Some women are stocking up on the medications, saying they are concerned that the new administration could take steps to restrict access.The day after the election, Beth Ryan ordered two packages of emergency contraception pills and had them sent to her 27-year-old daughter.“We all felt so helpless,” said Ms. Ryan, who lives in Florida, describing her fear that a second Trump administration could further threaten access to reproductive health care. After one of her daughter’s friends, who handles online orders at Target, said he was seeing a burst of demand for Plan B morning-after pills, Ms. Ryan purchased Plan B from Walmart for her daughter in Colorado.“I think I felt better because I could control something,” she said. “I mean, it was something that you could do.”Across the country, some women are taking similar steps, ordering emergency contraceptives, abortion pills or both.There is no national data, but interviews with numerous providers of abortion and contraceptive drugs point to a surge in demand in the immediate aftermath of the election.Wisp, a telehealth provider of medications for reproductive health, said that during the five days after the election it sold more than 10,000 Plan B pills, which do not require a prescription; it sold fewer than 5,000 pills in the same Wednesday-through-Sunday span the week before the election.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

The ruling found that two state laws — one barring use of abortion pills, and one banning all forms of abortion — violated the state Constitution’s “fundamental right to make health care decisions.” A Wyoming judge ruled on Monday that two state abortion bans — including the first state law specifically banning the use of pills for abortion — violated the Wyoming Constitution and could not be enforced.Judge Melissa Owens of Teton County District Court wrote in her ruling that both the ban on medication abortion and a broader ban against all methods of abortion “impede the fundamental right to make health care decisions for an entire class of people, pregnant women.” She added, “The abortion statutes suspend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions during the entire term of a pregnancy and are not reasonable or necessary to protect the health and general welfare of the people.”Enforcement of the two abortion bans, passed last year, had been temporarily halted by Judge Owens while the court case proceeded. Her decision on Monday blocks the laws permanently, although the state is expected to appeal. Efforts to reach the state attorney general’s office and the governor’s office were unsuccessful on Monday night.The suit to block the bans was filed by a group of plaintiffs that included two abortion providers in Wyoming; an obstetrician-gynecologist who often treats high-risk pregnancies; an emergency-room nurse; a fund that gives financing to abortion patients; and a woman who said her Jewish faith required access to abortion if a pregnant woman’s physical or mental health or life was in danger.An amendment to the Wyoming Constitution, approved by an overwhelming majority of the state’s voters in 2012, guarantees adults the right to make their own health care decisions.In court last year, the state, represented by Jay Jerde, a special assistant attorney general for Wyoming, argued that even though doctors and other health providers must be involved in abortions, there were many instances in which abortion was not “health care” because “it’s not restoring the woman’s body from pain, physical disease or sickness.”Mr. Jerde also argued that the constitutional amendment allowing people to make decisions about their own health care did not apply to abortion because terminating a pregnancy affected not just the woman making the decision, but the fetus as well.Judge Owens rejected both of those arguments. She wrote: “The uncontested facts establish that the abortion statutes fail to accomplish any of the asserted interests by the state. The state did not present any evidence refuting or challenging the extensive medical testimony presented by the plaintiffs.”Dr. Giovannina Anthony, an obstetrician-gynecologist and abortion provider who was one of the plaintiffs in the case, said on Monday night that she was “grateful and relieved that the judge agreed that abortion is health care and that abortion bans violate the rights of pregnant women.”Dr. Anthony said she expected the state to appeal. “This is not the end of the fight in Wyoming, but for now we can continue to provide evidence-based care without fear of a prison sentence.”

The Supreme Court ruled in June that the original plaintiffs, anti-abortion doctors and groups, did not have standing to sue. Now three states are trying to continue the legal fight.A lawsuit seeking to sharply restrict the abortion pill mifepristone — a case the Supreme Court threw out this year — has re-emerged in a version that presents new challenges for abortion-rights supporters and the federal government’s ability to regulate abortion medication.The revised lawsuit was filed this month by the conservative state attorneys general of three states — Missouri, Idaho and Kansas — against the Food and Drug Administration in the same federal district court in Texas as the original case. It seeks to reverse numerous regulatory changes the F.D.A. has made since 2016 that greatly expanded access to mifepristone.It also asks for new restrictions, including to outlaw the medication for anyone under 18. And it takes aim at the fast-growing practice of prescribing abortion pills through telemedicine and mailing them to patients, including those in states with abortion bans.In the United States, abortion pills are prescribed up to 12 weeks into pregnancy and are now used in nearly two-thirds of abortions. The typical regimen involves mifepristone, which blocks a hormone needed for pregnancy development, followed 24 to 48 hours later by misoprostol, which causes contractions like a miscarriage. Decades of research has found the pills to be overwhelmingly safe, and serious complications rare.The original lawsuit, filed in 2022 by anti-abortion doctors and groups, was rejected in June by the Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling. The court said that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because they couldn’t show they had been harmed by the F.D.A.’s decisions on mifepristone. But that ruling didn’t extinguish the case’s chance of being revived.Last year, Missouri, Idaho and Kansas petitioned to join the suit at the lower court level and were granted the status of intervenors. The states were denied permission to intervene at the Supreme Court level, but after the original plaintiffs’ claims were rejected, the states remained part of the lower court case, and this month they filed an amended complaint as plaintiffs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Anna Nusslock never expected to be denied an emergency abortion by a hospital in California, a state with some of the strongest abortion rights protections.In February, Dr. Nusslock, 36, a chiropractor in Eureka, Calif., went to the nearest emergency room, at Providence St. Joseph Hospital, after her water broke just 15 weeks into pregnancy. Doctors said one of the twins she was carrying would not survive and the other had almost no chance, according to medical records. They said that if the pregnancy was not terminated, she could face infection, hemorrhaging and threats to her future fertility.But because fetal heart tones could still be detected, a doctor at the Catholic-affiliated hospital said the institution’s policy prohibited providing abortion unless Dr. Nusslock’s life was at risk, according to her medical records. After several hours, her husband drove her to the next closest hospital, where she arrived hemorrhaging and passing a blood clot the size of an apple. She expelled one fetus and was rushed into the operating room so the other fetus could be removed, records show.“I thought I would be safe here from things like this,” Dr. Nusslock said, “from people taking away choices from me and leaving me in danger.”Similar situations have occurred in states with abortion bans, but California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, said Dr. Nusslock’s case shows they can happen “even in California, a place that is very strongly pro-choice.”On Monday, the attorney general filed suit against the company that operates Providence St. Joseph, charging that the hospital violated a California law requiring hospitals with emergency rooms to provide care to prevent not only death, but “serious injury or illness.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

As hormones surge, some brain areas shrink in what scientists say may be a fine-tuning that helps mothers bond with and care for their babies.Research is revealing intriguing clues about how pregnancy changes the brain. Studies scanning women’s brains before and after pregnancy have found that certain brain networks, especially those involved in social and emotional processing, shrink during pregnancy, possibly undergoing a fine-tuning process in preparation for parenting. Such changes correspond with surges in pregnancy hormones, especially estrogen, and some last at least two years after childbirth, researchers have found.A new study, published Monday in the journal Nature Neuroscience, adds to the picture by documenting with M.R.I.s brain changes throughout one woman’s pregnancy. It confirms previous results and adds detail, including that white matter fibers showed greater ability to efficiently transmit signals between brain cells, a change that evaporated once the baby was born.“What’s very interesting about this current study is that it provides such a detailed mapping,” said Elseline Hoekzema, a neuroscientist who heads the Pregnancy and the Brain Lab at Amsterdam University Medical Center and has helped lead studies analyzing brain scans of more than 100 women before and after pregnancy.Dr. Hoekzema, who was not involved in the new study, said it showed that along with previously documented “longer-lasting changes in brain structure and function, more subtle, transient changes also occur.”Dr. Ronald Dahl, director of the Institute of Human Development at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the new study, said the emerging research reflected the key role of hormones in transitions like puberty and pregnancy, guiding neurological shifts in priorities and motivations.“There is that sense that it’s affecting so many of these systems,” he said. The study participant, Elizabeth Chrastil, is a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine. She became pregnant in 2019, at 38, after in vitro fertilization. That allowed precise tracking of her pregnancy from the start.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

A neurologist in Colombia, he worked with the world’s largest extended family with Alzheimer’s and helped fuel research to prevent or delay dementia symptoms.Dr. Francisco Lopera, a trailblazing neurologist who identified the world’s largest extended family with Alzheimer’s and spent decades working with them in his native Colombia, died on Tuesday at his home in Medellín. He was 73. The cause was metastatic melanoma.His death was announced on social media by the neuroscience group at the University of Antioquia in Medellín, which Dr. Lopera led until last month, when he retired.Dr. Lopera, a professor at the university for nearly 40 years, made significant discoveries in the field of Alzheimer’s. His work led to identifying the genetic cause of the extended family’s disease, helped pioneer efforts to find drugs to prevent or delay symptoms and spearheaded discoveries of genetic mutations that appear to be able to forestall cognitive decline.He also spent tremendous time and energy providing care and information to patients and their relatives. He identified about 6,000 members of the large clan in Medellín and mountain villages in northwest Colombia. An estimated 1,200 of them were born with a genetic mutation that causes Alzheimer’s, with symptoms starting in their 40s and often causing death in their 60s.“He was very devoted to finding a cure for Alzheimer’s and trying to stop the disease, but he also knew that there were patients that were already facing the disease,” said Yakeel Quiroz, a Colombian neuropsychologist and director of the Multicultural Alzheimer’s Prevention Program at Massachusetts General Hospital who collaborated with Dr. Lopera and was among the many researchers he mentored.Dr. Lopera with a research colleague, Yakeel Quiroz. “He was very devoted to finding a cure for Alzheimer’s and trying to stop the disease,” she said of Dr. Lopera.Massachusetts General Hospital, via Associated PressWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

The condition has put significant strain on patients and society — at a global economic cost of about $1 trillion a year, a new report estimates.About 400 million people worldwide have been afflicted with long Covid, according to a new report by scientists and other researchers who have studied the condition. The team estimated that the economic cost — from factors like health care services and patients unable to return to work — is about $1 trillion worldwide each year, or about 1 percent of the global economy.The report, published Friday in the journal Nature Medicine, is an effort to summarize the knowledge about and effects of long Covid across the globe four years after it first emerged.It also aims to “provide a road map for policy and research priorities,” said one author, Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, the chief of research and development at the V.A. St. Louis Health Care System and a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis. He wrote the paper with several other leading long Covid researchers and three leaders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an organization formed by long Covid patients who are also professional researchers.Among the conclusions:About 6 percent of adults globally have had long Covid.The authors evaluated scores of studies and metrics to estimate that as of the end of 2023, about 6 percent of adults and about 1 percent of children — or about 400 million people — had ever had long Covid since the pandemic began. They said the estimate accounted for the fact that new cases slowed in 2022 and 2023 because of vaccines and the milder Omicron variant.They suggested that the actual number might be higher because their estimate included only people who developed long Covid after they had symptoms during the infectious stage of the virus, and it did not include people who had more than one Covid infection.Many people have not fully recovered.The authors cited studies suggesting that only 7 percent to 10 percent of long Covid patients fully recovered two years after developing long Covid. They added that “some manifestations of long Covid, including heart disease, diabetes, myalgic encephalomyelitis and dysautonomia are chronic conditions that last a lifetime.”The consequences are far-reaching, the authors wrote: “Long Covid drastically affects patients’ well-being and sense of self, as well as their ability to work, socialize, care for others, manage chores and engage in community activities — which also affects patients’ families, caregivers and their communities.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

It was much more accurate than primary care doctors using cognitive tests and CT scans. The findings could speed the quest for an affordable and accessible way to diagnose patients with memory problems.Scientists have made another major stride toward the long-sought goal of diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease with a simple blood test. On Sunday, a team of researchers reported that a blood test was significantly more accurate than doctors’ interpretation of cognitive tests and CT scans in signaling the condition.The study, published Sunday in the journal JAMA, found that about 90 percent of the time the blood test correctly identified whether patients with memory problems had Alzheimer’s. Dementia specialists using standard methods that did not include expensive PET scans or invasive spinal taps were accurate 73 percent of the time, while primary care doctors using those methods got it right only 61 percent of the time.“Not too long ago measuring pathology in the brain of a living human was considered just impossible,” said Dr. Jason Karlawish, a co-director of the Penn Memory Center at the University of Pennsylvania who was not involved in the research. “This study adds to the revolution that has occurred in our ability to measure what’s going on in the brain of living humans.”The results, presented Sunday at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference in Philadelphia, are the latest milestone in the search for affordable and accessible ways to diagnose Alzheimer’s, a disease that afflicts nearly seven million Americans and over 32 million people worldwide. Medical experts say the findings bring the field closer to a day when people might receive routine blood tests for cognitive impairment as part of primary care checkups, similar to the way they receive cholesterol tests.“Now, we screen people with mammograms and PSA or prostate exams and other things to look for very early signs of cancer,” said Dr. Adam Boxer, a neurologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the study. “And I think we’re going to be doing the same thing for Alzheimer’s disease and hopefully other forms of neurodegeneration.”In recent years, several blood tests have been developed for Alzheimer’s. They are currently used mostly to screen participants in clinical trials and by some specialists like Dr. Boxer to help pinpoint if a patient’s dementia is caused by Alzheimer’s or another condition.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

In the first two years of the pandemic, the rate of long Covid was starkly lower among people who were vaccinated, researchers reported.A large new study provides some of the strongest evidence yet that vaccines reduce the risk of developing long Covid.Scientists looked at people in the United States infected during the first two years of the pandemic and found that the percentage of vaccinated people who developed long Covid was much lower than the percentage of unvaccinated people who did. Medical experts have previously said that vaccines can lower the risk of long Covid, largely because they help prevent severe illness during the infection period and people with severe infections are more likely to have long-term symptoms.But many individuals with mild infections also develop long Covid, and the study, published Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that vaccination did not eliminate all risk of developing the condition, which continues to affect millions in the United States.“There was a residual risk of long Covid among vaccinated persons,” Dr. Clifford Rosen, a senior scientist at the MaineHealth Institute for Research, who was not involved in the study, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Because of that, Dr. Rosen added, new cases of long Covid “may continue unabated.”The study evaluated medical records of millions of patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs health system. It involved nearly 450,000 people who had Covid between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 31, 2022, and about 4.7 million people who were not infected during that time.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

The drug, Kisunla, made by Eli Lilly, is the latest in a new class of treatments that could modestly slow cognitive decline in initial stages of the disease but also carry safety risks.The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday approved a new drug for Alzheimer’s disease, the latest in a novel class of treatments that has been greeted with hope, disappointment and skepticism.The drug, donanemab, to be sold under the brand name Kisunla, was shown in studies to modestly slow the pace of cognitive decline in early stages of the disease. It also had significant safety risks, including swelling and bleeding in the brain.Kisunla, made by Eli Lilly, is similar to another drug, Leqembi, approved last year. Both are intravenous infusions that attack a protein involved in Alzheimer’s, and both can slow the unfolding of dementia by several months. Both also carry similar safety risks. Leqembi, made by Eisai and Biogen, is given every two weeks; Kisunla is given monthly.Kisunla has a significant difference that may appeal to patients, doctors and insurers: Lilly says patients can stop the drug after it clears the protein, amyloid, which clumps into plaques in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s.“Once you’ve removed the target that you’re going after, you then can stop dosing,” said Anne White, an executive vice president of Lilly and president of its neuroscience division. She said that this could reduce the overall cost and inconvenience of the treatment as well as the risk of side effects.The company said that 17 percent of patients receiving donanemab in the 18-month-long clinical trial were able to discontinue the drug at six months, 47 percent stopped within a year and 69 percent stopped within 18 months. Their cognitive decline continued to slow even after they stopped. The company is evaluating how long that slowing will continue past the duration of the trial, said Dr. John Sims, a medical director at Lilly.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.