The NY Times has stirred up some controversy by recommending a novel flavor combination: guacamole made with peas. I must weigh in.
iStock_000001074285Small
Sounds delicious! Would love to try it!
The NY Times has stirred up some controversy by recommending a novel flavor combination: guacamole made with peas. I must weigh in.
iStock_000001074285Small
Sounds delicious! Would love to try it!
July 2015 has two full moons. That’s somewhat unusual. Most months only have one. But in cycles of 19 years, or 228 calendar months, seven to eight calendar months will always have two full moons. In other words, there’s a month with two full moons every two to three years. When it happens, the second one is popularly called a Blue Moon.
To learn the history of Blue Moons, click here
The Blue Moon of July 31 and the 19-year Metonic cycle
Image on top by EarthSky Facebook friend VegaStar Carpentier in Paris.
Best photos: Venus and Jupiter, west after sunset
The first full moon of July falls on July 2 at 2:20 Universal Time (July 1 at 10:20 p.m. EDT, 9:20 p.m. CDT, 8:20 p.m. MDT pr 7:20 p.m. PDT). Although the full moon occurs at the same instant worldwide, our clocks read differently according to our local time zones.
The second July full moon will fall on July 31 at 10:43 Universal Time (5:43 a.m. CDT in the central U.S.). This second full moon is the Blue Moon.
By recent popular acclaim, the second of two full moons in a single calendar month goes by the name of Blue Moon. According to folklore, there are other definitions for Blue Moon. A Blue Moon can also be the third of four full moons in a season. But the second-full-moon-in-a-month definition is the easier to remember, and it’s probably what most people think of when they hear Blue Moon. Once again, the Blue Moon – the second full moon of July 2015 – will come on July 31 at 10:43 Universal Time.
Day and night sides of Earth at instant of first July full moon
Day and night sides of Earth at the instant of the first July 2015 full moon (2015 July 2 at 2:20 Universal Time). Image credit: Earth and Moon Viewer
After July 2015, we will see two full moons in a single calendar month again in January 2018. There will be no full moon in February 2018, and then two full moons in March 2018.
If we exclude February, each calendar month is either 30 or 31 days long. On the other hand, the time period between full moons varies from about 29.3 to 29.8 days. So if the full moon comes very early in the month – as it does in July 2015 – that leaves enough time for another full moon to beat out the clock before the month’s end.
February is the only month that doesn’t have enough room for two full moons, and it’s the only month where it’s possible to have no full moon at all. In years where February has no full moon – such as in 2018, and 19 years later in 2037 – January and March both count as Blue-Moon months.
In other words, 2018 and 2037 will feature years of double Blue Moons.
Bottom line: July 2015 will have two full moons. The first one takes place on July 2 at 2:20 Universal Time – that’s on July 1, at 10:20 p.m. EDT, 9:20 p.m. CDT, 8:20 p.m. MDT or 7:20 p.m. PDT according to U.S. clocks. The second full moon of July – on July 31, 2015 – will be called a Blue Moon. Watch for the first of the month’s two full moons tonight. This lovely July full moon will light up the nighttime from dusk until dawn!
Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!
Donate: Your support means the world to us
July 2015 has two full moons. That’s somewhat unusual. Most months only have one. But in cycles of 19 years, or 228 calendar months, seven to eight calendar months will always have two full moons. In other words, there’s a month with two full moons every two to three years. When it happens, the second one is popularly called a Blue Moon.
To learn the history of Blue Moons, click here
The Blue Moon of July 31 and the 19-year Metonic cycle
Image on top by EarthSky Facebook friend VegaStar Carpentier in Paris.
Best photos: Venus and Jupiter, west after sunset
The first full moon of July falls on July 2 at 2:20 Universal Time (July 1 at 10:20 p.m. EDT, 9:20 p.m. CDT, 8:20 p.m. MDT pr 7:20 p.m. PDT). Although the full moon occurs at the same instant worldwide, our clocks read differently according to our local time zones.
The second July full moon will fall on July 31 at 10:43 Universal Time (5:43 a.m. CDT in the central U.S.). This second full moon is the Blue Moon.
By recent popular acclaim, the second of two full moons in a single calendar month goes by the name of Blue Moon. According to folklore, there are other definitions for Blue Moon. A Blue Moon can also be the third of four full moons in a season. But the second-full-moon-in-a-month definition is the easier to remember, and it’s probably what most people think of when they hear Blue Moon. Once again, the Blue Moon – the second full moon of July 2015 – will come on July 31 at 10:43 Universal Time.
Day and night sides of Earth at instant of first July full moon
Day and night sides of Earth at the instant of the first July 2015 full moon (2015 July 2 at 2:20 Universal Time). Image credit: Earth and Moon Viewer
After July 2015, we will see two full moons in a single calendar month again in January 2018. There will be no full moon in February 2018, and then two full moons in March 2018.
If we exclude February, each calendar month is either 30 or 31 days long. On the other hand, the time period between full moons varies from about 29.3 to 29.8 days. So if the full moon comes very early in the month – as it does in July 2015 – that leaves enough time for another full moon to beat out the clock before the month’s end.
February is the only month that doesn’t have enough room for two full moons, and it’s the only month where it’s possible to have no full moon at all. In years where February has no full moon – such as in 2018, and 19 years later in 2037 – January and March both count as Blue-Moon months.
In other words, 2018 and 2037 will feature years of double Blue Moons.
Bottom line: July 2015 will have two full moons. The first one takes place on July 2 at 2:20 Universal Time – that’s on July 1, at 10:20 p.m. EDT, 9:20 p.m. CDT, 8:20 p.m. MDT or 7:20 p.m. PDT according to U.S. clocks. The second full moon of July – on July 31, 2015 – will be called a Blue Moon. Watch for the first of the month’s two full moons tonight. This lovely July full moon will light up the nighttime from dusk until dawn!
Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!
Donate: Your support means the world to us
This movie, from New Horizons’ highest-resolution imager, shows Pluto and Charon as the spacecraft closes in on the Pluto system for a July 14 flyby.
Image credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute
In the annotated version, below, Pluto’s prime meridian (the region of the planet that faces Charon) is shown in yellow and the equator is shown in pink.
Enjoying EarthSky? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!
This time-lapse approach movie was made from images from the Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) camera aboard New Horizons spacecraft taken between May 28 and June 25, 2015. During that time the spacecraft distance to Pluto decreased almost threefold, from about 35 million miles to 14 million miles (56 million kilometers to 22 million kilometers). The images show Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, growing in apparent size as New Horizons closes in. As it rotates, Pluto displays a strongly contrasting surface dominated by a bright northern hemisphere, with a discontinuous band of darker material running along the equator. Charon has a dark polar region, and there are indications of brightness variations at lower latitudes.
Methane detected
The infrared spectrometer on the New Horizons spacecraft has detected frozen methane on Pluto’s surface; Earth-based astronomers first observed the chemical compound on Pluto in 1976.
Will Grundy is the New Horizons Surface Composition team leader with the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. Grundy said:
We already knew there was methane on Pluto, but these are our first detections,” said “Soon we will know if there are differences in the presence of methane ice from one part of Pluto to another.
Methane (chemical formula CH4) is an odorless, colorless gas that is present underground and in the atmosphere on Earth. On Pluto, methane may be primordial, inherited from the solar nebula from which the solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago.
New Horizons is Earth’s fast-moving spacecraft yet, but it has been traveling for nine years – nearly a decade – to make the 3 billion mile (5 billion km) journey to Pluto. During its close encounter with Pluto, New Horizons will fly within 7,750 miles (12,500 km) of the dwarf planet and capture the first-ever close-up views of this little world and its system of five known moons.
The video below captures the excitement of the upcoming July 14 spacecraft encounter with Pluto. The real thing will be better and is just ahead!
The New Horizons spacecraft’s flyby of the Pluto system is on July 14, 2015. Newest images and updates.
This movie, from New Horizons’ highest-resolution imager, shows Pluto and Charon as the spacecraft closes in on the Pluto system for a July 14 flyby.
Image credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute
In the annotated version, below, Pluto’s prime meridian (the region of the planet that faces Charon) is shown in yellow and the equator is shown in pink.
Enjoying EarthSky? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!
This time-lapse approach movie was made from images from the Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) camera aboard New Horizons spacecraft taken between May 28 and June 25, 2015. During that time the spacecraft distance to Pluto decreased almost threefold, from about 35 million miles to 14 million miles (56 million kilometers to 22 million kilometers). The images show Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, growing in apparent size as New Horizons closes in. As it rotates, Pluto displays a strongly contrasting surface dominated by a bright northern hemisphere, with a discontinuous band of darker material running along the equator. Charon has a dark polar region, and there are indications of brightness variations at lower latitudes.
Methane detected
The infrared spectrometer on the New Horizons spacecraft has detected frozen methane on Pluto’s surface; Earth-based astronomers first observed the chemical compound on Pluto in 1976.
Will Grundy is the New Horizons Surface Composition team leader with the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. Grundy said:
We already knew there was methane on Pluto, but these are our first detections,” said “Soon we will know if there are differences in the presence of methane ice from one part of Pluto to another.
Methane (chemical formula CH4) is an odorless, colorless gas that is present underground and in the atmosphere on Earth. On Pluto, methane may be primordial, inherited from the solar nebula from which the solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago.
New Horizons is Earth’s fast-moving spacecraft yet, but it has been traveling for nine years – nearly a decade – to make the 3 billion mile (5 billion km) journey to Pluto. During its close encounter with Pluto, New Horizons will fly within 7,750 miles (12,500 km) of the dwarf planet and capture the first-ever close-up views of this little world and its system of five known moons.
The video below captures the excitement of the upcoming July 14 spacecraft encounter with Pluto. The real thing will be better and is just ahead!
The New Horizons spacecraft’s flyby of the Pluto system is on July 14, 2015. Newest images and updates.
I want to quickly mention two interesting items that crossed my desk. First is a study in Nature that looks at changes in extreme weather patterns between 1979 and very recently, the other is a study of how media has been addressing climate science denial among presidential candidates.
First, the changes in weather. Human caused greenhouse gas pollution has resulted in important changes in key factors that affect the weather. The simplest (but not complete) explanation is probably this. Overall patterns of air circulation (including the moisture that is in the air) are patterned by two major facts. One, is that the Earth is spinning, the other is that the Sun’s energy is effectively greater near the Equator than on the poles. These factors cause the Earth’s atmosphere to be organized in a system of trade winds and jet streams. As the Earth has heated up, the Arctic, for various reasons, has heated up more than most other regions. This has caused a reduction in the difference between tropical (equatorial) heat and polar heat, which in turn, has changed the trade winds and jet streams. The most obvious change seems to be a slowing down of the Polar jet stream, an increase in the waviness of that jet stream, and also, a stalling of those waves, so they sit in one place for a long time. These changes have resulted in things like Alaska being extraordinarily warm, the so-called “Polar Vortex” freezing out the US east of the Rockies two years in a row, extreme rain events such as those that affected Calgary, Boulder, and other areas, snow in Atlanta, etc. Similar effects have occurred across Eurasia as well.
The recent study looks at what is happening in the atmosphere. John Abraham has written the study up in very understandable terms in The Guardian, where he says:
…the authors focused on pressure levels up into the atmosphere (heights of approximately 5 km) from 1979 onwards. Those patterns gave information about atmospheric circulation…
…What they found is that most regions have seen increases in summertime warm temperatures in the past three decades. Furthermore, they found that in some regions, a large part of this trend is due to the increases in anticyclonic circulation and atmospheric blocking. The blocking that has been associated with extreme swings of weather (bringing very warm weather to the Western USA and simultaneous cold weather to the east for instance).
The authors show that … in some cases the circulation changes has led to extreme cold outbreaks in some regions. What has happened is that the arctic front, which typically confines cold weather to the Arctic region, has undulated sufficiently to allow cold-air breakouts to the south. Think of the polar vortex from last year.
These findings support the commonly-heard term that has emerged in the past few years of “weather whiplash – wild swings from one extreme to another. Importantly, the authors show that the trends are “statistically significant” and are unlikely just random occurrences.
This work supports a number of other recent studies suggesting that the “Storm World” we have been expecting with global warming is here, and increasing in its storminess.
I understand why Media Matters puts this in a negative light, because it is in fact appalling that the media are so bad at this. But when I saw the numbers I saw a glass that was (about) half full rather than half empty. Going back just a year or so, major media wasn’t even doing this much fact checking, preferring rather to use the sensationalism that derives from a false balance than to actually look at what elected officials are saying. So when Media Matters says, “43 Percent Of Newspaper Coverage Failed To Note That Candidates’ Climate Statements Conflict With Scientific Consensus,” I think, “wow, that’s an improvement!
I want to quickly mention two interesting items that crossed my desk. First is a study in Nature that looks at changes in extreme weather patterns between 1979 and very recently, the other is a study of how media has been addressing climate science denial among presidential candidates.
First, the changes in weather. Human caused greenhouse gas pollution has resulted in important changes in key factors that affect the weather. The simplest (but not complete) explanation is probably this. Overall patterns of air circulation (including the moisture that is in the air) are patterned by two major facts. One, is that the Earth is spinning, the other is that the Sun’s energy is effectively greater near the Equator than on the poles. These factors cause the Earth’s atmosphere to be organized in a system of trade winds and jet streams. As the Earth has heated up, the Arctic, for various reasons, has heated up more than most other regions. This has caused a reduction in the difference between tropical (equatorial) heat and polar heat, which in turn, has changed the trade winds and jet streams. The most obvious change seems to be a slowing down of the Polar jet stream, an increase in the waviness of that jet stream, and also, a stalling of those waves, so they sit in one place for a long time. These changes have resulted in things like Alaska being extraordinarily warm, the so-called “Polar Vortex” freezing out the US east of the Rockies two years in a row, extreme rain events such as those that affected Calgary, Boulder, and other areas, snow in Atlanta, etc. Similar effects have occurred across Eurasia as well.
The recent study looks at what is happening in the atmosphere. John Abraham has written the study up in very understandable terms in The Guardian, where he says:
…the authors focused on pressure levels up into the atmosphere (heights of approximately 5 km) from 1979 onwards. Those patterns gave information about atmospheric circulation…
…What they found is that most regions have seen increases in summertime warm temperatures in the past three decades. Furthermore, they found that in some regions, a large part of this trend is due to the increases in anticyclonic circulation and atmospheric blocking. The blocking that has been associated with extreme swings of weather (bringing very warm weather to the Western USA and simultaneous cold weather to the east for instance).
The authors show that … in some cases the circulation changes has led to extreme cold outbreaks in some regions. What has happened is that the arctic front, which typically confines cold weather to the Arctic region, has undulated sufficiently to allow cold-air breakouts to the south. Think of the polar vortex from last year.
These findings support the commonly-heard term that has emerged in the past few years of “weather whiplash – wild swings from one extreme to another. Importantly, the authors show that the trends are “statistically significant” and are unlikely just random occurrences.
This work supports a number of other recent studies suggesting that the “Storm World” we have been expecting with global warming is here, and increasing in its storminess.
I understand why Media Matters puts this in a negative light, because it is in fact appalling that the media are so bad at this. But when I saw the numbers I saw a glass that was (about) half full rather than half empty. Going back just a year or so, major media wasn’t even doing this much fact checking, preferring rather to use the sensationalism that derives from a false balance than to actually look at what elected officials are saying. So when Media Matters says, “43 Percent Of Newspaper Coverage Failed To Note That Candidates’ Climate Statements Conflict With Scientific Consensus,” I think, “wow, that’s an improvement!
Close-up of pit on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. This is the most active pit, known as Seth_01. A new study suggests this pit and others like it could be sinkholes. Image via Rosetta spacecraft, Vincent et al., Nature Publishing Group
Scientists announced this week (July 1, 2015) that several surprisingly deep, almost perfectly circular pits on the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko – which has been orbited by ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft since August, 2014 – may be sinkholes. In a way that tells us that nature operates in a similar way across the many worlds in our solar system, these pits may be formed in much the same way as sinkholes on Earth. On Comet 67P, though, the sinkholes form when ices beneath the comet’s surface sublimate, or turn directly to gas, as the comet gets closer to the sun. The study appears in the July 2, 2015, issue of the journal Nature.
The pits are large, ranging from tens of meters in diameter up to several hundred meters across. There are two distinct types of pits: deep ones with steep sides and shallower pits that more closely resemble those seen on other comets, such as 9P/Tempel 1 and 81P/Wild. Jets of gas and dust can be seen streaming from the sides of the deep, steep-sided pits – a phenomenon not seen in the shallower pits. Astronomer Dennis Bodewits at the University of Maryland, a co-author on the study, commented in a statement:
These strange, circular pits are just as deep as they are wide. Rosetta can peer right into them.
Pit known as Seth_01. Image via Rosetta spacecraft, Vincent et al., Nature Publishing Group
Sinkholes occur on Earth when subsurface erosion removes a large amount of material beneath the surface, creating a cavern. Eventually the ceiling of the cavern will collapse under its own weight, leaving a sinkhole behind.
Bodewits and the other astronomers on the team used Rosetta observations to create a model for the formation of the possible sinkholes on Rosetta’s comet. The comet has been drawing nearer the sun throughout the time that the spacecraft has been orbiting it. Its perihelion – closest point to the sun – will come on August 13. As the comet draws closer to the sun in its orbit, it warms. Ices in the body of the comet – primarily water, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide – begin to sublimate. These astronomers say that the voids created by the loss of these ice chunks eventually grow large enough that their ceilings collapse under their own weight, giving rise to the deep, steep-sided circular pits seen on the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Their statement explained:
The collapse exposes comet ices to sunlight for the first time, which causes the ice chunks to begin sublimating immediately. These deeper pits are therefore thought to be relatively young. Their shallower counterparts, on the other hand, are most likely older sinkholes with more thoroughly eroded sidewalls and bottoms that have been filled in by dust and ice chunks.
The European Space Agency officially extended the Rosetta mission last month, which means that the spacecraft will have the opportunity to track Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as it reaches its closest point to the sun and then begins moving away. The extension expands the mission by nine months, from the planned end date of December 2015 to September 2016.
The extra observational time will enable the team to see how the comet’s surface responds to decreasing solar radiation.
Pit known as Seth_01. Image via Rosetta spacecraft, Vincent et al., Nature Publishing Group
Bottom line: Scientists say that deep, almost perfectly circular pits on the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko may be sinkholes. Sinkholes on Earth happen when a subsurface cavern collapses. On the comet, the caverns may be created by ices turning to gas, as the comet nears the sun.
Close-up of pit on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. This is the most active pit, known as Seth_01. A new study suggests this pit and others like it could be sinkholes. Image via Rosetta spacecraft, Vincent et al., Nature Publishing Group
Scientists announced this week (July 1, 2015) that several surprisingly deep, almost perfectly circular pits on the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko – which has been orbited by ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft since August, 2014 – may be sinkholes. In a way that tells us that nature operates in a similar way across the many worlds in our solar system, these pits may be formed in much the same way as sinkholes on Earth. On Comet 67P, though, the sinkholes form when ices beneath the comet’s surface sublimate, or turn directly to gas, as the comet gets closer to the sun. The study appears in the July 2, 2015, issue of the journal Nature.
The pits are large, ranging from tens of meters in diameter up to several hundred meters across. There are two distinct types of pits: deep ones with steep sides and shallower pits that more closely resemble those seen on other comets, such as 9P/Tempel 1 and 81P/Wild. Jets of gas and dust can be seen streaming from the sides of the deep, steep-sided pits – a phenomenon not seen in the shallower pits. Astronomer Dennis Bodewits at the University of Maryland, a co-author on the study, commented in a statement:
These strange, circular pits are just as deep as they are wide. Rosetta can peer right into them.
Pit known as Seth_01. Image via Rosetta spacecraft, Vincent et al., Nature Publishing Group
Sinkholes occur on Earth when subsurface erosion removes a large amount of material beneath the surface, creating a cavern. Eventually the ceiling of the cavern will collapse under its own weight, leaving a sinkhole behind.
Bodewits and the other astronomers on the team used Rosetta observations to create a model for the formation of the possible sinkholes on Rosetta’s comet. The comet has been drawing nearer the sun throughout the time that the spacecraft has been orbiting it. Its perihelion – closest point to the sun – will come on August 13. As the comet draws closer to the sun in its orbit, it warms. Ices in the body of the comet – primarily water, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide – begin to sublimate. These astronomers say that the voids created by the loss of these ice chunks eventually grow large enough that their ceilings collapse under their own weight, giving rise to the deep, steep-sided circular pits seen on the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Their statement explained:
The collapse exposes comet ices to sunlight for the first time, which causes the ice chunks to begin sublimating immediately. These deeper pits are therefore thought to be relatively young. Their shallower counterparts, on the other hand, are most likely older sinkholes with more thoroughly eroded sidewalls and bottoms that have been filled in by dust and ice chunks.
The European Space Agency officially extended the Rosetta mission last month, which means that the spacecraft will have the opportunity to track Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as it reaches its closest point to the sun and then begins moving away. The extension expands the mission by nine months, from the planned end date of December 2015 to September 2016.
The extra observational time will enable the team to see how the comet’s surface responds to decreasing solar radiation.
Pit known as Seth_01. Image via Rosetta spacecraft, Vincent et al., Nature Publishing Group
Bottom line: Scientists say that deep, almost perfectly circular pits on the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko may be sinkholes. Sinkholes on Earth happen when a subsurface cavern collapses. On the comet, the caverns may be created by ices turning to gas, as the comet nears the sun.
The Republican-led House Appropriations Committee’s FY 2016 Labor, Health and Human Services funding bill contains a single sentence that could dramatically set back public health: “None of the funds appropriated in this Act 4 may be used to carry out title X of the PHS Act.”
Title X is a federal grant program that funds a network of 4,400 centers that provide high-quality, cost-effective family-planning services for approximately five million clients each year. These centers also offer breast and cervical cancer screening and pregnancy testing, and they provide both men and women with HIV testing and screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. They serve low-income clients and base fees on clients’ ability to pay; in 2011, 91% of clients had incomes at or below 250% of the federal poverty level. Many of these clients live in medically underserved areas and would find it difficult to access care from another provider.
By providing important health services to low-income clients, Title X saves the federal government money. Last year, the journal The Milbank Quarterly published an analysis of return on investment of the US publicly funded family planning program (which includes Medicaid family-planning spending as well as Title X). Jennifer J. Frost and her Guttmacher Institute colleagues found:
The public investment in family planning programs and providers not only helps women and couples avoid unintended pregnancy and abortion, but also helps many thousands avoid cervical cancer, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, infertility, and preterm and low birth weight births.
This investment resulted in net government savings of $13.6 billion in 2010, or $7.09 for every public dollar spent.
Even if these investments didn’t have such an impressive return on investment, I’d argue that spending on family-planning and preventive services for low-income women is a worthwhile investment in public health. As the CDC noted when it included family planning among its Ten Great Public Health Achievements of the 20th Century, “Smaller families and longer birth intervals have contributed to the better health of infants, children, and women.” When spending on Title X leads to both improved public health and substantial federal savings, it’s a win-win … right? Not to the House Appropriations Committe, it seems.
The House Appropriations Committee press release about the spending Labor-HHS spending bill proclaims, “Funding within the bill is targeted to proven programs with the most national benefit, including medical research, public health, and biodefense, as well as activities to ensure Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid services are efficient, effective, and accountable to those Americans they serve. While making these important investments, the bill reduces funding in lower-priority areas, and cuts ineffective or wasteful programs and agencies.” Title X is the opposite of ineffective and wasteful, and it improves public health — so why cut it?
The New York Times editorial board suggests that it’s about abortion: Planned Parenthood is Title X’s biggest recipient. Federal rules prohibit Planned Parenthood centers from using Title funds for abortions, and 90% of its clients go there for services other than abortions. In fact, many of the services women receive at Planned Parenthood and other Title X centers help prevent abortions. A Guttmacher Institute analysis found that in 2010, family-planning services from Title X-supported sites helped women avert 1.2 million unintended pregnancies, which prevented 403,000 abortions. The New York Times editorial concludes:
Sadly, that’s no surprise coming from the House Republicans, whose zeal to stop the government from providing an essential service like health care to lower-income Americans has also resulted in dozens of votes to cripple or repeal the Affordable Care Act. (The new spending bill would also roll back much of the health care law.)
This latest bill aims squarely at one of the nation’s most vulnerable groups — poorer women, many of whom live in rural areas with little access to health care of any kind. So much for compassionate conservatism.
I’d like to know what the thought process was behind this spending bill provision. Is being able to cut $300 million in FY 2016 more important than the billions more in future federal spending that will result? Is being able to say “I cut funding for Planned Parenthood” on the campaign trail more valuable than continuing a program that prevents hundreds of thousands of abortions each year? Does low-income women’s access to contraception and cancer screenings just not matter to high-income men (or Representatives Kay Granger (R-TX), Jaime Herrera Butler (R-WA), or Martha Roby (R-AL) )?
This House proposal isn’t the last word on 2016 spending. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s Labor-HHS FY 2016 funding bill would fund Title X at $257.8 million, which is 10% lower than FY 2015 levels. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), and Susan Collins (R-ME) offered amendments that would have funded the program at higher levels, but these did not pass. (In the House, amendments from Representatives Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) to fund Title X at $300 million also failed.) Advocacy efforts are underway, and anyone who’s been following politics for the past few years knows that budget battles can drag on for months. Title X isn’t dead yet, but I’d still like to know why House Republicans think it’s okay to cut a money-saving program that’s so good for public health.
Liz Borkowski, MPH is managing editor of the journal Women’s Health Issues and a researcher with the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. Her research projects include the Confidential & Covered project, which works to help Title X providers continue protecting patient confidentiality while pursuing reimbursement in a new insurance environment. Her views are her own, and do not represent the views of any employer or funder.
The Republican-led House Appropriations Committee’s FY 2016 Labor, Health and Human Services funding bill contains a single sentence that could dramatically set back public health: “None of the funds appropriated in this Act 4 may be used to carry out title X of the PHS Act.”
Title X is a federal grant program that funds a network of 4,400 centers that provide high-quality, cost-effective family-planning services for approximately five million clients each year. These centers also offer breast and cervical cancer screening and pregnancy testing, and they provide both men and women with HIV testing and screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. They serve low-income clients and base fees on clients’ ability to pay; in 2011, 91% of clients had incomes at or below 250% of the federal poverty level. Many of these clients live in medically underserved areas and would find it difficult to access care from another provider.
By providing important health services to low-income clients, Title X saves the federal government money. Last year, the journal The Milbank Quarterly published an analysis of return on investment of the US publicly funded family planning program (which includes Medicaid family-planning spending as well as Title X). Jennifer J. Frost and her Guttmacher Institute colleagues found:
The public investment in family planning programs and providers not only helps women and couples avoid unintended pregnancy and abortion, but also helps many thousands avoid cervical cancer, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, infertility, and preterm and low birth weight births.
This investment resulted in net government savings of $13.6 billion in 2010, or $7.09 for every public dollar spent.
Even if these investments didn’t have such an impressive return on investment, I’d argue that spending on family-planning and preventive services for low-income women is a worthwhile investment in public health. As the CDC noted when it included family planning among its Ten Great Public Health Achievements of the 20th Century, “Smaller families and longer birth intervals have contributed to the better health of infants, children, and women.” When spending on Title X leads to both improved public health and substantial federal savings, it’s a win-win … right? Not to the House Appropriations Committe, it seems.
The House Appropriations Committee press release about the spending Labor-HHS spending bill proclaims, “Funding within the bill is targeted to proven programs with the most national benefit, including medical research, public health, and biodefense, as well as activities to ensure Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid services are efficient, effective, and accountable to those Americans they serve. While making these important investments, the bill reduces funding in lower-priority areas, and cuts ineffective or wasteful programs and agencies.” Title X is the opposite of ineffective and wasteful, and it improves public health — so why cut it?
The New York Times editorial board suggests that it’s about abortion: Planned Parenthood is Title X’s biggest recipient. Federal rules prohibit Planned Parenthood centers from using Title funds for abortions, and 90% of its clients go there for services other than abortions. In fact, many of the services women receive at Planned Parenthood and other Title X centers help prevent abortions. A Guttmacher Institute analysis found that in 2010, family-planning services from Title X-supported sites helped women avert 1.2 million unintended pregnancies, which prevented 403,000 abortions. The New York Times editorial concludes:
Sadly, that’s no surprise coming from the House Republicans, whose zeal to stop the government from providing an essential service like health care to lower-income Americans has also resulted in dozens of votes to cripple or repeal the Affordable Care Act. (The new spending bill would also roll back much of the health care law.)
This latest bill aims squarely at one of the nation’s most vulnerable groups — poorer women, many of whom live in rural areas with little access to health care of any kind. So much for compassionate conservatism.
I’d like to know what the thought process was behind this spending bill provision. Is being able to cut $300 million in FY 2016 more important than the billions more in future federal spending that will result? Is being able to say “I cut funding for Planned Parenthood” on the campaign trail more valuable than continuing a program that prevents hundreds of thousands of abortions each year? Does low-income women’s access to contraception and cancer screenings just not matter to high-income men (or Representatives Kay Granger (R-TX), Jaime Herrera Butler (R-WA), or Martha Roby (R-AL) )?
This House proposal isn’t the last word on 2016 spending. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s Labor-HHS FY 2016 funding bill would fund Title X at $257.8 million, which is 10% lower than FY 2015 levels. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), and Susan Collins (R-ME) offered amendments that would have funded the program at higher levels, but these did not pass. (In the House, amendments from Representatives Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) to fund Title X at $300 million also failed.) Advocacy efforts are underway, and anyone who’s been following politics for the past few years knows that budget battles can drag on for months. Title X isn’t dead yet, but I’d still like to know why House Republicans think it’s okay to cut a money-saving program that’s so good for public health.
Liz Borkowski, MPH is managing editor of the journal Women’s Health Issues and a researcher with the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. Her research projects include the Confidential & Covered project, which works to help Title X providers continue protecting patient confidentiality while pursuing reimbursement in a new insurance environment. Her views are her own, and do not represent the views of any employer or funder.
