How Having a Baby Is Changing Under Trump

Mere hours after birth, most newborns are tested for two things: whether they have signs of hearing loss and whether they have any of a range of rare conditions that could severely impact their health and their lives.

If they test positive for either, they qualify for a number of interventions that can dramatically improve their prospects over their lifetime.

But both tests could soon undergo dramatic changes because of drastic cutbacks at federal health agencies that public-health advocates say imperil both programs. These cutbacks could mean that certain states will not test for and respond to conditions that currently set services into motion in every state.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“There are a lot of worthy causes that fall by the wayside when there isn’t some kind of centralized government support,” says Karl White, director of the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management at Utah State University. 

The dismantling of a critical division 

The Early Hearing Detection and Intervention program (EHDI) is run partially out of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The program helps states coordinate newborn hearing screening and respond to infants who fail the hearing tests. It falls under the CDC’s Disability and Health Promotion branch. 

But this entire branch was eliminated in the April 1 cutbacks at CDC that slashed about 2,400 employees. EHDI had eight full-time workers and one fellow; all but one were eliminated in the cutbacks, according to current and former staff.

EHDI worked with states to analyze data to help communities follow up with families so that babies born deaf or hard of hearing get support as early as possible. 

States apply for funding grants under EHDI. They submitted the applications to the CDC in January, and now the applications are sitting there with no one left to review them, White says. “There are real questions about what’s going to happen,” he says, “and whether that money is going to be available.”

Read More: IVF Patients Say a Test Caused Them to Discard Embryos. Now They’re Suing

Newborn hearing screenings are a true public-health success story. Hospitals did not start screening children for hearing loss at birth until the 1990s; it wasn’t until 2000 that screening was nearly universal across states. Children’s lives can be changed dramatically by early screening and response. In the 1970s and 1980s, children weren’t diagnosed with profound hearing loss until they were 2 or 3 years old, which hampered their ability to read and write, White says. Now, children are screened at birth, and early interventions can help them meet more of these milestones. 

Thanks in part to federal funding for newborn hearing screening, about 98% of newborns are screened for hearing loss before they leave the hospital, according to the CDC. This won’t change immediately, says Donna Smiley, the chief staff officer for audiology at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.

That’s because some EHDI funding is still administered through the Health Services Resources Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that was less affected by cuts.

But the HRSA funding relies on EHDI data, and it will be impossible to know where problems lie and where to send money. Eventually, state programs that rely on CDC data analysis will dissolve, Smiley says. The CDC especially helps with follow-ups when children are found to be deaf or hard of hearing.

“If babies are going to be screened but there’s not any follow-up, that’s going to be a wasted screening,” says Smiley.

White agrees that without CDC’s EHDI funding, some state hearing screening programs could collapse. According to a survey conducted by his organization in early 2024, 18 states said that their EHDI programs would be discontinued if federal money disappeared. About 37 states said the absence of federal funding “would have a major negative impact.” Though some hearing testing may continue through hospitals, there would be a gap in the coordinated response and interventions for affected babies.

“The thing I am most worried about is that money that Congress has specifically appropriated to support and expand and improve EHDI is in danger of not being allocated,” he says. In 2022, Congress passed and President Biden signed the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act that reauthorized EHDI program funding until 2027. It sought to improve and expand EHDI programs. 

“If it can happen to USAID and FEMA—if contracts to Columbia and Harvard and other places can just be canceled—I think there’s reason to be concerned,” White says.

In a statement provided to TIME about newborn hearing screenings, an HHS spokesperson said that early childhood and newborn screening programs were being consolidated into the new Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) and the CDC to “improve efficiency and better address public health needs.” The reorganization, the statement says, is aiming to “streamline operations, maximize resources, and support key priorities like early childhood health and disease prevention efforts.”

A crucial rare-disease screening committee was disbanded 

In their first days of life, babies also are tested, often with a heel prick, for a host of rare diseases that respond to early intervention. These tests can change a child’s life. Exactly which conditions they are tested for varies from state to state; Pennsylvania tests for 38 rare diseases, while Alaska only tests for 32, according to the National Organization for Rare Disorders, an advocacy group. 

State testing has become more uniform over the last 15 years because of something called the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel, which recommends which diseases states include in their testing panel. The HHS Secretary decides what diseases are added to the list each year—usually adding one or two based on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. This committee decides to add new diseases if there is a screening test that can be used at population scale and if a treatment or intervention is available. 

“In a remarkable feat of health policy, we created this committee that used evidence to decide what we should screen for,” says one HHS staffer not authorized to speak to the media. 

Though the advisory committee is made up almost entirely of volunteers—meaning it didn’t cost the government much money—it was disbanded by the Trump Administration on April 3, says a spokesperson for the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

Read More: Why It’s So Hard to Have Your Fertility Tested

The advisory committee was set to vote on May 9 whether to recommend adding two rare genetic diseases to the panel: metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Now, the advocates who spent years advocating for those diseases to be added have no remedy. 

“The longer it’s delayed before these conditions are screened at the state level, the more children are potentially born with these conditions and don’t get the opportunity to be identified and access care,” says Allison Herrity, senior policy analyst at the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

Screening for disorders is essential because in the last few years, treatments such as gene therapy have become available to treat children early in life, Herrity says. 

Lesa Brackbill knows the horrible heartbreak that can occur when a baby is born in a state that does not screen for their rare genetic disease. Her daughter Victoria was born in 2014 and seemed healthy, but at five months old, she started becoming “a completely different baby,” Brackbill says. Victoria became irritable, couldn’t keep her food down, and stopped smiling.

After an MRI, CT scan, and a genetic test, Victoria was diagnosed with Krabbe disease, a rare disorder that affects the central and peripheral nervous systems. Though there is a treatment, it was too late to intervene; she died the next year. Pennsylvania did not, at the time, screen for Krabbe at birth, although neighboring New York did. Had Pennsylvania screened for the disease, Victoria would have been able to get stem cell therapy that would have stopped the disease’s progression, Brackbill says.

“We were given a diagnosis with despair,” she says. “Newborn screening gives diagnosis with hope.” 

Brackbill lobbied for the advisory committee to add Krabbe disease, which it did in 2024; now 12 states, including Pennsylvania, screen for the disease, and more are in the process of adding it. But Brackbill is now worried that the advisory committee has been dissolved and that screenings won’t evolve, but go backward. 

“Without the ability to add conditions, the list is going to remain stagnant,” she says. “What good is a treatment if no one can access it?”

An essential screening for mothers may disappear

Advocates worry that the health and wellbeing of mothers—not just babies—during and after pregnancy could worsen because of the Trump Administration’s cuts to HHS. Since 1987, the federal government has conducted a study called PRAMS—the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System—that asks women about their experiences before, during, and after pregnancy. 

About 18 dedicated staff at PRAMS collected and analyzed the data that came in from states, using it to improve mother and infant health. It’s the only national data collection system with comprehensive information on mothers’ experiences. 

In New Jersey, for example, PRAMS data showed that the mortality rate among Black infants was more than three times that of white infants. PRAMS further analyzed the data to look at the timing of prenatal care and barriers to postpartum care. It found that Black women also had low rates of postpartum checkups and breastfeeding initiation. Starting in 2018, New Jersey approved $4.7 million a year to community organizations to try to reduce infant mortality and increase postpartum checkups and other interactions with health care.

Read More: Pregnancy-Related U.S. Death Rates Have Jumped in Recent Years

But all of the PRAMS staff were laid off in the April 1 reduction in force, according to current and former employees. Now, no one is left to collect the data, analyze it, or share insights with states to improve mother and child outcomes. 

Former staff say they don’t  understand how the Administration can throw away decades worth of data that helped improve women and children’s lives, especially since Trump has said he would be the “fertilization president.”

“This is completely counter to the current administration’s goals of wanting to emphasize the alarming declining birth rates and high mortality rates,” said one laid-off PRAMS worker, who wished to remain anonymous because he is on administrative leave and receiving a salary until June, to TIME. “Cutting this team and program is directly contrary to their goals of trying to emphasize a pro-family culture—even a pro-life culture.”

source https://time.com/7278169/baby-screenings-newborn-changing-trump-administration/

Elissa Slotkin: How Democrats Can Go on Offense Against Trump

Elissa Slotkin knows something about strategy. The Michigan senator formerly worked for George W. Bush’s National Security Council and Barack Obama’s State Department and Department of Defense before first winning a Michigan congressional seat in 2018. Last year, her Senate victory was one of few bright spots for Democrats. Now, Slotkin is applying her strategic thinking to puzzling through how Democrats can best fight Donald Trump.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Do Democrats have a plan for countering Trump? And what is it?

I don’t think it’s a secret that Democrats have been on their heels since Trump was elected. And I come from the national-security world, so what I constantly am looking for is a strong, comprehensive strategy in whatever I’m doing, but certainly to counter Trump. It can’t be kind of reacting every single day to every single thing that he does.

What do you think the plan should be?

I think that most Americans who voted for President Trump voted for him because they wanted more money in their pockets. They did not vote for chaos. They did not vote for the instability that he’s created. They didn’t vote for cuts to veterans. They didn’t vote for will-he-won’t-he on tariffs. Certainly in my state, it was an economic security vote. We need to spend time clearly articulating that he is gonna make you pay in every corner of your life.

Trump voters come up to me and say, “I voted for change. I didn’t vote for a yo-yo on tariffs.” I just came from the Flint engine plant and a huge number of the parts that are going into the the GM trucks that are made at that plant are produced in Canada. You could have a part go up by 300% in cost if it’s tariffed on both sides of the border. And people understand that here.

People may be okay in theory with some of the DOGE cuts, but they certainly understand their family budget, and they understand what they’re spending on groceries. They understand there’s no plan for their mortgage or for their rent. They understand that the tariffs could cost them money. They understand that their Medicaid, their Medicare, their Social Security, their VA benefits are being looked at as a potential area to cut. A lead foot in whatever we do has to be pushing back on the complete fallacy that he’s gonna save you money. He’s going to cost you money. He may create a self-inflicted recession.

Some other Democrats are arguing that [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer doesn’t have what it takes to counter Trump and that the party needs new leadership in the Senate. What do you think about that?

Well, Schumer is our leader. It’s a very tough job. There are very intense debates within the Democrats right now. So it is not an easy cakewalk to be leader.

Democrats in general need to have more comprehensive strategies. We need to be on the same page and speak from the same sheet of music if we want to be effective. I have not been shy about saying that to him and lots of other senior leaders in the party. It’s on all of us to buckle down and come up with a strategy, that we can share amongst ourselves, but also communicate to Democrats who are asking us to meet the moment.

Do you feel like the party isn’t meeting the moment right now?

I think that Trump is very effectively flooding the zone. I think that he has people on their heels. People don’t know where to look first on any given day. I think that we have a general approach of legislation, litigation, communication, and elections, focusing on those four buckets. But I think the moment demands more than that.

As a Midwesterner who won on the same ballot as Trump, I’m going to be banging pots and pans about the economic message over and over and over again, because I think in general, as a party, we’ve drifted away from a central focus on the economy and on families, and that to me is an essential center of gravity.

You’ve said that you’re focused on making moves that are both strategic and irreversible. Can you tell me about what those might be?

I’m a national-security person, so I made a quad chart. The top axis is tactical and strategic: when Trump announces something, is it tactical (meaning short term) or is it strategic (long term)? And then on the other axis of the quad chart: is it reversible or irreversible? Can a new president or a new Congress come in and reverse his bad choice, or is it permanent? And I decided to work on the issues that fell into the quadrant that was both strategic and irreversible.

Many of those things are constitutional, they are about our rights and our democracy, but they’re also about the long-term economic viability of my state. We know what it’s like here to live through a recession. In 2008, 2009, 2010, our recession was pretty close to a depression in Michigan. And I’m not gonna stand silent while he threatens that in my state.

If you had a magic wand and could remake the party to be able to win again in places like Michigan, how does the party need to change?

I think we need to get back to the fundamentals. The middle class is an absolutely essential part of American life. We need to grow and expand it. And we need to focus on the three big things that most Americans can agree on, which is strong economic security, strong national security, and strong democracy.

I come from a world of war planning, a world of constant, prudent planning. I come from a world where you can’t just play defense only. There’s no such thing as winning, in any operation or in any war, by just playing defense. What we owe the country is a strategy that does more than play defense.

source https://time.com/7278375/elissa-slotkin-interview/

What to Know About Franklin Richards, Sue Storm and Reed Richards’ Baby in Fantastic Four

The new Fantastic Four: First Steps trailer reveals the quite literal meaning behind the film’s title: Sue Storm and Reed Richards, two of the Fantastic Four team members, are expecting a baby. In the comics, the couple has two children, Franklin and Veleria. It will perhaps come as no surprise that these children are born with superpowers. So this could be the introduction of yet another set of superheroes to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Here’s what you need to know about Marvel’s First Family, little baby Franklin’s role in the Fantastic Four, and what his arrival means for the MCU.

Read more: All the Future MCU Movies Announced in Marvel’s Major Revamp

The premise of Fantastic Four: First Steps

Previous spots for the new Fantastic Four movie revealed that the film will not be an origin story. It is set years after the Fantastic Four—Reed Richards, his wife Sue Storm, her brother Johnny Storm, and their friend Ben Grimm—travel into space, encounter radiation, and return to earth with superpowers. Reed (played by Pedro Pascal) becomes the ultra-stretchy Mr. Fantastic; Sue (Vanessa Kirby) becomes the Invisible Woman; Johnny (Joseph Quinn) becomes the Human Torch; and Ben (Ebon Moss-Bachrach) transforms into an ultra-strong rocky creature called simply the Thing. In their universe (one that presumably runs parallel to the universe in which Robert Downey Jr.’s Iron Man and Tom Holland’s Spider-Man exist), they serve as Earth’s only superheroes.

Early in the new trailer, Sue announces that she is pregnant and reassures Reed that they can raise a family together despite their superhero responsibilities. Johnny and Ben celebrate the fact that they’ll get to be fun uncles.

Then a villain named the Silver Surfer (Julia Garner) shows up to inform the Fantastic Four that their planet is “marked for destruction.” The Silver Surfer traditionally heralds the coming of Galactus, a cosmic entity who consumes planets. Reed, a scientist and one of the smartest men in the world, desperately scribbles out calculations trying to find a way to save the planet. We see the Fantastic Four team don space suits, presumably headed into the cosmos to find or fight either the Silver Surfer or Galactus himself.

Will Franklin arrive in First Steps?

Given the title of the film, I think we may just see little Franklin’s—ahem—first steps. The baby is not featured in the trailer. But Sue is visibly pregnant when the Silver Surfer first arrives and does not seem to be in later fight scenes in the trailer. It’s a reasonable assumption that Sue will give birth to their elder child, Franklin, at some point in the movie. In another shot, Reed and Sue are seen gazing into an empty crib, presumably in preparation for Franklin’s arrival.

The Fantastic Four are known as Marvel’s First Family. Their whole deal is that they care for one another not as coworkers or a team but as siblings. With the arrival of a baby, the stakes of those familial responsibilities become much higher, especially considering Galactus may destroy the planet before Franklin reaches his first milestones. Still, we’re confident the baby will not only survive this movie but play a role in the future Marvel films.

Franklin’s powers and role in the MCU

Franklin is a very powerful little toddler in the comic books. Like Scarlett Witch and Jean Grey, Franklin has the powers of telekinesis and telepathy. Intriguingly, Agatha Harkness—who is portrayed by Kathryn Hahn in WandaVision—acts as Franklin’s nanny for awhile.

Marvel has announced two future Avengers films, Avengers: Doomsday starring traditional Fantastic Four nemesis Doctor Doom as the main villain, and Avengers: Secret Wars. (In a twist, Doom will be played by Robert Downey Jr. who famously kicked off the MCU as Iron Man before that character sacrificed his life to save the world in Avengers: Endgame. He will presumably play a Doom who hails from a parallel universe to the one where our Iron Man exists.)

The Fantastic Four cast is confirmed to appear in Doomsday—frankly it would be odd if Mr. Fantastic and Doctor Doom didn’t face off in the film given their long history as nemeses in the comics. Without spoiling the potential plots of Doomsday or Secret Wars, we’ll just tease that Franklin plays a significant role in the Secret Wars storyline in the comic books. So expect him to not only pop up but perhaps flex his powers in those upcoming films.

As for First Steps, it’s unlikely we’ll see infant Franklin battle Galactus—though who knows? After all, baby Jack-Jack took on the villain in The Incredibles all by himself and won.

source https://time.com/7278536/fantastic-four-franklin-richards-sue-storm-reed-richards-baby/

What to Know About Scientists Potentially Discovering Hints of Life On A Distant Planet

A team of astronomers have found what they claim are the most promising—but also tentative—signs of possible life on a distant planet.

The research, which was published in the The Astrophysical Journal Letters, was led by the University of Cambridge and was based on data from the James Webb Space Telescope. Researchers detected chemical fingerprints of at least one, if not two, molecules—dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS)—in the atmosphere of K2-18b, a planet outside of our solar system, 124 light years away from Earth. Like Earth, this planet orbits its star in the habitable zone—an area around a star where planets with liquid water on their surfaces may exist.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“On Earth, DMS and DMDS are only produced by life, primarily microbial life such as marine phytoplankton,” a Cambridge press release said. “While an unknown chemical process may be the source of these molecules in K2-18b’s atmosphere, the results are the strongest evidence yet that life may exist on a planet outside our solar system.”

According to the press release, there’s a 0.3% probability that these findings were a statistical fluke. That’s not a small enough chance to reach the standard required to claim a scientific discovery—for that, there would have to be below a 0.00006% probability they occurred by chance.

K2-18b has a mass 8.6 times that of Earth’s, and the planet is 2.6 times as large as Earth. Scientists have had their eye on this planet for a few years now. In 2023, researchers said they found evidence of methane and carbon dioxide in K2-18b’s atmosphere—the first time that carbon-based molecules were detected in the atmosphere of a planet outside of our solar system in the habitable zone.

While astronomers said the latest results are “exciting,” they stressed that additional research needs to be conducted before making the bold claim that life has been found on another planet.

“It’s important that we’re deeply sceptical of our own results, because it’s only by testing and testing again that we will be able to reach the point where we’re confident in them,” Nikku Madhusudhan, a professor at Cambridge’s Institute of Astronomy who led the research, said in the university’s press release. “That’s how science has to work.”

source https://time.com/7278554/what-to-know-about-k2-18b-planet-signs-of-life/

How K-Drama Resident Playbook Reflects the Stark Reality of a Medical System in Crisis

When South Korean broadcaster tvN greenlit medical drama Resident Playbook, in 2023, it probably seemed like a sure fire hit. The K-drama, now on Netflix, is a spinoff of the mega-popular series Hospital Playlist, cast talented up-and-comer Go Youn-jung (Alchemy of Souls, Sweet Home) in the lead role, and has Kim Song-hee (assistant writer for the critically acclaimed Reply 1988 series) at its helm.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Then, a medical crisis shook South Korea, fracturing the social contract between doctors, the government, and the public. The release date of the new drama, which filmed in late 2023 and was originally slated to debut on Netflix in March 2024, was pushed back. It was unclear how releasing a series focused on resident physicians would play in a tense political climate in which trainee doctors were resigning en masse in protest of the government’s proposed plan for bolstering the health care system.

A year later, Resident Playbook has finally debuted. Its first two episodes are now streaming on Netflix, with new episodes coming every Saturday and Sunday through May 18. Here’s what to know about the series and how it reflects the stark reality of South Korea’s medical system.

What is Resident Playbook about?

Resident Playbook is set at the fictional Jongno Yulje Medical Center, a different branch of the university hospital seen in Hospital Playlist. While Hospital Playlist is about a group of established doctors who first became friends (and bandmates) in medical school, Resident Playbook follows a group of Gen Z junior doctors who are just beginning their residencies in the underserved fields of obstetrics and gynecology.

Go stars as Oh I-yeong, an ex-rich kid whose family has gone bankrupt, leaving her 50 million won (roughly $35,000) in debt. With no other choice but to get a job, Oh returns to medicine, a field she previously flunked out of, helped by her doctor boyfriend Ku Do-won (Little Forest’s Jung Joon-won), who also works at Yulje. Oh is joined by former high school classmate Pyo Nam-gyeong (The Witch Part 2’s Shin Shi-ah), K-pop idol turned doctor Um Jae-il (When Life Gives You Tangerine’s Kang Yoo-seok), and socially awkward top student Kim Sa-bi (Han Ye-ji, in her debut role). 

How Resident Playbook portrays medical training

When not in crisis, South Korea has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, as judged by healthiness of population and access to healthcare. Doctors there are generally respected and well-paid. In a 2023 survey, more than 60% of Korean office workers between the ages of 19 and 59 said they hope their children will go to med school in the future. The number one reason stated was because of the “stability” of the job.

We meet Resident Playbook’s main characters just as they are beginning their residencies, specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, or OB-GYN. By this point in their careers, the residents have made it almost all the way through an extremely competitive medical training process, completing a six-year Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (or 의학사) program, a year-long internship where they try out different specialties, and passing major exams to land in a residency. 

Doctors will take a specialist exam during the fourth year of their residency. If they pass, they will be qualified in that field. Some doctors do additional fellowship training for more specialized fields and/or to become a professor, like the main characters in Hospital Playlist.

Read more: The Best Medical TV Shows to Watch After The Pitt

Why are South Korea’s resident doctors striking?

Due to a fast-aging population and a relatively low number of doctors per capita (2.6 per 1,000 people), the country faces a projected shortage of around 15,000 healthcare professionals by 2035. The doctor shortage has already begun to impact medical accessibility in rural regions, and in essential specialties, such as pediatrics, obstetrics, thoracic surgery, and emergency medicine.

After a decade or more of grueling studying and training, doctors tend to prioritize paths that are stable, high-paying, and offer better working conditions. Doctors working in essential medical care deal with more life-or-death related health care, which comes with higher risk of litigation in a country that has disproportionately high rates of criminal charges for medical errors. Pay and working conditions in these essential fields tend to be lower, especially compared to high-paying, lower-risk aesthetic medicines, such as dermatology.

In February 2024, President Yoon released a policy plan to address the doctor shortage. This plan included an increase to the annual number of medical school slots by 65%, from 3,000 to 5,058, beginning in 2025. In response, more than 10,000 of the country’s 13,000 trainee doctors resigned. In a show of solidarity, more than 5,000 medical students requested leaves of absence. The mass resignations disrupted medical access, and had the government considering legal recourse. The Korean Medical Association (KMA), an organization that represents roughly two-thirds of the country’s doctors, backed up the collective action with threats of “an indefinite strike” if the government sought retaliation against the residents and interns. 

Doctors and medical students argue that the government’s proposed plan will not address the deeper systemic issues in care access and quality, and that the rapid increase in medical student population will degrade the quality of education and training. The disagreement between the government and the medical community represents a deeper fracturing of trust between the two entities, further complicated by President Yoon’s impeachment and the unexpected political transition that has come with it.

How Resident Playbook reflects an ongoing medical crisis

Resident Playbook was written and filmed before South Korea’s current medical crisis began. But its story is broadly informed by the systemic conditions that have led to the stalemate between the medical community and the government.

As we learn in the first episode, Oh I-yeong is embarking on a medical residency for a second time. While the details surrounding her previous departure from medicine have not yet been revealed, it is implied that she was able to secure a residency spot at Jongno Yulje Medical Center in part because she is working in the unpopular OB-GYN field.

The second episode of the series sees all four main characters strongly considering quitting their residencies, almost immediately worn down by the grueling labor conditions. The long, hectic hours represented on the show are accurate to real-life residents’ working conditions. 

While Korean labor law dictates that workers can work a maximum of 52 hours per week, medical interns and residents can legally work up to 88 hours per week and up to 36-hour shifts. In reality, some trainee doctors work over 100 hours per week. Trainee doctors constitute 30% to 45% of the physician workforce in major teaching hospitals, part of a system that relies on resident and interns’ cheap labor to offset the low reimbursement rates set by the government’s single-payer National Health Insurance System.

While Resident Playbook sees its characters reassured once they receive their first paycheck, trainee doctors earn around $2,250 to $2,900 per month, including overtime pay. With the long hours, the hourly rate can dip below minimum wage. This reality plays a role in interns and residents’ strong opposition to Yoon’s healthcare reform proposal, as they want this long standing issue of trainee doctors’ labor conditions and government-set low reimbursement rates to be adequately addressed before medical school quotas are increased.

Resident Playbook’s global ratings

The timing of Resident Playbook’s release during the ongoing medical crisis has not deterred viewers—the series earned solid ratings on tvN. The first episode earned a 3.68% rating, according to Nielsen Korean. It was the highest rated show in its time slot. While Resident Playbook’s premiere rating is lower than Hospital Playlist’s 6.3% premiere rating in 2020, it is higher than the 1.7% premiere rating earned by The Potato Lab, which previously held the time slot.

Globally, Resident Playbook has found success on Netflix, where it is currently in the Global Top Ten, at the time of this writing. It rose to the Korea Top Ten on Netflix within two days of its launch. 

source https://time.com/7278386/resident-playbook-netflix-medical-k-drama/

What to Know About the U.K. Supreme Court Transgender Women Ruling

The U.K. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that transgender women do not fall under the legal category of “women” in their equality legislation, adding to the mounting rollback of protections for trans people across the globe.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The court’s decision clarified that the term “sex” in Britain’s 2010 Equality Act only applies to “biological women” or “biological sex.” Such exclusion of transgender women from the Equality Act is set to impact transgender women’s access to women-only services and spaces, including charities, sports, hospitals, and more.

The Scottish government had argued last November that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC)—a document that allows a transgender person to have their gender legally recognized in the U.K.—are protected under the law. (A GRC, for instance, allows people to update their birth certificate or update their marriage or civil partnership certificate.)

Lord Patrick Hodge, Deputy President of the Supreme Court in the U.K., said that the ruling was not a victory for either side, as the law still protects transgender people against discrimination and harassment due to gender reassignment. Expanding the definition of “sex” in the Act to include transgender people, however, would give them “greater rights,” Hodge said while mentioning pregnancy and maternity leave.

The anti-trans J.K. Rowling-backed group For Women Scotland—which spearheaded the lengthy legal battle and believes there are only two sexes—called the decision a “victory for women’s rights.”

“There’s absolute clarity in law regarding what a woman is,” Trina Budge, director of For Women Scotland told Sky News following the ruling. “When we see a women-only space it means exactly that. Just women, no men, not even if they have a gender recognition certificate.”

Trans activists say the court’s decision emphasizes the broader scope of the anti-trans movement. “By ruling that the U.K.’s Equality Act’s definition of woman excludes trans women, the decision will likely boost American efforts to narrow legal concepts of gender—both legally and through regulations,” said Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, a news organization whose coverage focuses on transgender people. “No doubt we will see the U.K. ruling cited in court cases and state legislatures in the United States and ultimately before the Supreme Court.”

The targeting of trans rights is already acutely felt across the Atlantic, where state legislators in the U.S. have introduced a record number of anti-trans bills over the past few years. President Donald Trump doubled down on such efforts on his first day in office this year, issuing an Executive Order saying that the federal government would only recognize two sexes, which must align with their sex assigned at birth. The move barred transgender people from updating their gender marker on federal documents such as a passport.

The Administration has also limited transgender women from playing on sports teams that align with their gender and attempted to bar gender-affirming-care for minors, the latter of which is at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling expected to come down this summer.

At least one British politician has called on the U.K. to similarly follow suit regarding some of those policies. “Now – let’s keep men out of women’s sports and spaces,” wrote Parliament Member Rupert Lowe on X Wednesday. “We must prioritise safety over inclusivity, dignity over wokery, reality over ideology.” In May 2024, the National Health Service (NHS) of England decided that puberty blocker medications will no longer be available for trans youth because they claimed there was a lack of evidence in support of such medication. By contrast, every major medical association in the U.S. has vouched for the benefits of gender-affirming-care.

Amnesty International U.K. called Wednesday’s decision “disappointing.”

But despite parallels between both the U.S. and the U.K., there are existing distinctions between each regarding legal protections for the trans community. As Amnesty International U.K. noted, trans people still have protections in the U.K. under the “gender reassignment” category of the Equality Act.

Meanwhile, “the United States Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County—and lower courts have repeatedly affirmed—that our federal sex discrimination laws extend to transgender people,” Laurel Powell, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign told TIME in an emailed statement. “Today’s ruling does not change the fact that trans women are women, that trans men are men, and that they deserve to be recognized and protected for who they are. That was true yesterday, and it will be true tomorrow.”

source https://time.com/7278363/what-to-know-uk-supreme-court-transgender-women-ruling/

How Trump Could Boost Deep-Sea Mining

The Trump Administration is reportedly considering an executive order that would enable the stockpiling of metals mined from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. The prospect comes as the administration looks to become less reliant on other countries for critical minerals like copper, cobalt, and lithium. 

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Nations are currently negotiating a “road map” that would govern any potential deep-sea mining in international waters. If the U.S. were to move forward with plans to support mining in the Pacific Ocean, it would do so without the approval of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the intergovernmental agency which has jurisdiction over mining in the high seas. The Metals Company, a Canadian mining firm, disclosed last month that it is working with the Trump Administration to potentially gain authorization from the U.S. to mine in international waters—bypassing international approval. The Trump Administration, however, has not publicly confirmed this.

What is deep-sea mining?

Deep-sea mining is the process of extracting metals and minerals—including nickel, cobalt, and copper—from the sea floor. The minerals are found in several places, including hydrothermal vents on the sea floor, as well as in different mineral deposits such as polymetallic nodules, which look like a sort of rock, and ferromanganese crusts which are found on seamounds. Once the minerals are extracted, they are processed on land.

Countries are able to pursue mining projects in their own exclusive economic zones, which extend 200 nautical miles outside their shorelines, but the most sought-after resources are in international waters. For decades, the ISA has been working to regulate the seabed ungoverned by national jurisdictions, known as “the Area.” The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982, laid out the jurisdiction of international waters, and regulated mineral activity. Currently, the ISA has not authorized mining, though the agency has issued more than 30 exploratory contracts meant to explore mineral content, test equipment, and examine potential environmental impacts.

Are countries pursuing deep-sea mining?

In recent years, as global demand for critical minerals continues to rise thanks to new electronic devices and a burgeoning clean energy industry, the ISA has faced mounting pressure to finalize regulation on commercial mining in international waters. In 2021, the Pacific Island nation of Nauru informed the ISA that it planned to begin mining in international waters, triggering a “two-year rule” that would require the ISA to “consider” and “provisionally approve” applications to mine within two years of the notification. The ISA did not finalize rules when the time elapsed in 2023, and extended the deadline to this year. No country has mined in the high seas, but several countries, including Brazil, China, and the Cook Islands are supportive of deep-sea mining in their own economic zones.

The U.S. has not signed on to UNCLOS—though it has typically followed it. In 1980, Congress enacted the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, which was meant to provide a framework for deep-seabed mining until the U.S. could formally adopt the U.N. treaty. But now, with the Trump Administration poised to potentially fast track mining contracts, it could circumvent international law. The Department of Commerce has the authority to give permits and licenses for companies to pursue deep-sea mining on the high seas.

“It does so ignoring the fact that the International Seabed Authority under the Law of the Sea Treaty also has a framework for giving nations permission and the ability to mine all the high seas,” says Jeff Watters, vice president of external affairs at Ocean Conservancy. “If [the U.S.] were to pursue things under this law, it does so unilaterally, as if the Law of the Sea Treaty wasn’t out there. So it’s a potential for setting up a crash between interests if you’ve got the U.S. pursuing mining.”

Why might the U.S. be interested in deep-sea mining?

The Financial Times reports that the Trump Administration’s stockpile plan is part of a larger push to fast-track deep-sea mining applications under U.S. law, as demand for critical minerals surges, largely to meet the global growth of clean energy. Minerals like copper, cobalt, and nickel are needed for many emerging technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines.

“The drive for critical minerals and the supply chain pinch points globally that we all experienced over the last several years kind of has highlighted for many people, the critical nature of a number of materials that many technologies are highly dependent upon, and the limited supply chains that currently exist,” says Watters. 

Deep-sea mining, however, may not be the only way the U.S. hopes to ramp up its mineral supply. The Trump Administration has also declared its intent to seize control of Greenland—rich in minerals like zinc and graphite—and push for a deal that would give the U.S. a major stake in Ukraine’s natural resources.

What are the environmental risks? 

Deep-sea mining comes with environmental risks—much of which is still unknown.

“​​It’s important to note that we have not currently assessed whether all of the potential environmental risks are indeed actual risks, as the research on the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining is still in its infancy,” Jessica Fitzsimmons, a chemical oceanographer at Texas A&M University, said in an email to Time. She adds that not enough research has been done on how deep-sea mining might impact the ocean’s role in absorbing a quarter of all current carbon dioxide emissions.

In light of the unknown impacts, more than 30 governments have called for a moratorium on the practice, saying that there is not enough information on the risks. 

Mining could cause harm to wildlife—including species we don’t currently know about. “Most of them are still undescribed, and so we don’t know much about what they do and how they work, and we don’t know their role in keeping the planet healthy,” says Lisa Levin, professor emerita of biological oceanography at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.

Specific types of mining might have different impacts. Destroying hydrothermal vents, for example, could all but permanently destroy the ecosystem, given the slow time frame it takes for them to develop. 

“It’s like clear cutting the forest,” says Watters. “You’re talking about completely destroying a deep-seabed environment for all intents and purposes on the human scale permanently. Because these areas take hundreds or thousands of years potentially to recover and develop, [and] because deep-sea environments operate on a very slow time frame.”

source https://time.com/7278354/how-trump-could-boost-deep-sea-mining/