Some news about No Labels from my state; what’s happening with parties in your state? And great news regarding suicide prevention efforts aimed at LGBTQ+. I bet my state isn’t the only one!
No Labels Kansas is no more as a political party, despite bizarre bid to hijack the organization
Party didn’t fulfill plan to nominate candidates for president, vice president
TOPEKA — Demise of the No Labels Kansas political party was inevitable after it neglected to fulfill the organization’s central objective when formed in January 2024 to nominate candidates for U.S. president and vice president.
The failure of No Labels Kansas to field candidates for any type of statewide office or to win at least 1% of the total votes cast for that office in a general election meant the organization would eventually lose its standing in Kansas among the state’s five political parties. Instead of leaving Kansans to speculate when that might occur in 2026, No Labels Kansas secretary and treasurer Shane Mathis requested May 15 the termination of state recognition of the political party.
“Because No Labels Kansas declined to nominate candidates for those offices in 2024 and has no intention of doing so in the future, its central organizational purpose no longer exists,” Mathis said.
Secretary of State Scott Schwab complied Monday with the request and notified county election clerks and commissioners of state law requiring voter registration records be amended so 5,955 people registered with No Labels Kansas would be reclassified as unaffiliated.
In Kansas, the Republican Party dominates with 897,000 registered voters compared with the 575,000 unaffiliated and 495,000 Democratic Party registrants.
While founders of No Labels Kansas didn’t make a dent in Kansas elections, the existence of its organizational shell led a pair of longtime Republican operatives to attempt a hijacking of No Labels Kansas so it might be transformed into an organization with a broader mission that included nomination of candidates for state offices. (snip-MORE)
TOPEKA — A Wichita organization created an online training program for suicide prevention and mental health education to improve the care that LGBTQ+ Kansans receive when reaching out to crisis resources, including the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.
The organization, Center of Daring, focuses on inclusivity and leadership training. Its 10-part training program takes nine hours to complete and is available for free on the center’s website, according to an April 28 press release announcing the program.
“We believe this training series will fill a deep need here at a time when many LGBTQ+ Kansans don’t feel safe in our state,” said Liz Hamor, the Center of Daring founder, in the release.
Through learning activities, videos and surveys, the training covers trauma-informed intervention, intersectionality and promoting equity within a crisis response organization. The training was designed with input from LGBTQ+ residents and Kansas crisis care providers, according to the press release.
The 988 helpline is a mental health crisis resource available 24/7. It went nationwide in 2022. Kansas’ line received more than 34,000 calls, 12,000 texts and 9,000 chats in 2025, according to a state-mandated annual report.
The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is a free, confidential hotline available 24/7 for individuals in crisis or those looking to help someone else. To speak with a certified listener, call or text 988 or visit 988lifeline.org.
Do you remember last month when everyone was so excited about Moon Joy as we watched Artemis II? I have a confession to make.
I did not watch it.
Perhaps a combination of my anxiety plus a little leftover trauma of watching in Challenger live in Elementary school? Regardless, I couldn’t enjoy it until I knew that they were safely back home, but then I did a deep dive and that is why I am forever experiencing pop-culture moments behind the rest of the world. It’s also why this week I decided to draw something that might have been more timely before, but I suspect you will forgive me.
It reminded me of how amazing space is…of exploration and joy…and of the idea that we are each an actual part of the magic of that universe, even when we feel that we are so tiny and unremarkable.
So this is just a reminder to you that you are truly made of stardust. Nearly all of the elements in your body where made in a star, and many have come through several supernovas. The actual iron in your body is from a star going supernova. So if today you are feeling small, remember that you are magic in astounding ways.
PS. I know I normally just talk art here but I thought maybe you’d want to see this. Yesterday I started fostering a feral rescue kitten to try to fill the kitty-sized hole in my heart right now and I’m pretty sure this tiny, nameless orange gentleman will not be leaving us because omg, y’all.
And why judges should never be elected, but should be nominated by those who practice law, then confirmed by elected legislators and governors. All should be public so we the people know what and when it’s happening. When judges have to run for the bench, politics overtakes and minimizes law, tainting decisions.
This weekend, a Kansas judge issued a scathing 117-page rebuke of the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth—and in doing so, methodically dismantled the case against that care. In his ruling, Judge Carl Folsom III worked through the testimony of the state’s witnesses one by one, finding that its anti-transgender “experts”—routinely paraded by groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, SEGM, and Genspect—offered opinions built on “cherry-picked information, conjecture, and research taken out of context,” and granting their testimony little to no weight. He then laid out 349 individual findings of fact, drawn from scientific evidence and the testimony of credible medical experts, documenting the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming care. He ultimately found that the ban likely violates the Kansas Constitution—which guarantees broader protections than its federal counterpart. That distinction matters enormously: because the ruling rests on state constitutional grounds, it is largely insulated from the U.S. Supreme Court and its decision in Skrmetti, which closed the federal courthouse door to these challenges but left the state one wide open.
“Allowing a transgender adolescent with gender dysphoria to experience their endogenous puberty when puberty blockers are medically indicated according to the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline is highly likely to result in irreversible physical changes that create enormous short- and long-term distress and gender dysphoria,” Folsom wrote. “Thus, there was substantial evidence that S.B. 63 not only fails to protect minors, but also endangers them, by prohibiting the use of GnRH agonists when medically indicated.”
Before weighing the evidence, the judge first had to determine who could credibly be considered an expert. Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach brought forward a litany of anti-trans witnesses familiar from litigation defending these bans. Among them was James Cantor, a Toronto psychologist who has built a career testifying for states defending care bans despite no clinical experience treating transgender minors—and who was once quietly dropped from a Florida Board of Medicine hearing after it emerged he had served on the advisory council of the Prostasia Foundation, a group that has worked to destigmatize pedophilia. Folsom wrote that Cantor “has not conducted any original scientific research on the efficacy or safety of gender dysphoria treatments,” and noted he is not licensed to treat anyone under 16 and has never diagnosed a minor with gender dysphoria. The judge then catalogued a record of self-contradiction: Cantor “stated that ‘peer-review is the line between acceptable and not’ but himself relied on non-peer reviewed sources,” cited systematic reviews while ignoring that “the authors of those reviews stated that their work should not be used to prevent the provision of gender-affirming medical care,” and “makes several statements which have no scientific support,” including that gender dysphoria might be a misdiagnosis of borderline personality disorder. “The Court gives Dr. Cantor’s testimony little weight,” Folsom concluded.
The judge turned next to Farr Curlin, a Duke University doctor and theologian who was an author of the Trump administration’s HHS report on pediatric gender dysphoria—a document authored anonymously by a roster of hate-group affiliates and career anti-trans activists, and which deadnames Christine Jorgensen, one of the first Americans to get gender affirming surgery. Curlin, Folsom noted, “is not a pediatrician, nor is he a psychiatrist or endocrinologist,” and “has never treated anyone for gender dysphoria.” Curlin testified that gender-affirming care is “ethically problematic”—but under questioning, the breadth of what Curlin considers unethical became clear. He believes that prescribing birth control for contraception is also “ethically problematic,” because “blocking the capacity for reproduction seems contrary to the purposes of health.” He believes in vitro fertilization is “ethically problematic” as well. He testified that when gender-affirming care reduces fertility, it “prevents the realization of the basic good of marriage, since sexual capacities make possible the one flesh union of marriage.” By his own admission, Folsom noted, Curlin’s views are “radically counter to current medical orthodoxy.” The judge found his opinions “appear motivated by his personal views as opposed to a methodology applicable in the field of medical ethics,” and gave his testimony “little-to-no weight.”
The judge also had pointed words for the state’s roster of prominent anti-trans activists. Chloe Cole, the country’s most prominent anti-trans detransitioner, testified about receiving care as a minor in California—but Folsom noted that Cole “admittedly did not receive care in Kansas,” and that the plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Angela Turpin testified the care Cole described “would not have occurred in Kansas” and would have been inconsistent with the clinical guidelines Kansas providers actually follow. Her testimony was given “less weight.” Corinna Cohn, another anti-trans detransitioner who has testified for care bans across the country and who has publicly denied that transgender people existed before 1939 or were victims of the Holocaust, did not appear at the hearing at all. The judge noted that Cohn’s affidavit described “care accessed as an adult” and treatment “in Wisconsin”—nothing to do with minors, or with Kansas—and gave it “little weight.” And then there was Jamie Reed, the self-styled “whistleblower” who built a national profile on lurid, largely unsubstantiated accusations against a St. Louis gender clinic and who has gone on Fox News to describe being transgender as a delusion. Reed also did not testify and could not be cross-examined. Folsom gave her affidavit “little weight,” and had scathing remarks towards her lack of expertise:
“The Court gives thus Jamie Reed’s affidavit little weight, given that she is not a medical provider or mental-health professional. In addition, her affidavit primarily addresses her experiences with a clinic operating outside of Kansas—thus, it does not rebut or refute the credible, uncontroverted testimony about clinical practice within the state of Kansas,” read the order.
Folsom then turned to set the record straight on the care banned by Kansas. Working through the testimony of the credible medical experts, he set out 349 separate numbered findings of fact, each documenting some component of what the science actually shows about gender-affirming care. Among them: that “the currently available body of medical research, as a whole, shows that gender-affirming medical care is effective at improving mental-health outcomes for adolescents with gender dysphoria,” supported by “over 20 scientific studies” finding the treatments “effective at alleviating gender dysphoria and improving a variety of mental-health outcomes, including anxiety, depression, and suicidality.” Folsom found that “for many adolescents, gender-affirming medical care provides significant relief from gender dysphoria and decreases depression, anxiety, suicidality, and thoughts of self-harm.” On the question of regret, the talking point most relied upon by the law’s defenders, the court found, based on the Kansas clinic’s own long-term follow-up data, that 99.2% of patients who received gender-affirming care “continue to identify as transgender into adulthood,” and that of the remaining 0.8%, “most did not regret the medical treatment they received.”
Folsom reserved some of his sharpest fact-finding for the Cass Review and claims over European care. The state’s experts pointed to systematic reviews from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Norway as “proof” the science had turned. Folsom found otherwise. “None of these systematic reviews recommend categorically banning gender-affirming medical care for adolescents,” he wrote, and “the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Norway have not categorically prohibited gender-affirming medical care for minors”—as Kansas had. On the Cass Review specifically, Folsom found that its authors “changed their methodology from the methodology they said they would use in their preregistration, which is a deviation from standard academic publishing practices designed to minimize bias,” and “used idiosyncratic standards in scoring and thus excluded studies that had made important contributions to the field.” Far from recommending a ban, the court found, the Cass Report “reaches conclusions that are similar to those in the Endocrine Society Guideline and WPATH Standards of Care” and “concludes that there are young people who absolutely benefit from gender-affirming care.” On Germany, the state had the facts backwards: Folsom found that “Germany’s recent guideline endorses the provision of gender-affirming medical care”—a reference to the 2025 guidelines from 26 medical organizations across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the largest European medical consensus on transgender youth care ever produced.
The judge’s ruling rested on the Kansas constitution. Folsom found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the claim that SB 63 violates the fundamental right of parents, guaranteed by Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, to make medical decisions for their children. Section 1, he wrote, quoting the Kansas Supreme Court, “protects the core right of personal autonomy—which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination” and “allows Kansans to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, their health, their family formation, and their family life.” Because SB 63 strips parents of that right, Folsom applied strict scrutiny, the most demanding standard in constitutional law, and found the state had failed to meet it. That reasoning was used recently before in Kansas politics for another issue. The same Section is what protects abortion rights in the state. In previous abortion-related decisions, the Kansas Supreme Court held that Section 1 secures “an inalienable natural right of personal autonomy”—language the court used to strike down abortion restrictions, and that Kansas voters chose to keep in 2022 when they rejected a constitutional amendment that would have stripped it away.
For now, gender-affirming care is legal again in Kansas. The injunction is temporary, blocking SB 63 while the case is litigated, and Attorney General Kris Kobach has said he will appeal, calling the ruling “a stark example of judicial activism.” But the appeal faces a structural problem. Because the decision rests entirely on the Kansas Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court and its ruling in Skrmetti have no power to disturb it—a state’s highest court is the final word on its own constitution. And the Kansas Supreme Court, where the case is ultimately likely to land, has five of seven justices appointed by Democratic governors and has repeatedly upheld the same Section 1 personal-autonomy right that Folsom relied on here.
I can’t get the entire article here; I think I used up all my NYFT freebies for life back in 2004. However, I got a blurb, and because it’s pertinent to our interests, I’m still posting the link for anyone who’d like to see the story. It’s surprising, as is the story after this one.
TOPEKA — A few spaces are exempt from Kansas’ new bathroom law that requires people to use the facilities in government buildings that match their sex assigned at birth, Attorney General Kris Kobach said in an opinion he released Wednesday.
Kobach’s opinion, which carries no legal authority, exempted some government spaces — such as skilled nursing rooms at the Kansas Office of Veterans’ Services — from complying with the bathroom law that went into effect in February.
He issued the opinion in response to an April letter from Justin Whitten, Gov. Laura Kelly’s chief counsel, who asked for clarification on defining “multiple-occupancy private spaces” and “facilities” as written in Senate Bill 244.
“This was a poorly written and ambiguous law, which is why the governor’s office sought an attorney general opinion,” said Olivia Taylor-Puckett, spokeswoman for Kelly. “The AG’s opinion provides new clarity on the more limited scope of SB 244 as inapplicable to places that are more ‘residential in character’ like a cabin or hospital room.”
The bill became law in February after passing through contentious legislative debate, including a veto from Kelly that was overturned. At the time, Kelly questioned vague language in the bill and how it would apply to some state facilities.
The law sets high fines for agencies that fail to comply and smaller fines escalating to class B misdemeanors for those who violate the law. Critics said the law doesn’t specifically address implementation, leaving agencies statewide struggling to determine what to do to comply.
In an April letter, Whitten asked Kobach to render an opinion on whether spaces like hospital rooms, prison cells and bedrooms in public buildings are considered “multiple-occupancy private spaces” under the law.
The letter asked for definition of “facilities,” and whether Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks cabins throughout the state and Kansas Office of Veterans’ Services nursing facility rooms must adhere to the law.
“SB 244 makes no distinction based on a ‘facility’s’ purpose and instead focuses on the existence of a mere possibility of whether an individual may be in a state of undress in front of another individual,” Whitten’s letter said.
Arguments that the hospital is the “facility” rather than the patient room are “untenable,” he said. The hospital building would fit under the law’s definition of a public building, while the room would be the private space, Whitten said.
“If your answer relies on finding an ambiguity in Senate Bill 244 with the term ‘facilities,’ we ask that you work with the Legislature in the 2027 session to clarify this ambiguity,” he said.
Kobach’s opinion
Citing a dictionary definition of “facility” and saying that “in the absence of a contrary definition, words in a statute should be given their ‘ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,’ ” Kobach said neither the skilled nursing rooms or the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks rental cabins meet the definition of “facility,” which exempts them from the law.
Kobach said SB 244 listed examples of rooms the bill applies to.
“The debate surrounding SB 244 focused on the types of rooms listed in the statute — restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and shower rooms — and the risks to safety and privacy when individuals of one biological sex use facilities designated for individuals of the opposite biological sex,” his opinion said.
Kobach said the Legislature’s intent didn’t include stopping a married couple from sharing a nursing home or assisted living facility room or to prevent people in those facilities from receiving guests of the opposite sex.
Prison cells, however, more closely match the type of facilities addressed in the law, Kobach said, which means multiple-occupancy cells must only be shared by prisoners of the same sex.
Taylor-Puckett said attorney general opinions are generally given “persuasive but not binding weight in a courtroom.” She recommended that individuals and entities should consult with their attorney with regard to any decisions about complying with SB 244.
‘Poorly drafted’
Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said he was glad to see some spaces exempted from the law but that the opinion reinforced what civil rights activists contended from the beginning: The vagueness of the law makes it difficult to enforce and understand.
“This uncertainty about whether people just living their lives are going to run afoul of this law, I think demonstrates both that the law was meant to terrorize and also that it’s poorly drafted,” he said.
Some Kansans and legislators objected to SB 244 being termed an “anti-trans” bill. But Seldin said the interpretation reinforces that it is a bill targeted at transgender and intersex people.
“These interpretations really continue to try to find ways to push transgender and intersex people out of public life, while making sure that people who aren’t transgender don’t feel any disruption whatsoever,” he said. “It does seem to very strongly suggest that this law was really targeted at transgender people and is not actually responsive to any concerns about safety or privacy.”
Seldin said any concerns about safety and privacy aren’t related to reality in Kansas.
Seldin is representing two Lawrence transgender men who are challenging the bathroom law in court, with the next hearing scheduled for Sept. 29 through Oct. 2. That will be an evidentiary hearing regarding the ACLU’s request for a temporary injunction of the law, Seldin said.
Though relatively common over much of its range, the Mourning Warbler is secretive and notoriously hard to observe. These birds mostly stay close to the ground in dense thickets and brush where they forage and nest. Outside of the breeding season, Mourning Warblers are also fairly quiet and can easily go unnoticed. As a result, very little is known of this bird’s life history outside of the breeding season. In fact, there are sizable gaps in our understanding of its breeding biology as well — for instance, no researchers have documented the courtship behavior of this species.
However, one thing we do know is that these birds are fairly particular about their habitat requirements. Mourning Warblers are reliant on thick, brushy second-growth forest, the result of big ecological disturbances, such as fire or major storms, that kill numerous trees and open up gaps in the canopy. Following such a disturbance, habitat becomes acceptable after about two or three years. After another seven or eight years, the forest will have grown back enough that Mourning Warblers will no longer use it. This means that breeding areas for this species are constantly shifting, as one forest regrows and a new opening is (hopefully) created elsewhere. Sometimes referred to as a “fugitive species,” Mourning Warbler populations are frequently “on the run,” fleeing the regenerating forest and searching for another suitable opening.
Fortunately, these birds are not terribly picky about exactly what kind of disturbance creates this ideal habitat. Drought, disease, insect outbreaks, and especially fire are natural disturbances that this species probably relied on historically. In the current day, large forest fires are far less common, but for the Mourning Warblers, human activities seem to work just as well. These birds are commonly found in old clearcuts, abandoned agricultural areas, along logging roads, and even mining and oil well sites. While these heavily disturbed areas do not benefit most species, the Mourning Warbler makes it work. (snip-see MORE here)
I am two days late on sending this because I was stuck in a depression and it ate all of my extra energy. I started and stopped several drawings because I’m not sure if I didn’t like them or if I just didn’t like me very much. My dr recommended sun and exercise and other things that sound very easy when you are not depressed and it reminded me of a poem my mom read to me so often I’d almost memorized it. (All of A.A. Milne’s poems are the songs of my childhood.) If you hate poetry, skip this part.
The poem always made me feel both cozy and sad at the same time, which was a confusing thing for a small child but also a combination that my brain would grow to specialize in.
It reminded me that recently I’d read that tiny harvest mice have been found asleep in flower beds and so I decided to draw that:
“Sometimes harvest mice will crawl into flowers to feast on the pollen and stamens and will fall asleep inside.”
The drawing is simple and plain and fairly unimpressive, but it made me feel warm inside my heart and that is a very special sort of magic.
This is all a very long way of saying that whimsy and comfort and coziness and nostalgia and joy are all worth more than we give them credit for…whether in drawing mice or reading poems from childhood or eating nectar and drunkenly falling asleep inside flowers.
The federal government is escalating efforts to seek private medical data for children undergoing gender-affirming care, as at least one hospital faces the first known criminal probe of its kind.
Last week, NYU Langone Hospitals in New York City received a grand jury subpoena for information about young patients who received gender-affirming care at their facilities anytime in the past six years.
A grand jury subpoena indicates that a federal criminal investigation is underway. This would be a first in regards to gender-affirming care.
The subpoena came from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Texas, part of the Justice Department. The office is also seeking the names of hospital employees involved in providing gender-affirming care. The government has previously sought medical records of transgender kids from other states, and so have Texas officials, but not like this.
Parents of trans youth under the age of 18 who have received care at NYU Langone got a notification from the hospital alerting them to the grand jury subpoena. According to that notification and to the hospital’s public statement, NYU Langone is one of several institutions that received a subpoena May 7. The hospital said it is still evaluating how it will respond to it.
New York law prevents the disclosure of medical records related to gender-affirming care and abortion except in limited circumstances and broadly prohibits law enforcement from cooperating with investigations into gender-affirming care. This sets up a potential legal fight over the subpoena.
Several legal battles are currently playing out in response to other attempts from the government to obtain trans kids’ medical records.
Eleven families just filed a class-action lawsuit to block the Justice Department from obtaining confidential information about young trans patients seeking gender-affirming care. The agency sent more than 20 subpoenas last summer to doctors and clinics involved in providing such care, with the intent to investigate “healthcare fraud, false statements, and more.” Both the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have sought to investigate gender-affirming care as medical fraud.
Multiple judges halted these DOJ subpoenas in their tracks, after hospitals fought back. A federal judge in Massachusetts called the agency’s investigations into gender-affirming care “motivated only by bad faith.” A judge in Colorado, who blocked a similar subpoena, said patient medical records must be protected from “improper disclosure.”
Separately, a federal judge this month temporarily blocked the FTC from investigating two medical groups that support gender-affirming care for transgender people. Those groups, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society, were served civil investigative demands for years of internal records and financial information. Both groups sued.
Over the past year, hospitals in states like New York, where gender-affirming care is legally protected, have come under pressure by the federal government to halt care for trans youth. For patients, that care has been spotty: earlier this year, NYU Langone halted gender-affirming care for young patients, citing “the current regulatory environment” as a key reason. More than 40 hospitals across the country have done the same, per STAT News.
Gender-affirming care for trans youth primarily refers to hormone therapy and puberty blockers used to treat gender dysphoria, which is a medical condition that can cause significant distress. Very few transgender youth seek and access surgeries. Restricting gender-affirming care is a top priority of the Trump administration, which has proposed regulations to greatly restrict the care for youth and stated its opposition to trans identity as a whole.
We spoke to experts about Kennedy’s claims about sperm and fertility — including the author of the study he cited.
This story was originally reported by Mariel Padilla and Jennifer Gerson of The 19th. Meet Mariel and Jennifer and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has, historically, been very public about his concerns about what is plaguing the nation’s well-being. His long, complicated history with vaccines is well-documented. So is his long-standing spat with fluoride. Unlike President Donald Trump, he is not a fan of fast food, but he is a big believer in animal protein and raw milk.
And this week, he spoke about another issue vexing him: men’s sperm count.
“The fertility crisis for women began in 2007; for men in 1970. Men had twice the sperm count as our teenagers do today. This is an existential crisis for our country. We had a series of presidents who were trying to discourage childbirth and motherhood in this country. We now have a president who is trying to encourage it,” Kennedy said at a White House event on maternal health Monday.
While many experts agree that sperm counts are likely lower than they were decades ago, it is less clear how much influence a declining sperm count has on the country’s falling birth rate.
What the science says
Dr. Hagai Levine, the lead author the study Kennedy referenced and chairman of Israel’s association of public health physicians, said he agrees with Kennedy’s characterization that there is a “crisis.”
“I truly believe based on the data that there is a male fertility crisis globally and in the U.S.,” said Levine, who is also an environmental epidemiologist and public health physician at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. “It’s manifested in a biological measurement, which is remarkable. It’s not a soft measurement; it’s something that you can count very accurately.”
Levine said his 2022 study, a systematic review of 223 studies, found a 50 percent decline in both sperm concentration and total sperm count between 1973 and 2018 across North America, Europe and Australia.
“We expected to find a subtle decrease over time, not a drastic decrease,” Dr. Scott Lundy, the study’s lead author and Urology Program Director at Cleveland Clinic, said in a blog post. “I think finding nothing at all was a little bit surprising, and it certainly does not mean that we can ignore this issue or not study this further. But in this case, I think there’s at least some evidence to suggest that we can be somewhat reassured.”
Without speaking to any specific studies, Levine said that different methodologies could yield contradictory results. In a meta-analysis, he emphasized the importance of comparing only studies with similar laboratory methods.
“It’s good that in science there are others who make other claims and try to look at other things,” Levine said. “But when I looked at the literature, I was not convinced that there is no decline. I plan to update our study; maybe there is new data. And I hope that I will find that the decline stopped or even reversed.”
Levine said recent studies show that a lower sperm count is associated with higher morbidity — meaning a low sperm count can be a marker of poor health in general. He said more research needs to be done to identify the cause of declining sperm counts, but research on animals has shown that certain chemicals disrupt the endocrine system. Obesity, lack of physical activity, smoking, binge drinking, certain drugs, occupational exposures and climate change, specifically rising temperatures, also likely impact sperm health. Levine said his research findings are a clear sign that something is wrong with men’s health on a global level.
But how much does a declining sperm count impact the falling birth rate in the United States? Levine said it’s not clear, but he suspects that social factors play a bigger role.
“We know that, for example, women’s education is very related to the number of children in a family,” Levine said. “So I would assume that social demographic changes are the main reason for the shifting trends in fertility, meaning the number of children per woman of childbearing age in the United States and in many other countries.”
Dr. Michael Eisenberg, a professor of urology at Stanford University, said reports of declining sperm counts have been circulated in urologist circles for decades. While more controversial in the 1990s and 2000s, Eisenberg said there’s been increasing evidence from larger and more comprehensive papers published in recent years.
“There is still some controversy in the field, but I think generally the consensus is — and I certainly believe — that sperm counts are declining,” Eisenberg said.
Most of the studies on sperm count are meta-analyses, which are studies of studies. There is no systematic tracking of sperm count or national effort to monitor semen health in the United States.
“When people think about fertility, I think that unfortunately the male role in that is somewhat undervalued and underappreciated,” Eisenberg said. “I think bringing a lot more attention to it is important. Women have regular cycles, so they have some sense of their fertility potential, whereas men don’t have that feedback.”
Administration messaging
It’s not the first time that Kennedy has talked about sperm count. In December, he mentioned it during a HHS announcement about coverage for in vitro fertilization (IVF). In April 2025 he made similar remarks to Fox News’ Jesse Watters, asserting that “an American teenager today has less testosterone than a 68-year old American man.”
Kennedy’s language echoes messaging from Trump himself; Trump has called himself the “fertilization president” and the “father of IVF.” At the maternal health care event Monday, he referred to himself as the “father of fertility.” Other members of the administration have also expressed concerns about fertility.
“Let me speak a little bit about the reality that 1 in 3 Americans are under-babied,” Dr. Mehmet Oz, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said at the Monday White House event “What does under-babied mean? That means that you either don’t have any children or you have less children than you would normally want to have.”
The administration has long courted adherents to pronatalism, or the belief that a declining birth rate is the primary problem of our times — and that everyone should do their part to reverse course by having as many children as possible. (Sometime Trump ally and former head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, Elon Musk, is an avowed pronatalist and is believed to have fathered at least 13 children by at least four different women.)
And baked into pronatalism are traditional gender roles and an insistence that women’s ultimate work is having babies.
Kennedy’s comments draw a direct connection between paying attention to the sexual function of men with the need of women to birth babies.
What women want
Karen Guzzo, PhD, is a professor of sociology and the director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina; she’s an expert on fertility preferences and fertility behaviors.
Guzzo said that Kennedy’s comments reflect an insistence on finding a physiological reason for population decline, despite there being no evidence for that.
The reality is that most Americans who want to have children want to have two or three children.
“The reason that people aren’t having kids or are delaying having kids isn’t because they’re physically unable. It’s because they don’t feel like they’re able to have kids at that point in their life, given their social and economic circumstances,” she said.
Any increase in infertility is largely due to more people delaying having children.
“People aren’t just deciding at 18, ‘Oh I don’t even want to have kids until I’m 38.’ It’s usually because they want to get to a point in their life where they’re like, ‘All right — now I have enough money. Now I have a stable partnership. Now I feel that I can provide a good life for children,’” she said.
What research has shown, in other words, is that what really delays someone from having children are economic and social conditions. Guzzo said some of the key factors that allow people to feel the necessary security are affordable childcare, strong unions and union jobs, affordable higher education, and accessible healthcare — including maternal and reproductive healthcare.
The focus on sperm count? A “clear misdirection,” she said.
“Young women are like, ‘Yeah I’m not asking for the most sensitive guy in the world. I just want a guy that thinks that I should not die in childbirth and that I can also have a job,’” Guzzo said. “Real men are secure enough in their masculinity that they can, in fact, change diapers and stay home with their children and be active parents.”
An Essential Shot: Vitamin K shots, which help the blood to clot, are one of three key interventions for newborns, along with an antibiotic eye ointment and the hepatitis B vaccine.
Increasing Rejections: The government doesn’t track vitamin K rejections, but hospitals have seen a rise in parents opting out of the shots for their newborns, often driven by unfounded fears.
Troubling Data: Hundreds of children die each year from spontaneous bleeding in the brain, a common result of vitamin K deficiency, suggesting that many related deaths go unreported.
These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.
They entered the world the way babies should, with piercing cries announcing their arrival. They passed their newborn screening tests. Some made it to their 2-week wellness visits without concern.
Then, without warning, their systems began to shut down. A 7-week-old boy in Maryland developed sudden seizures. An 11-pound girl in Alabama stopped breathing for 20 seconds at a time. A baby boy in Kentucky vomited before becoming lethargic. A brown-haired girl in Texas, not yet 2 weeks old, bled around her belly button.
Desperate to save them, records show, doctors inserted tubes into their airways and hooked them up to IVs. They ordered blood transfusions. They spent half an hour trying to resuscitate one boy until his parents told them they could stop. They shaved another boy’s soft locks to embed a needle directly into his skull to reduce the pressure in his brain.
None of it was enough.
At the morgue, the babies were brought in with their diapers and blankets and with their hospital ID bracelets still wrapped around their tiny ankles. The pathologists’ findings were like those you would typically see in ailing adults, not newborns — the kind of bleeding seen during strokes or brain tissue loss similar to what happens when radiation is administered to treat cancer.
Their autopsies, which took place over the last several years, all came to the same conclusion: The deaths were caused, in whole or in part, by a rare but potentially fatal condition known as vitamin K deficiency bleeding.
In almost every case, the babies’ deaths could have been prevented with a long-standard vitamin K shot. But across the country, families — first in smatterings, now in droves — are declining the single, inexpensive injection given at birth to newborns to help their blood clot.
Many of them are doing so out of a well-meaning but ill-informed abundance of caution. In the hopes of safeguarding their newborns from what they see as unnecessary medical intervention, they have shunned fundamental and scientifically sound pharmaceutical intervention. The trend is also fueled by a contradictory pairing: families’ fierce desire to protect their babies and a cascade of false information infused into their social media algorithms.
Although it is not a vaccine, the vitamin K shot has been swept up in the same post-pandemic tide that has led to a drop in key childhood vaccines, including for measles and whooping cough.
The vitamin K shot is one of the three main interventions, along with the hepatitis B vaccine and an antibiotic ointment in the eyes, that newborns typically receive before leaving the hospital. Leading American institutions and the World Health Organization recommend that newborns get the shot.
In December, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped recommending that all newborns get the hepatitis B vaccine, which has been highly effective at fighting a virus that can lead to lifelong infections and liver cancer. A federal judge in March temporarily blocked the revised childhood vaccination schedule that included that recommendation. Some families are also rejecting the eye ointment.
Two weeks ago, at a House subcommittee hearing, Rep. Kim Schrier, D-Wash., pressed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to reassure parents that the vitamin K shot is safe. He refused and pushed back.
“I’ve never said, literally never said, anything about it,” Kennedy said.
“That’s exactly the point,” responded Schrier, who is a doctor. “You don’t say anything about it, but the doubt you’ve created about all of medicine and science is causing parents to make dangerous decisions.”
An HHS spokesperson did not respond to questions but in an email blamed the administration of former President Joe Biden for the rise in parents rejecting vitamin K shots. “Vitamin K at birth,” the spokesperson added, “remains the standard of care.”
Meanwhile, families continue to be inundated with advice from self-proclaimed experts using medical terms incorrectly and misunderstanding science to convince parents that getting the shot could put their newborns at risk of grave harm.
Nearly a century’s worth of research and medical advancements shows the opposite to be true.
Babies who don’t get the vitamin K shot, research shows, are 81 times more likely than those who do to develop late vitamin K deficiency bleeding, where in many cases oxygen can’t reach their brains and blood pools around their skulls. Perhaps most alarming is that, according to the CDC, 1 in every 5 babies with vitamin K deficiency bleeding will die.
Determining precisely how many babies have died or suffered severe brain damage because of a lack of vitamin K is difficult. State and federal agencies don’t track data around vitamin K injection refusal or subsequent bleeding, which impedes their ability to quantify and track outcomes, including death.
The number of deaths directly attributed to vitamin K deficiency bleeding appears to be small — fewer than a dozen annually — but has started to climb in recent years, according to death certificate data from federal and state agencies.
But those numbers capture only a fraction of deaths, which often are classified only by other, more immediate causes, such as bleeding in the brain. In 2024, for example, more than 700 newborns died from spontaneous bleeding in their brains, which could have been complicated by liver disease or prematurity. Still, six medical specialists and one official at the CDC said a meaningful portion of those deaths likely were caused by vitamin K deficiency. Many more babies survive the bleeding but suffer massive brain bleeds and lasting injuries.
“A lot of the providers don’t have this on their radar,” said Dr. Jaspreet Loyal, a pediatric hospitalist at Yale Medicine. “The lack of data is almost acting like a reassurance for families that this risk is worth taking.”
Although it is difficult to quantify deaths attributable to vitamin K deficiency, there is clearly a large jump in the number of parents declining the vitamin K shot. Some hospitals have seen refusal rates more than double. A national study of more than 5 million births, published in December, found that the rate of U.S. babies not receiving vitamin K at birth topped 5% in 2024 — up 77% from 2017.
More Newborns Are Not Getting Vitamin K Shots
More than 5% of newborns in the U.S. did not receive vitamin K shots in 2024.
Source: “Trends in Vitamin K Administration Among Infants,” JAMA
The success of the shot has been so remarkable that it nearly eliminated vitamin K deficiency bleeding altogether. The science was settled decades ago.
“This was not something we even bothered to spend much educational effort on,” said Dr. Allison Henry, the director of newborn medicine service at Cedars-Sinai Guerin Children’s in Los Angeles, “because there was this simple, safe intervention.”
A cluster of cases 13 years ago was one of the first major signs that something was amiss.
Four babies were rushed to a Nashville, Tennessee, children’s hospital after they suddenly fell ill months apart. Stunned, doctors ran tests that revealed severe bleeding and reached out to Dr. Robert Sidonio Jr., their blood disorder specialist. They learned that the parents had declined vitamin K shots for the babies, each of them between 6 and 15 weeks old.
Once they realized that, the medical team moved quickly to treat them, injecting them with vitamin K and hoping it wasn’t too late. Much to the relief of doctors, they all survived. Only one infant had developmental delays.
The parents explained that they had declined the shot for a number of reasons: a concern, based on long-debunked claims, that the shot could cause leukemia; a belief that the shot wasn’t necessary; and a desire to reduce their baby’s exposure to “toxins.”
The CDC and the state health department opened an investigation and later published a report that found that when the parents declined the shot, their awareness about the risk of bleeding was “incomplete or absent.”
Dr. Anna Morad, a pediatrician at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt in Nashville, said she had witnessed a gradual rise in families refusing vitamin K leading up to the hospitalizations.
She and her colleagues went into the Nashville community to speak at birthing centers and advise families about the benefits of vitamin K. One mother who had refused the shot for her newborn partnered with Morad and described how she came to realize that the shot can save lives.
More than a dozen pediatricians interviewed by ProPublica said they strongly recommend all three of the typical newborn interventions but agreed that the vitamin K shot is the most vital.
“I’m picking vitamin K every day,” Morad said. “Absolutely.”
With time, the number of families who turned down the shot dropped. As the need for the community outreach waned, Morad lost touch with the mother she had teamed up with and refocused her energy on directing the newborn nursery at Vanderbilt Health.
“I’ll be honest, I thought we had turned the corner,” Morad said. “Naively, I thought that would be enough.”
Dr. Anna Morad, a pediatrician at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt in Nashville, says the vitamin K shot is the most essential of three interventions that newborns are typically given. “I’m picking vitamin K every day. Absolutely.”Stacy Kranitz for ProPublica
All newborns lack vitamin K. No matter how much vitamin K a mother consumes, it doesn’t sufficiently pass through the placenta, and breast milk contains only small amounts. That puts babies who are exclusively breastfed at a higher risk for vitamin K deficiency bleeding. Formula is fortified with vitamin K, but even with that, experts agree, babies should still get the shot.
Doctors have yet to understand why some babies who don’t get the vitamin K shot are fine while others bleed uncontrollably. But they do know that the risk increases dramatically. For babies who don’t get the shot, the risk for vitamin K deficiency bleeding from a week after birth to 6 months ranges from 1 in 14,000 to 1 in 25,000 births. With the shot, the research shows, the risk drops to less than 1 in 100,000.
The role of vitamin K is so crucial that researchers were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1943 for their discovery of its ability to form clots and stop bleeding in babies. The official presenting the award called the discovery the vitamin’s “greatest practical importance” and lauded it among the discoveries that have been of great benefit to humankind.
In 1961, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that all newborns in the U.S. get a shot of vitamin K. The CDC has supported newborns getting the shot as well, devoting several pages online to raising awareness around vitamin K deficiency bleeding and writing that babies may bleed “into their intestines, or into their brain, which can lead to brain damage and even death.” For decades, medical textbooks and lectures have presented the vitamin K injection as an example of a public health policy success.
After reports that vitamin K deficiency bleeding was on the rise, the American Academy of Pediatrics updated its policy statement in 2022 to stress the shot’s safety and efficacy. The paper included talking points for pediatricians to help them respond to common misconceptions: “Vitamin K injection does not contain mercury. Vitamin K does not cause cancer. The vitamin K injection used in newborns is safe. The dose is not too high for newborns.”
“We’re a victim of our own success,” said Dr. Ivan Hand, the director of neonatology at Kings County Hospital Center in New York and the co-author of the American Academy of Pediatrics statement. “Since we’ve been treating babies with vitamin K, we haven’t seen much deficiency bleeding, so people think it doesn’t exist.”
Seeing photos online of healthy babies who didn’t get the vitamin K shot and reading comments from parents who felt justified in their refusal, it’s easy to think that the risk of bleeding isn’t real, or at the very least that it’s exaggerated.
On Facebook, comments about the shot include: “Don’t do it!” “Huge lie!” and “It’s a scare tactic.” One person wrote, “Never will I ever inject my baby with poisons from big pharma.”
Families have also pointed to a 2023 episode about vitamin K shots by conservative podcaster Candace Owens, who said, “What Big Pharma is saying is that we realize that babies were born wrong. They don’t have enough vitamin K, and so we’re going to give them what they always needed. God designed us wrong.”
Owens did not respond to a request for comment.
Hidden is the agony of parents mourning the loss of their babies. Some are still in denial.
ProPublica spoke with five of those families, but none of them wanted to be identified publicly.
The obituaries, social media posts and GoFundMe pages capture the utter despair of the families, though none of them reckon with the decision not to get the vitamin K shot.
“No one could’ve prepared us for the heartbreak we faced 6 weeks after our little miracle was born,” one mother wrote. “She had a spontaneous unexplained brain bleed that led to brain death.”
“We miss his sweet smell,” another family wrote.
A third family, who made their decision after reading about vitamin K on social media and talking with their midwife, dismissed the vitamin K shot altogether. Instead, the father expressed outrage at the hospital for not delaying the clamping of the umbilical cord. He said he believed doing so would have allowed his son to be infused with vitamin K from the cord blood, a popular theory on social media. Research, however, shows that while delayed cord clamping can raise the baby’s hemoglobin levels, it does not have the same effect on vitamin K.
“I figured the hospital was already pissy with me because we didn’t vaccinate at all,” he told ProPublica. “They lost out on all the money from that.”
The family’s anger has subsided some since the baby’s death, in part because of their trust in God’s plan.
“I can sit here and be upset and sad, but this brought me closer to God,” the father said. “I just can’t wait to be with him.”
Two of the families who went on to have other children found themselves facing the same decision: Would they decline the vitamin K shot again? Both got the shot for their newborn.
Autopsy reports reviewed by ProPublica, like these two from children in Minnesota and Arizona, have notes from coroners citing vitamin K deficiency as a cause of death.Obtained and redacted for privacy by ProPublica
Morad watched as the number of families declining vitamin K climbed over the last year.
In January, she reached out to Sidonio, her former colleague who first recognized the 2013 cluster of cases there, for advice. Sidonio, now a pediatric hematologist oncologist at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and professor at Emory University School of Medicine, said he’s more worried than ever.
During that cluster, Sidonio recognized the need to collect data on how often parents decline the shot and what happens to those babies. But in discussions with the CDC, he said, he was told that it would be too difficult.
More than a decade later, nothing has come of it. In a recent email to ProPublica, federal officials said vitamin K deficiency bleeding has never been submitted for consideration as a notifiable condition.
“If you don’t track it, you don’t document it,” said Sidonio, frustration building in his voice. “They have to make it a reportable health condition, just like a new measles case. That’s the only way it’s going to change.”
Like him, Dr. Kristan Scott, the lead author of the national study that found a jump in the number of babies not receiving vitamin K, also landed on a need for a robust system to monitor vitamin K refusals and any subsequent consequences.
“We don’t have a clean data repository provided by public health systems or the state that would allow us to be able to track this in a more systematic fashion,” said Scott, who is a neonatologist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Some doctors failed to recognize the role of vitamin K when a baby came into their emergency rooms, let alone knew how to reverse the damage from the declined shots. Many of them encountered the condition only in medical school textbooks.
Some hospitals have started to run their own numbers, but the effort is scattershot. The data is also usually kept in house, so there’s not a wider knowledge of the problem. Recognizing the urgency of the matter, officials at a handful of hospitals agreed to share their data with ProPublica.
Doctors at St. Louis-based Mercy, which runs birthing hospitals in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas, began noticing an uptick in families turning down the vitamin K shot during the pandemic. Last year, 1,552 babies across all Mercy hospitals didn’t get the injection. In 2021, that number was 536.
And at Idaho’s largest hospital system, the refusal rates have gone up every year since the start of the pandemic, and in some cases have more than doubled. In 2020, 3.8% of families across St. Luke’s Health System declined the vitamin K shot for their babies. In 2025, that figure jumped to 9.8%. One hospital even reached 20% of babies not getting vitamin K shots.
At least two babies treated at St. Luke’s died within the last year from complications related to vitamin K deficiency bleeding, hospital officials confirmed. But Dr. Tom Patterson, a pediatrician who treats newborns at some St. Luke’s hospitals and is among the most vocal in warning about the climbing refusal rates, suspects there may be more.
Patterson recently pleaded with a family to allow their baby to get the shot. The father refused and shocked the doctor by going even further. He approached the nurses to complain about Patterson pushing the matter.
How We Reported This Story
As part of our reporting, ProPublica contacted 55 hospitals and birthing centers around the U.S.; interviewed more than 30 doctors; and filed nearly 90 public records requests with state and local health departments, medical examiners and other agencies. ProPublica also analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and examined hundreds of pages of medical and autopsy records.
Scottie's Playtime 