Michigan’s health department is switching gears after a game-changing Supreme Court decision

A new state department is taking the reins when it comes to the rules people in Michigan have to follow during the global COVID-19 pandemic.

Until this past week, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) had taken a back seat when it came to issuing orders aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19.

Instead, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s administration relied heavily on two state statutes that gave the governor broad power to issue executive orders under the looming threat of the emergency that is a global pandemic. The 1976 Emergency Management Act and/or the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act were the basis for a wide swath of orders issued by Whitmer, including requiring masks in public spaces, limits on crowd sizes, and requiring various establishments like movie theaters and gyms to stay closed for months.

Read More: Gov. has no authority to continue state of emergency,

Read More

EPA faces decision on chemical linked to brain damage in children

When Claudia Angulo was pregnant with her son, she often felt nauseated and experienced vomiting and headaches. 

She didn’t think much of it, until after she learned her son had Attention Deficit Hyper Disorder and difficulties with language and learning. 

Angulo said she later discovered that a chemical she had been exposed to through her job — which involved taste-testing produce before it was washed — has been associated with health risks including brain damage in children. 

“At the time that I was pregnant, in the company there were like 10 women that were pregnant and of those 10 women, seven of their kids were born with [health] problems,” she told The Hill in an interview conducted in Spanish. 

And they’re not alone. 

Studies have linked prenatal exposure to the chemical, called chlorpyrifos, to neurodevelopmental issues including lower IQ and impaired working memory. 

Chlorpyrifos is used to prevent insects from

Read More

Azar defends Trump’s decision not to wear a mask

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on Friday defended the first family’s decision not to wear masks, one day after the president and first lady tested positive for the coronavirus. Azar said the first family is in a “different situation” than the rest of America.



a close up of a person wearing a mask: US-CONGRESS-HEARING-HEALTH-VIRUS


© MICHAEL A. MCCOY
US-CONGRESS-HEARING-HEALTH-VIRUS

“The first family and the protective aspect around the president is a different situation than the rest of us because of the protocols around the first family,” Azar said in response to questioning from Democratic Representative Nydia Velazquez during a House Coronavirus subcommittee hearing.

Loading...

Load Error

Azar made the statement after supporting mask use, adding “we recommend it.” In light of his endorsement, Velazquez asked the secretary how he is able to justify the president’s repeated decision not to wear a mask. “What is your reaction to the fact that the first family, that was sitting at the

Read More

HHS Secretary Alex Azar defends Trump’s decision not to wear a mask

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on Friday defended the first family’s decision not to wear masks, one day after the president and first lady tested positive for the coronavirus. Azar said the first family is in a “different situation” than the rest of America.

“The first family and the protective aspect around the president is a different situation than the rest of us because of the protocols around the first family,” Azar said in response to questioning from Democratic Representative Nydia Velazquez during a House Coronavirus subcommittee hearing.

Azar made the statement after supporting mask use, adding “we recommend it.” In light of his endorsement, Velazquez asked the secretary how he is able to justify the president’s repeated decision not to wear a mask. “What is your reaction to the fact that the first family, that was sitting at the political debate — presidential debate were not

Read More

Louisville Citizens Seek Mental Health Help After Breonna Taylor Decision

Read More

Judge Barrett’s writing criticizes the Supreme Court decision upholding Obama-era health law

Barrett has not participated in any cases during three years on the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit that dealt with the decade-old law, which has widened insurance coverage and altered many other aspects of the nation’s health-care system. Yet her academic writing and public action offer glimpses into her views: She has criticized the legal logic behind a Supreme Court decision that preserved the law and opposed a provision involving birth control.

Among the most revealing was an essay she wrote at the start of 2017, four months before Trump nominated her to the circuit bench. In the essay published by a journal of Notre Dame Law School, where she was a professor, Barrett argues that judges should respect the text of laws and contends that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority opinion the first time the Supreme Court upheld the health-care

Read More