when it comes to eliminating short-chain PFAS in comparison to long-chain PFAS.

The Auburn study analyzed over 200 individual studies on PFAS finding that the short-chain contaminants may be just as harmful as the long-chain versions, if not more. The short-chain PFAS have been linked to hormonal and reproductive system harm.

The researchers in the U of I study focused on fish in northern Illinois rivers because they are close to urban and industrial areas. Industrial emissions and urban rainwater runoff may further contaminate local waterways with PFAS. Sport fishing is also popular across the state, including in areas inside and near Chicago. More than 666,000 fishing licenses were issued across the state of Illinois in 2020.

The researchers narrowed their research down to the fish in the Pecatonica River, Rock River, Sugar River and Yellow Creek from 2021-22. The team collected dozens of samples from nine species of fish, including bluegill, channel catfish, common carp, northern pike, smallmouth bass and walleye. The fish represented different levels of the food chain, from those that feed only on plants, like bluegill, to those eating other fish, such as channel catfish and northern pike.

Back in the lab, the scientists analyzed fish tissues for 17 PFAS chemicals. They found PFAS-contaminated fish in every river they tested and in every one of their 15 sampling sites. Fish from the Rock River had the highest concentrations of PFAS in their tissues. Contamination levels were highest in channel catfish, at the top of the food chain, and lowest in the plant eaters.



Letter to the Editor: Jesus would have been a socialist


Dear Editor,

The Republican party boasts it holds the market on Christianity. It should own up and embrace - “What would Jesus do?” On almost any political issue whether its immigration, gun violence, crime, or social issues, including care for the – destitute, homeless, sick, mentally ill or climate change…etc., republicans hate the question and pivot to “What about abortion?”

Noteworthy, there is no mention of abortion in the Bible, but love for and how we should treat our neighbors, including immigrants and needy is mentioned many times throughout. I don’t know of anybody “for” abortion. Yet, republicans demonize pro-choicers that believe what a woman does with her body, reproductive organs or abortion a personal decision between her and God as “baby killers.” Pro-choicers support counseling and adoption as alternatives and more accessible.

When asked, “What would Jesus do at our border?” conservatives counter with extreme responses like “Would you let them into your home?” That’s literally a “devil’s advocate” response, but Jesus would.

With respect to the immigration problem and the needy, there is no better parable than Mathew 25: 35-40 - “For I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; …”

Republicans fear compassion and letting immigrants into our country will make it weaker and is naïve. There’s no evidence, but that’s where Christian faith comes in. Throughout the Bible God rewarded kingdoms and individuals that practiced his teachings, guidance and instructions with faith and punished those that didn’t.

Had the word socialist existed during Jesus’s ministry, Pharisees no doubt would have called him and followers socialists for administering and advocating for the out-casted, oppressed and needy.

According to Gallup 47% of Americans attend church. In the last two decades I’ve witnessed a large drop in attendance. I can’t help contribute people being less accountable for their actions and how they treat people, especially immigrants, to the decline.

My church service opens: “Here we love God, love our neighbor…” In respect to the problem at our border, “love our neighbor” as Jesus taught should resonate within the heart and souls of all Christians. Churches conduct ministries overseas, but where’s their presence at the border? How can we turn our back on those trying to survive, escape violence and persecution, when our country is the wealthiest in the world?

Because of all the Internet hate filled chatter, threats of violence, dog whistling, the coup attempt on January 6th seemed possible. When Obama was elected, moderate republican think tanks stated that to win an election their party had to garnish the vote of people of color. After Obama was re-elected republicans consisting of a growing number of white supremacists and violent militia recognized that their party couldn’t win fairly and were willing to win at any cost even if it meant storming the capitol, stopping the electoral vote count and overturning the election. Bullied by extremists, moderate republicans have cowardly stood back and allowed the hijack of their party and assault on our democracy.

Republicans fear whites becoming the minority, as trend indicates, and immigrants gaining citizenship and right to vote will reduce chances of winning elections. By demonizing and stereotyping immigrants as gang members, drug traffickers, rapists, stoking fear and greed saying they are going to take jobs and material resources, believe they can stop or delay the inevitable.

The federal government administers over 80 programs that address specific needs of the poor, destitute, homeless, sick, physically and mentally disabled, under un-and-under educated and disadvantaged. In the past decade practically all of these programs and bills below passed by democrats were opposed by republicans along partisan lines.

The Covid pandemic reaped havoc in hundreds of millions of deaths and on the world economy, resulting in worldwide inflation. In response congress passed: American Rescue Plan providing economic relief and saving millions from eviction; and Inflation Reduction Act that makes urgent investments to lower - prescription drug, health care, and energy costs, takes most aggressive action to confront the climate crisis and shifts the tax burden from lower and middle income to the super wealthy. By executive order the President made hearing aids available over the counter and much more affordable.

Nowhere greater is the opportunity to show compassion than in this election. Which candidate and platform best mirrors in answer to “What would Jesus do?” I invite and encourage you to attend church, pray for our country and right decision as to how you vote.

Bill Young
Pensacola, Florida

Area professionals react to the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg


Much of America is mourning the passing of Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg this evening. Nominated by President Bill Clinton and taking her place on the bench just 26 days later, Ginsberg died of complication from cancer today at the age of 87.

Known by her initials RGB, she was heroine, a guiding light and courageous champion of women's rights in the highest court of law in this country. Ginsburg was the second woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court after Sandra Day O'Connor. She protected abortion rights and a wide range of other progressive ideals on an otherwise conservative Supreme Court.

"It’s honestly terrifying," said Tasha Shadden, a 2011 graduate from St. Joseph-Ogden High School currently working toward a masters degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling. "She was the voice for gender equality and reproductive rights and losing that is a huge loss for women. It’s hands down the worst part of 2020 so far."

Like Shadden, Doctor Suzanne Ford, who graduated from the University Of Illinois College Of Veterinary Medicine in 2019, was a distance runner with the SJO running program. She said Ginsberg's showed strength and passion in her final days.

"Ruth Bader Ginsberg was an inspiration to so many women as she broke through the glass ceiling in the world of law, as not many women attended law school at the time that she did. She stood up for what was right and fair at all costs, and fought for equality for women, especially in education, paving the way for women such as myself to not be discriminated against in our pursuit of education.

"She was firm and known for her fierce dissents, which made her a role model for so many to stand up for what they believe is right, even when that’s against the majority. As she aged, RBG battled cancer yet remained active and continued to serve on the Supreme Court, which shows her strength and passion to uphold a fair and just legal system for our country. Even with her popularity, she remained humble. She is a hero to so many of us and will be greatly missed."

St. Joseph resident Kelly Miller Skinner, owner of Soul Care Urban Retreat Center was stunned by the news.  She wrote:

"I was shocked by the news. I've just spent the last 30 minutes being bombarded by text messages by female leaders and friends around the country who are devastated. Many see this as another blow that 2020 has dealt us. With the sadness, also comes a renewed determination to fight for justice and to step up campaign support efforts because of the fear that conservative political leaders will push a replacement before the election. There is a sense of needing to fight harder.

For me, she has always represented someone who works hard and uses all her smarts and skills to work within the system for lasting change. She has inspired so many women of all ages that they can make a difference in their own way and in their own spheres. Her plain talk has given words to what we all feel.

I also keep thinking....who is going to step up and inspire us next?

St. Joseph's Jennifer Tuttle hopes whoever replaces Ginsberg, mirrors the strength and determination she was known for by her admirers.

"Clearly she had a big part in women’s rights in the us," said Tuttle, General Manager of Champaign's Red Lobster. "I viewed her as a helper, one that always wanted to try to find common ground. She was a lady first, yet still showed independence. Hopefully, the next person to take the spot shows the same class that she did."

With less than two months before the presidential election, Ginsburg's passing will surely deepen and already polarized country making its way through a controversial pandemic, economic decline, and civil unrest in cities around the country.

President Donald Trump will likely become the first president since Richard Nixon to confirm three supreme court justices in a single term. Washington will be political battleground as Republicans will undoubtedly at the President's insistence push through a nominee before November. 

Ginsberg will be laid to rest at the Arlington National Cemetery. 

 


Seven scholars at the University of Illinois honored with permanent academic appointments



The addition of these hardworking academics enhances the intellectual landscape at the University of Illinois, underscoring the institution's commitment to fostering a vibrant and innovative research environment.


CHAMPAIGN - The Center for Advanced Study (CAS) at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign announced the appointment of seven distinguished scholars to its permanent faculty. Lisa Ainsworth in plant biology, Scott Denmark in chemistry, Jodi Flaws in comparative biosciences, Peter Fritzsche in history, Bill Gropp in computing and data science, Helen Neville in educational psychology, and Brent Roberts in psychology, each of these scholars brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise were chosen to join 17 other CAS professors, all of whom have received permanent appointments.

As part of their roles, CAS professors are tasked with delivering the annual lecture, participating in the selection committee for CAS associates and fellows, and providing valuable insights on various matters pertaining to the center. The addition of these scholars not only enhances the intellectual landscape and reputation for academic excellence at the University of Illinois but also underscores the institution's commitment to fostering a vibrant and innovative research environment.

Lisa Ainsworth holds the Charles Adlai Ewing Chair of Crop Physiology and oversees the Soybean Free Air Concentration Enrichment facility. This facility is the longest-running open-air experiment designed to study how crops respond to changes in the global atmosphere. Her research focuses on climate change and explores potential agricultural solutions for mitigating its effects.

Scott Denmark, who holds the position of Reynold C. Fuson Professor of Chemistry, researches the development of new synthetic reactions and the exploration of the mechanisms and origins of stereocontrol in innovative asymmetric reactions. He is known for pioneering the concept of chiral Lewis base activation of Lewis acids for catalysis in main group synthetic organic chemistry.

Jodi Flaws is a professor of comparative biosciences and has published more than 300 peer-reviewed papers. Her research program focuses on determining the mechanisms by which environmental chemicals such as phthalates, neonicotinoid pesticides and water disinfection produces affect the development and function of the female reproductive system. She and served as an associate editor for a number of scientific journals and publications.

Peter Fritzsche holds the position of the W.D. and Sara E. Trowbridge Professor of History and is affiliated with several programs, including the Program in Jewish Culture and Society, Germanic Languages and Literature, the European Union Center, the Center for Global Studies, and the Russian, East European, and Eurasian Center.

His research primarily focuses on Germany in the 20th century, and he has authored several notable books in this field, such as “Life and Death in the Third Reich” and “Hitler’s First Hundred Days.”

Additionally, Fritzche has explored themes in cultural and intellectual history, with works like "Stranded in the Present: Modern Times and the Melancholy of History." His contributions to the field have garnered international recognition, including a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Cundill Prize.

As director of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications and a professor of computer science in the Siebel School of Computing and Data Science, Bill Gropp's research interests include parallel computing, software for scientific computing and numerical methods for partial differential equations. He also holds a Grainger Distinguished Chair in Engineering.

Helen Neville, who previously earned the Association of Black Psychologists’ Distinguished Psychologist of the Year award, is a professor of educational psychology and African American studies at the University of Illinois. Taking her research in a new direction, she is gravitating towards healing, particularly healing from racial and other intersecting forms of trauma.

She is also president-elect of the Society for the Psychological Study of Culture, Ethnicity and Race, a division of the American Psychological Association. She has co-edited eight books and co-authored close to 90 journal articles and book chapters about race, racism and racial identity, and diversity issues related to well-being.

Formerly the director of the Center for Social and Behavioral Science and associate editor for the Journal of Research in Personality and Psychological Science, Brent Roberts a professor in health innovation at the Carle Illinois College of Medicine and a distinguished guest professor at the Hector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology at the University of Tübingen, Germany. He also holds the Gutsgell Endowed Professorship in Psychology at Illinois.





High School Sports


  • Loading…






More Sentinel Stories