A new law is supposed to protect pregnant...

endocrine disruptors enter the body, they mimic those hormones and can increase the risk of certain pregnancyrelated health conditions, such as preeclampsia.

But despite these known risks, the occupational health of pregnant women has often been understudied, especially as women have entered more diverse areas of work.

“Occupational health really assumes a neutral body worker,” said Swati Rayasam, a public health scientist at the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California-San Francisco. By concentrating on this “neutral body worker,” occupational health as a field has overlooked the other stressors workers can face, either internal stressors, such as pregnancy, or external stressors, such as psychosocial stress due to racism or food insecurity, Rayasam said.

It also is tough to study those who are pregnant. It is unethical to expose them to even the slightest amount of chemicals, so research protocols are highly restricted. And very few occupational health surveys include enough pregnant workers to draw reliable conclusions about the unique risks they face.

Langness, the biomedical researcher in California, had a miscarriage while working in the lab. She later decided to change jobs, although she doesn’t know if the chemicals had anything to do with the loss of the baby. The lack of research doesn’t affect only current pregnancies but also leaves women who have already been exposed with lots of questions. They include Leticia Mendoza, a 38-year-old woman who lives in Oakland, California. She said she was exposed to pesticides when she worked pruning strawberries while pregnant. When her baby was born, he did not crawl until he was 1 year old and started walking after he turned 2.

“I thought he was going to start talking when he was 3, but he still doesn’t, and he is 5,” Mendoza said.

Mendoza’s child has been diagnosed with autism.

Although researchers have studied potential links between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders, the evidence is not conclusive, which complicates proving in a court what caused the harm, said Sharon Sagiv, an associate adjunct professor in environmental epidemiology at the University of CaliforniaBerkeley.

Advocates hope the new federal law will give workers a little more leverage when they raise concerns about risks on the job. “We really just want them to be able to have a conversation with their employer without facing retaliation or being forced on unpaid leave,” said Kameron Dawson, a senior staff attorney for A Better Balance, a workers’ advocacy organization that pushed for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for over a decade.

But although some of the regulations might lead to better accommodations for pregnant workers, that depends partly on the employer or a union knowing what can represent a risk. “It’s not rocket science, but it does take effort on the employer’s side to understand what in their workplace could be hazardous,” said Gillian Thomas, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.

In the past, women have sometimes been forbidden from working while pregnant, so a delicate balance must be struck between protecting them and their pregnancies and not removing them from the workforce. “It’s tricky because, for many women, this is their livelihood,” said Sagiv.

Some researchers believe studying the enhanced risks faced in pregnancy may result in more protective regulations that would help the wider public.

“If we really try to protect the most vulnerable workers in the workplace, we’re protecting everybody,” Rocheleau said.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, formerly known as Kaiser Health News (KHN), a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Farcical reasons

THIS ruling should have been handed down earlier, to prevent lawmakers and the national leadership from expressing their gratitude to their grassroots political leaders through a gift of yet another term extension. The Commission on Elections had also warned that postponing the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan polls by another year would add about P10 billion to the cost of the BSKE.

In an imperfect world, however, the public should be content with the thought that it took only eight months since oral arguments were concluded for the Supreme Court to rule that postponing the BSKE under Republic Act 11935 is unconstitutional. RA 11935, signed by President Marcos on Oct. 10, moved the BSKE from Dec. 5, 2022 to Oct. 30 this year.

Editorial

Unfortunately, with just four months to go before election day, the SC allowed the BSKE to push through on Oct. 30 anyway, citing its “legal practicality and necessity.” With RA 11935 invalidated, however, the terms of the overstaying barangay and youth council officials are deemed to have ended on Dec. 5, 2022. Those who will win in this year’s elections will serve only the remainder of the term, with the next BSKE set on the first Monday of December 2025.

The SC acted on a petition challenging RA 11935, filed by seven lawyers led by Romulo Macalintal. They argued that Congress has the power to set the terms of village and SK officials, but not to postpone the polls or extend the officials’ terms.

The high tribunal ruled that the postponement was “unduly arbitrary or oppressive of the electorate’s right of suffrage.”

The constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, the SC noted, “requires the holding of genuine periodic elections, which must be held at intervals which are not unduly long, and which ensure that the authority of the government continues to be based on the free expression of the will of electors.”

In a decision peppered with the word “unconstitutional,” the SC rejected the government’s reasons for the BSKE postponement. It said the avowed objective of saving the P8 billion already appropriated for holding the elections in December last year “unconstitutionally transgresses the constitutional prohibition against any transfer of appropriations.”

The SC saw no legitimate government interest or objective to justify RA 11935, which it said “unconstitutionally exceeds the bounds of the Congress’ power to legislate.” Lawmakers had claimed that the BSKE had to be postponed yet

And then came Bongbong Marcos Jr., a long time politician who wasn’t really known for anything so big or so bad except the burden of the Marcos name.

THE good news is that we stopped hearing those late night sexist jokes and cuss-riddled ramblings you might expect to hear from a court jester but which we instead heard for six long years from our president.

Rody Duterte, the expresident, at last, has shut his mouth.

We also stopped hearing threats to kill drug addicts you might hear from a madman or from someone who is actually high on drugs but which we heard from the Davao mayorturned-president, not once but many times over.

To a certain extent, the number of bodies turning up dead in the dark streets of Metro Manila and beyond may have gone down too.

We also stopped hearing those streams of invective hurled against just about everyone, including the pope.

Back then, it was hard to imagine we would ever hear the end of it.

The son of Marcos Sr. is certainly lucky and had impeccable timing. He succeeded an unorthodox leader who ditched all protocols and expectations that go with being a head of state. President Marcos seemed a welcome change after Duterte.

In business, one might call this the low base effect.

And so we’re relieved the president we have now doesn’t embarrass himself on the world stage; he is able to face world leaders and doesn’t walk out from meetings with them. At the very least, he wears the Barong Tagalog quite well. To put it simply, it’s good optics. We’re back on the radar screen of investors. President Marcos has reinvigorated Philippine and U.S. ties while carefully dealing with China.

Leading by nostalgia despots and dictators than there were 20 years ago. Anyway, I am digressing. again because there was election fatigue after the polls in May last year, and holding the polls last December would have been divisive. The SC said “superficial or farcical reasons” cannot justify the BSKE postponement. This case should not have even reached the courts if the national leadership had a strong respect for the democratic process. (Philstar.com)

But beyond good optics, we see vestiges of the Marcos Sr.