from the world's big
20 states are attempting to pass 'heartbeat laws.' Georgia and Ohio just passed their own.
- Four states have now passed "heartbeat laws," which ban abortions at about six weeks.
- Ohio's new law prohibits rape and incest victims from having an abortion.
- In Georgia, having a miscarriage could result in an investigation.
Distinguishing between actual news and The Onion has become a tragic sport in recent years, yet even the satire site wouldn't post an article entitled, "Should 11-year-old girls have to bear their rapists' babies? Ohio says yes." Nope, that's the Chicago Tribune.
On April 11, Republican governor Mike DeWine signed the state's Human Rights Protection Act, which bans abortions as soon as doctors can detect a heartbeat—about six weeks. The fact that many women do not yet know they're pregnant is irrelevant. Actually, that's part of the point: Ignorance is embedded in the design of the legislation.
The law, set to go into effect in mid-July, is being trailed by another bill that bans "drugs or devices used to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum." Even birth control is being taken off the shelves in Ohio.
The recently passed bill features one even more disdainful caveat: If a child is raped, she must still bear the baby—as the headline suggests. While mothers will not be imprisoned for having an abortion (as some erroneous headlines have suggested), there is plenty to grieve about.
Ohio is only one of four states currently enacting "heartbeat laws." Georgia, Kentucky, and Mississippi now have similar laws on the books. Kentucky has yet another on tap, one which would prevent a woman from having an abortion upon learning that her child will be disabled.
Meanwhile, Missouri is foaming at the mouth for its shot while Alabama is about six months away from signing its own version. Louisiana's bill flew through the state Senate, 31-5, and is heading to the House. North Dakota's bill was signed but struck down in federal court. In total, 20 states have attempted or currently have heartbeat laws on the books or in progress.
Last week, Georgia governor Brian Kemp signed his state's heartbeat bill into law, cutting his state's restrictions on abortions from 20 weeks to six. While this law won't go into effect until January, it also does not allow for women that are impregnated due to rape, incest, or conditions that put the health of the mother on the line. In fact, if a woman has a miscarriage, she could be put under investigation to ensure that an abortion was not performed.
Kemp might soon be hurt in a way that certainly affects him, even if a woman's suffering does not: His state's wallet. Georgia's film industry is booming thanks to a 30 percent tax rebate; it currently supports 92,000 jobs. Some Hollywood producers aren't having it, however, threatening to take their projects elsewhere. While the producers of HBO's "Lovecraft Country," Jordan Peele and JJ Abrams, announced that they're staying on set, they're now donating profits from their show to two charities battling the state's draconian laws.
It's sad that money has to be the motivating factor for as basic a right as abortion in this country, but it might hold power—odd, given how financially conservative those supporting this bill seem to be. Anti-abortion activists generally don't support government assistance to mothers that can't afford children, yet do everything in their power to make sure they have the baby anyway. Even the mother's life isn't of concern, only the ambiguous baby, and only as a concept at that.
Jesse Ventura: Being Pro-Life should mean more than being Pro-Birth
These initiatives in Ohio and Georgia will be challenged in court, likely delaying the process of implementation, as happened in Kentucky when a federal judge blocked the law from going into effect in March. Kentucky only has one abortion clinic as it is, another clever move installed by activists intent on dismantling basic female rights.
These laws continue even as we know what results to expect. In February, an 11-year-old known as "Lucia" was forced to give birth after being raped by her grandmother's 65-year-old boyfriend. She attempted to commit suicide twice after learning of her pregnancy. Though abortion is legal in cases of rape in Argentina, stalling tactics were employed. She was forced to have a Caesarean section in the 23rd week of her pregnancy. The baby did not survive. Lucia will have to live with this horrific incident for the rest of her life.
Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion: Both sides of the 'Heartbeat' Bill
Even more baffling about this entire situation is that religion is at its core. While the world's religions are truly different—the "every one says the same thing" mentality is more intellectual laziness than inspired truth—a handful of universals exists across cultures: empathy, compassion, trust, devotion, charity.
Sure, the major scriptures were written during tribal times—even more so than today—with the in-group receiving benefits and heretics being destroyed. Extrapolate the gist of meaning for global societies and those messages are truly applicable to all. Love thy neighbor and all that. Reciprocity reigns supreme.
Which is why it's shocking to see many of the professed religious in America acting in direct opposition to the commands of their faith. An 11-year-old girl raped by a senior citizen is not grounds for abortion? You'll look this girl in the eyes and claim it's part of God's plan? How about the potential death of the mother not holding as much weight as a fetus? These are, as many of the politicians behind these laws express, moral issues. The problem is they're on the wrong side of being moral.
Charity means helping even if you don't agree with the other person. Asking a homeless person why they ended up where they are is not compassion, unless you're committed to helping them change their circumstances. Giving them a few dollars is. Charity isn't charity if it's only serving to make you feel better about yourself.
The anti-abortion fervor spreading across nearly half of America is a disease. It has nothing to do with faith or devotion. It's a power grab and tool of manipulation. The more we attach the word "religion" to it, the more disservice we do to those religious who are truly compassionate and charitable. And we certainly need as much of those qualities as possible right now.
Join Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and best-selling author Charles Duhigg as he interviews Victoria Montgomery Brown, co-founder and CEO of Big Think, live at 1pm EDT tomorrow.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
Physicists, being themselves, immediately wanted to try and break pasta into two pieces using this info<p><a href="https://roheiss.wordpress.com/fun/" target="_blank">Ronald Heisser</a> and <a href="https://math.mit.edu/directory/profile.php?pid=1787" target="_blank">Vishal Patil</a>, two graduate students currently at Cornell and MIT respectively, read about Feynman's night of noodle snapping in class and were inspired to try and find what could be done to make sure the pasta always broke in two.</p><p><a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-mathematicians-solve-age-old-spaghetti-mystery-0813" target="_blank">By placing the noodles in a special machine</a> built for the task and recording the bending with a high-powered camera, the young scientists were able to observe in extreme detail exactly what each change in their snapping method did to the pasta. After breaking more than 500 noodles, they found the solution.</p>
The apparatus the MIT researchers built specifically for the task of snapping hundreds of spaghetti sticks.
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
A study looks at the performance benefits delivered by asthma drugs when they're taken by athletes who don't have asthma.
- One on hand, the most common health condition among Olympic athletes is asthma. On the other, asthmatic athletes regularly outperform their non-asthmatic counterparts.
- A new study assesses the performance-enhancement effects of asthma medication for non-asthmatics.
- The analysis looks at the effects of both allowed and banned asthma medications.
WADA uncertainty<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU0OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMDc4NjUwN30.fFTvRR0yJDLtFhaYiixh5Fa7NK1t1T4CzUM0Yh6KYiA/img.jpg?width=980" id="01b1b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2fd91a47d91e4d5083449b258a2fd63f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="urine sample for drug test" />
Image source: joel bubble ben/Shutterstock<p>When inhaled β-agonists first came out just before the 1972 Olympics, they were immediately banned altogether by the WADA as possible doping substances. Over the years, the WADA has reexamined their use and refined the organization's stance, evidence of the thorniness of finding an equitable position regarding their use. As of January 2020, only three β-agonists are allowed — salbutamol, formoterol, and salmeterol —and only in inhaled form. Oral consumption appears to have a greater effect on performance.</p>
The study<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU0Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTIzMDQyMX0.Gk4v-7PCA7NohvJjw12L15p7SumPCY0tLdsSlMrLlGs/img.jpg?width=980" id="d3141" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ebe7b30a315aeffcb4fe739095cf0767" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="runner at starting position on track" />
Image source: MinDof/Shutterstock<p>Of primary interest to the authors of the study is confirming and measuring the performance improvement to be gained from β-agonists when they're ingested by athletes who don't have asthma.</p><p>The researchers performed a meta-analysis of 34 existing studies documenting 44 randomized trials reporting on 472 participants. The pool of individuals included was broad, encompassing both untrained and elite athletes. In addition, lab tests, as opposed to actual competitions, tracked performance. The authors of the study therefore recommend taking its conclusions with just a grain of salt.</p><p>The effects of both WADA-banned and approved β-agonists were assessed.</p>
Approved β-agonists and non-asthmatic athletes<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU1MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMzkxODk0M30.3RssFwk_tWkHRkEl_tIee02rdq2tLuAePifnngqcIr8/img.jpg?width=980" id="39a99" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b1fe4a580c6d4f8a0fd021d7d6570e2a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="vaulter clearing pole" />
Image source: Andrey Yurlov/Shutterstock<p>What the meta-analysis showed is that the currently approved β-agonists didn't significantly improve athletic performance among those without asthma — what very slight benefit they <em>may</em> produce is just enough to prompt the study's authors to write that "it is still uncertain whether approved doses improve anaerobic performance." They note that the tiny effect did increase slightly over multiple weeks of β-agonist intake.</p>
Banned β-agonist and non-asthmatic athletes<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU1Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjI3ODU5Mn0.vyoxSE5EYjPGc2ZEbBN8d5F79nSEIiC6TUzTt0ycVqc/img.jpg?width=980" id="de095" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="02fdd42dfda8e3665a7b547bb88007ef" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="swimmer mid stroke" />
Image source: Nejron Photo/Shutterstock<p>The study found that for athletes without asthma, however, the use of currently banned β-agonists did indeed result in enhanced performance. The authors write, "Our meta-analysis shows that β2-agonists improve anaerobic performance by 5%, an improvement that would change the outcome of most athletic competitions."</p><p>That 5 percent is an average: 70-meter sprint performance was improved by 3 percent, while strength performance, MVC (maximal voluntary contraction), was improved by 6 percent.</p><p>The analysis also revealed that different results were produced by different methods of ingestion. The percentages cited above were seen when a β-agonist was ingested orally. The effect was less pronounced when the banned substances were inhaled.</p><p>Given the difference between the results for allowed and banned β-agonists, the study's conclusions suggest that the WADA has it about right, at least in terms of selection of allowable β-agonists, as well as the allowable dosage method.</p>
Takeaway<p>The study, say its authors, "should be of interest to WADA and anyone who is interested in equal opportunities in competitive sports." Its results clearly support vigilance, with the report concluding: "The use of β2-agonists in athletes should be regulated and limited to those with an asthma diagnosis documented with objective tests."</p>
Certain water beetles can escape from frogs after being consumed.
- A Japanese scientist shows that some beetles can wiggle out of frog's butts after being eaten whole.
- The research suggests the beetle can get out in as little as 7 minutes.
- Most of the beetles swallowed in the experiment survived with no complications after being excreted.