Science often lags behind in discovering the truth. The truth has always been there, but it may take time for scientists to learn that truth. There is no better example of this than the debate over when life begins.

In 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), the scientific technology of ultrasound was poorly developed. Pro-abortion activists were able to convince most people that life didn’t begin until a baby was born. Ultrasound was still in its infancy and couldn’t be relied upon to show life in the womb. Justice Harry Blackman was able to say that at that “point in the development of man’s knowledge,” there was simply no consensus about when life begins. In other words, the fetus could not be said with any certainty to be alive and therefore wasn’t worthy of legal protection.

As I look back on my own medical education, which began in 1975, I was taught by my medical school faculty that life begins at conception. There was no debate about that. We were taught that once conception happened, the only thing needed for the next nine months was a womb that provided nourishment and protection. We didn’t need a fancy ultrasound to tell us a baby was growing in the mother’s womb. The only debate concerned the morality of doctors aborting that baby, no matter when it occurred.

But the ambiguity of the viability of those growing cells in the womb allowed liberals to justify abortion on the grounds that “it isn’t really a baby.”

No more. Science has now caught up to the truth. New ultrasound technology is so good it gives us 3D images of that growing baby. Grazie Pozon Christie is a diagnostic radiologist who shares her experiences with modern ultrasound in The Wall Street Journal. This is especially important given that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which challenges a new Mississippi law that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks. Dr. Christie has written an amicus brief urging the justices to rethink Roe, a case premised on a claim about science that is obsolete. She is joined by two other female physicians, a neonatologist and an obstetrician, who also value their youngest patients, believing that whether inside their mothers or born, premature or full term, they are worthy of respect and protection.

Dr. Christie tells us the first ultrasound machines were introduced in 1958. The machines were enormous, the images rudimentary. It wasn’t until the late 1970s (after the Roe decision) that fetal ultrasound became widely available, with increasingly detailed images of recognizably human babies. Black-and-white ultrasound images are now found on refrigerator doors of expectant parents across America. New 3D images have put a human face on the person once dehumanized as a mere clump of cells.

Perfectly apparent now to the justices sitting on today’s SCOTUS, as well as the public, are the liveliness and humanity of babies at 15 weeks gestation – the age at which Mississippi proposes to protect them from elective termination. Dr. Christie tells us these fetuses on average are 6.4 inches long and weigh 4.1 ounces. They have the proportions of a newborn – seemingly all head and rounded belly. The major organs are formed and functioning, and although the child receives nutrients and oxygen through the mother’s umbilical cord, the fetal digestive, urinary and respiratory systems are practicing for life outside the womb.

The sex of the child is easy to discern by this point. The baby swallows and even breathes, filling the lungs with amniotic fluid and expelling it. The heart is fully formed, its four chambers working hard, with the delicate valves opening and closing. A healthy baby at 15 weeks is an active baby. Unless the child is asleep, kicking and arm-waving are commonly seen during ultrasound evaluations. The fetal spine is a marvel of intricacy, and it is most often gently curved as the fetus rests against the mother’s uterine wall.

At 15 weeks, the brain’s frontal lobes, ventricles, and thalamus fill the oval-shaped skull. The baby’s profile is endearing in its petite perfection: gently sloping nose, distinct upper and lower lips, eyes that open and close. With the advent of 3D ultrasound, we can now see the fetal face in all its detail.

It is undeniable that a human baby is growing in the womb of a mother at 15 weeks gestation and the justices of the SCOTUS must face that reality. It is no longer acceptable for them to take the same view as Justice Blackman did in 1973. To paraphrase his words today, “we have arrived at a much different point in the development of man’s knowledge about life in utero.” Dr. Christie says, “The Supreme Court’s judgement should reflect that advancement and put an end to the casual cruelty of unfettered abortion.” I certainly agree.

The Covid pandemic is nearly into its third year and schools are still quarantining children. An Oregon high school ordered all 2,680 of its students to stay home for a week and a half in September – two days of complete shutdown, followed by a week of online classes. Parents received a “flash alert message” at 5:35 a. m. informing them that their children wouldn’t be allowed in school that day.

Dr. Leslie Bienen and Eric Happel tell us this tale in The Wall Street Journal. They say that Oregon Public Broadcasting reports “875 high school students and staff members . . . had to quarantine” before the shutdown. What precipitated this emergency intervention into the education of all these students? Four positive tests of Covid-19.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is responsible for these draconian measures. Despite the disease’s low risk to young people and the widespread vaccination of adults, the CDC continues to recommend seven-to-fourteen-day quarantines for schoolchildren who are suspected of having been exposed to the virus.

Fortunately, thirty states have set aside the CDC guidelines, dismissing them as unreasonable and lacking scientific basis. In fact, the CDC itself has published studies suggesting that such measures are unnecessary. Yet the CDC has dragged its feet in considering a less-restrictive alternative known as “test to stay.” Most likely, the reason is the White House doesn’t approve.

During the 2020-21 school year, a study from Salt Lake County, Utah, published in the CDC’s own Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, found only four positive cases among 735 students tested while in quarantine, a transmission rate of just 0.7%. A study from St. Louis County, Mo., also published in MMWR, found no positive cases among quarantined students at a time when the total countywide two-week case count was 711 per 100,000 people. (The CDC classifies a one-week rate of 100 per 100,000 as “high.”) Los Angeles Unified School district reported a transmission positivity rate of only 0.2% after testing 30,000 students.

In response to these numbers, Los Angeles Unified School district changed its policy to “test-to-stay”: Asymptomatic students suspected of exposure may remain in school, subject to testing every few days for a week, along with other restrictions. Parents are still directed to keep them at home outside school hours. (No sense in going outside and enjoying themselves where it is safest for them to be!)

The authors say “test-to-stay” reduces dramatically the educational costs of quarantine. Utah reported it saved 109,742 school days across 13 high schools from November 2020 thru March 2021. Yet many states are sticking with the CDC guidelines. It would not surprise you to know that most voted for President Biden. The CDC Director Rochelle Walensky has sidestepped questions regarding this policy and responded only that “masks are working.”

Not surprisingly, Oregon doesn’t allow “test-to-stay” and has rigidly followed the CDC guidelines, even adding restrictions not in the guidelines like requiring outdoor masking at recess and 10 to 14 days of quarantine for all exposed students who haven’t been vaccinated – even if the potential exposure occurred outside, where transmission is so rare that it is almost undocumented. Oregon has mandated vaccination for teachers, other school staff and volunteers, so any danger to adults in school is minimal.

Naturally, all these restrictions have a greater impact on low-income students, whose parents cannot afford alternative educational resources, including hiring tutors to make up for educational deficits.  Allowing “test-to-stay” would ameliorate, but not eliminate, some of this damage.  Other countries, like Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, have eliminated quarantines of schoolchildren with no resulting rise in Covid-19. Dr. Bienen says, “The CDC’s current quarantine policies keep children out of school and provide no meaningful reduction in Covid-19 transmission.”

This is supposed to be a healthcare blog, but sometimes I can’t resist talking about other issues that concern me. Please keep reading because you might learn something.

John C. Goodman, economist writing in Forbes, asks a simple question. Suppose Congress were considering a bill that would do the following: either your employer must double your wage or fire you. Is that the kind of law you would like to see passed? Most people would say no, yet that’s the same threatening edict politicians are willing to inflict on those at the bottom of the income ladder.

Goodman gives us three arguments used to justify this thinking he calls “the three worst arguments for the minimum wage.” These arguments are not explicit – they are implicit. They are so profoundly ingrained in the thinking of advocates of doubling the minimum wage that they don’t think verbalizing them is even necessary.

The Three Arguments:

• Costs don’t matter
• Prices don’t matter
• Economics doesn’t matter

One of the fundamentals of adult thinking is realizing that “there is no such thing as a free lunch.” I learned that lesson the hard way when I went off to college and tried to buy my first new car, but that’s a story for another time.

Goodman says if Congress does something to increase someone’s income, someone somewhere has to bear that cost. Already you can see how the current occupant of the White House failed to learn this lesson since he wants us all to believe the cost of a $3.5 Trillion spending package is “zero.” There is definitely a cost and we must know who is going to pay that cost before imposing it.

Suppose the minimum wage is paid for by raising product prices and the work is done in low-income neighborhoods where low-income customers shop. Low-income households tend to spend a high percentage of their income on low-wage products, such as fast foods. To the extent this happens, a higher minimum wage doesn’t increase family income – it just recycles income.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says 40% of minimum wage workers live in households with incomes more than three times the federal poverty level (FPL). Many of these are teenagers. In this case, a higher minimum wage shifts income from low-income households who pay more for the goods they buy to higher-income households where the teenage workers live.

Other studies find that the wage hike is paid for when employers reduce other benefits, such as health insurance and job training. Non-wage benefits make up about 30% of total compensation. If that happens, the wage hike doesn’t increase employee income, it just changes the composition of that income. In many cases, the aggregate costs may exceed the benefits, making the intended beneficiaries of the wage hike worse off than they were before.

Economics teaches us that prices play a vital social function. Artificially changing them creates unintended social consequences. But there are a great many people who don’t believe that, or choose to ignore it. They believe that if a price is judged too low, government can increase it and nothing bad will happen. If a price is judged too high, the government can lower it and nothing bad will happen.

What are the unintended consequences of the minimum wage?

Goodman says minimum wages lead to greater unemployment, loss of non-wage benefits, disproportionate impact on low-income youth, more racial discrimination, lost entitlement benefits if family income rises, and increased criminal activity when legal work is priced out of reach. Yet those who advocate for higher minimum wages pretend to be looking out for the poor!

Goodman says “Failing to get to the bottom of these effects before blindly legislating is worse than negligence on the part of politicians. It is public policy malpractice.”