Author: Lindsay Mitchell

Deregulating the EPA: How the Elimination of the Endangerment Finding Ignores Health Consequences for Infants and Children

This month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration rescinded the Obama-era Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and the subsequent emission regulation standards that have accompanied it. Published by the EPA on December 15, 2009, the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act found that six greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—contribute to air pollution and endanger public health and welfare of current and future generations. In the sixteen years since the endangerment finding was published, scientific evidence supporting each impact noted in the finding has become virtually indisputable; every ton of emissions increases the severity of expected climate impact, and every exposure to compound climate events “can increase morbidity and mortality.” Notably absent from the Agency’s news release is any discussion of or consideration for the health impacts that the finding sought to protect against.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks has directed government agencies to identify and assess environmental health risks that may “disproportionately affect children” since 1997. In its full report, the EPA uses careful language to skirt this obligation, stating that children “are not expected to experience greater ambient concentrations of air pollutants than the general population.” The statement points out the obvious–children are breathing air with the same chemical composition as everyone else–while ignoring the reality that the health consequences of air pollution have a far greater impact on growing and developing bodies than it does on fully developed adults. 

Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases have caused overall warming and more extreme weather patterns and heat events. In looking at the health impacts on children, the American Academy of Pediatrics 2024 Policy Statement outlined the specific effects of increased emissions against real health consequences. One study analyzed infant mortality data on an individual level against outdoor air temperature data for over 60,000 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) cases between 1972 and 2006, finding that a ten degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the summer was associated with an 8.6% increase in the risk of SIDS. For black infants, the increased risk was 18.5%. In addition to the risk of rising temperatures, an analysis of six years of pediatric respiratory health data in San Diego County found particulate pollution from wildfires to be approximately ten times more harmful to children’s health than particulate matter from other sources. While climate change alone is not the sole cause of wildfires, the scientific consensus is that human-caused global warming contributes significantly to the trend of larger, more severe wildfires across California and the Southwest. 

Air pollution and heat exposure from climate change are also associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Exposure to ultrafine particulate matter is associated with increased risk of preterm birth and low birth weight, with higher risk found among black mothers, and mothers with asthma. Continued exposure to air pollution after birth can also affect lung development, leading to a greater risk of lung disease.

While the announcement from the EPA this month focused its priorities on the American consumer’s freedom to buy whatever car they want, it ignores its own origins as an agency founded on principles of achieving national air quality standards and reducing automobile pollution. The science of the last sixteen years makes it abundantly clear that not only does climate change increase the risk of negative health outcomes, but those risks are substantially higher for children and other high risk groups. The battle over this deregulation, however, has only just begun. The American Public Health Association, jointly with numerous other health and environmental groups, has already filed suit challenging the EPA and California is expected to follow soon.

Criminalizing Miscarriage: How the Law Penalizes Grieving Mothers

Miscarriage—pregnancy loss prior to twenty weeks gestation—occurs in as many as one in five known pregnancies. Most of these occur in the first thirteen weeks, with chromosomal abnormalities accounting for nearly half of the miscarriages that occur in the first trimester. Treatment options include expectant management, medication, and surgical intervention, with 70-80% of mothers being able to pass a miscarriage naturally without medication or surgery. That means, with up to one million mothers experiencing miscarriage annually in the U.S. alone, over 700,000 of them are managing that loss from their own homes. Studies accounting for race have shown that black women are disproportionately affected with almost twice as much risk of miscarriage as other ethnic groups.

In the first year after the Dobbs decision, the U.S. saw criminal charges for at least 210 pregnant people related to pregnancy, pregnancy loss, and birth. This number represents a single-year high since researchers began documenting cases. For reference, only around 1,800 pregnancy-related charges were documented in the entire forty-nine years that Roe v. Wade held precedent. Since Dobbs, fetal personhood laws have expanded considerably, with seventeen states now granting fetuses the same level of legal protection as living humans. Lawmakers opposed to these measures have tried to sound the alarm about the risk of criminal charges for miscarrying mothers.

In March of this year, what began as a 911 call for a medical emergency ultimately led to the arrest of Selena Maria Chandler-Scott, a 24-year-old Georgia mother. At 19-weeks pregnant, Chandler-Scott suffered a miscarriage. First responders took her to the hospital after they discovered her unconscious and bleeding in her apartment, but a witness also reported having seen her dispose of fetal remains in the dumpster of their apartment complex. At a time when she was likely experiencing intense grief, Chandler-Scott also had to navigate criminal charges in the days following her pregnancy loss. Though they were ultimately dropped, Chandler-Scott was initially charged with concealing a death and abandonment of a dead body. She was cleared only after the autopsy report showed the miscarriage was naturally occurring.

Brittany Watts, an Ohio woman, faced charges similar to Chandler-Scott’s after miscarrying in October 2023. After hours waiting for the hospital to determine the legality of inducing labor after her water broke prematurely, Watts went home, where she ultimately miscarried naturally. When she returned for further medical treatment after miscarrying a pregnancy that the hospital had already determined was both a significant risk to Watts’s health and nonviable, the hospital reported Watts to the local police department. Unlike Chandler-Scott, however, the determination that the miscarriage was naturally occurring did not clear Watts of criminal charges for abuse of a corpse.  The county prosecutor’s office pressed forward, and Watts was cleared only after a Grand Jury declined to indict her for the fifth degree felony.

In addition to criminal charges, miscarrying mothers also face an increased risk of negative health outcomes in post-Dobbs America. Because of fetal personhood laws, doctors in many states are barred from medically intervening so long as the fetus still has a heartbeat. Under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), doctors are legally protected for abortion care provided during emergency circumstances. The Supreme Court in 2024 held that state laws cannot preempt this legal protection for preventing “grave harms.” Doctors, however, remain fearful of legal repercussions and often wait before treating pregnant patients.  Kyleigh Thurman was discharged from a Texas hospital without treatment for her ectopic pregnancy, which ruptured days later, resulting in the loss of her fallopian tube and permanent damage to her reproductive system. Neveah Crain died after doctors failed to treat her for sepsis when she was six months pregnant.

In contradiction of the Court, the Department of Health and Human Services rescinded its letter of support for EMTALA compliance in June 2025, further complicating access to medical care for pregnant patients in fetal personhood states. To improve access to essential healthcare, we must address the underlying legal issues that threaten doctors and pregnant patients. In doing so, It is imperative that these discussions address the devastating reality of pregnancy loss experienced by hundreds of thousands of American women every year and the consequences of post-Dobbs policies on those losses.