WASHINGTON — U.S. health officials on Friday endorsed the first blood test that can help diagnose Alzheimer’s and identify patients who may benefit from drugs that can modestly slow the memory-destroying disease.

Related Articles

Minnesota seeks to replace retiring ag mental health counselor

Gene editing helped a desperately ill baby thrive. Scientists say it could someday treat millions

A boy likely died from drinking too much olive brine. A Colorado county tried to make the suspicious case disappear

DeSantis signs a bill making Florida the 2nd state to ban fluoride from its water system

FACT FOCUS: Trump blames other countries for high US drug prices. Experts say it’s not their fault

The test can aid doctors in determining whether a patient’s memory problems are due to Alzheimer’s or a number of other medical conditions that can cause cognitive difficulties. The Food and Drug Administration cleared it for patients 55 and older who are showing early signs of the disease.

More than 6 million people in the United States and millions more around the world have Alzheimer’s, the most common form of dementia.

The new test, from Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc., identifies a sticky brain plaque, known as beta-amyloid, that is a key marker for Alzheimer’s. Previously, the only FDA-approved methods for detecting amyloid were invasive tests of spinal fluid or expensive PET scans.

The lower costs and convenience of a blood test could also help expand use of two new drugs, Leqembi and Kisunla, which have been shown to slightly slow the progression of Alzheimer’s by clearing amyloid from the brain. Doctors are required to test patients for the plaque before prescribing the drugs, which require regular IV infusions.

“Today’s clearance is an important step for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis, making it easier and potentially more accessible for U.S. patients earlier in the disease,” said Dr. Michelle Tarver, of FDA’s center for devices.

A number of specialty hospitals and laboratories have already developed their own in-house tests for amyloid in recent years. But those tests aren’t reviewed by the FDA and generally aren’t covered by insurance. Doctors have also had little data to judge which tests are reliable and accurate, leading to an unregulated marketplace that some have called a “wild west.”

Several larger diagnostic and drug companies are also developing their own tests for FDA approval, including Roche, Eli Lilly and C2N Diagnostics.

The tests can only be ordered by a doctor and aren’t intended for people who don’t yet have any symptoms.

AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this story

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

By CLAIRE SAVAGE

A federal judge in Texas struck down guidance from a government agency specifying protections against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

Related Articles

Judge OKs Iowa limits on K-6 gender identity, sexual orientation teaching but not elective programs

Trump asks the Supreme Court to allow his government downsizing plans to proceed

Children die as USAID aid cuts snap a lifeline for the world’s most malnourished

Trump suspends asylum system, leaving immigrants to face an uncertain future

Trump’s Mideast trip splashes out on deals and diplomacy but is quiet on human rights

Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Thursday determined that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission exceeded its statutory authority when the agency issued guidance to employers against deliberately using the wrong pronouns for an employee, refusing them access to bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity, and barring employees from wearing dress code-compliant clothing according to their gender identity because they may constitute forms of workplace harassment.

Kacsmaryk said the guidance is “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

The EEOC, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, had updated its guidance on workplace harassment in April of last year under President Joe Biden for the first time in 25 years. It followed a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that gay, lesbian and transgender people are protected from employment discrimination.

Texas and the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, in August challenged the guidance, which the agency says serves as a tool for employers to assess compliance with anti-discrimination laws and is not legally binding. Kacsmaryk disagreed, writing that the guidance creates “mandatory standards … from which legal consequences will necessarily flow if an employer fails to comply.”

The decision marks the latest blow to workplace protections for transgender workers following President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order declaring that the government would recognize only two “immutable” sexes — male and female.

Kacsmaryk, a 2017 Trump nominee, invalidated all portions of the EEOC guidance that defines “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” along with an entire section addressing the subject.

“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts commended the decision in an emailed statement: “The Biden EEOC tried to compel businesses — and the American people — to deny basic biological truth. Today, thanks to the great state of Texas and the work of my Heritage colleagues, a federal judge said: not so fast.”

He added: “This ruling is more than a legal victory. It’s a cultural one. It says no — you don’t have to surrender common sense at the altar of leftist ideology. You don’t have to pretend men are women. And you don’t have to lie to keep your job. ”

The National Women’s Law Center, which filed an amicus brief in November in support of the harassment guidance, blasted the decision in an emailed statement.

“The district court’s decision is an outrage and blatantly at odds with Supreme Court precedent,” said Liz Theran, senior director of litigation for education and workplace justice at NWLC. “The EEOC’s Harassment Guidance reminds employers and workers alike to do one simple thing that should cost no one anything: refrain from degrading others on the job based on their identity and who they love. This decision does not change the law, but it will make it harder for LGBTQIA+ workers to enforce their rights and experience a workplace free from harassment.”

The U.S. Department of Justice and the EEOC declined to comment on the outcome of the case.

The EEOC in fiscal year 2024 received more than 3,000 charges alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and 3,000-plus in 2023, according to the agency’s website.

The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the Trump administration’s appeal to quickly resume deportations of Venezuelans under an 18th century wartime law.

Related Articles

Judge OKs Iowa limits on K-6 gender identity, sexual orientation teaching but not elective programs

Trump asks the Supreme Court to allow his government downsizing plans to proceed

Children die as USAID aid cuts snap a lifeline for the world’s most malnourished

Trump suspends asylum system, leaving immigrants to face an uncertain future

Trump’s Mideast trip splashes out on deals and diplomacy but is quiet on human rights

Over two dissenting votes, the justices acted on an emergency appeal from lawyers for Venezuelan men who have been accused of being gang members, a designation that the administration says makes them eligible for rapid removal from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

The high court had already called a temporary halt to the deportations from a north Texas detention facility in a middle-of-the-night order issued last month.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Top Minnesota lawmakers and Gov. Tim Walz reached a budget deal with just a handful of days left in the legislative session, but there are signs it could face a bumpy ride as the Monday deadline to pass bills closes in.

Democratic-Farmer-Labor and Republican lawmakers have already objected to key compromises that allowed the deal to materialize, including ending state-funded health benefits for adults in the U.S. without legal immigration status.

Margins are extremely tight in both the Senate and House, and a handful of defections on various bills that form the budget would stall progress. The DFL has a one-seat majority in the Senate, and the House is tied 67-67 between the parties.

The DFL’s progressive wing has already signaled it won’t support ending MinnesotaCare benefits for immigrants, protesting outside the governor’s reception room at the Capitol Thursday as he and legislative leaders briefed reporters on the deal. A proposal to close the 111-year-old state prison in Stillwater is meeting pushback as well.

Opposition to aspects of deal

As a group of legislators and clergy held a news conference and prayer vigil against the health care cuts outside the House chambers Friday, members of the state’s public employee unions briefed reporters on why they oppose closing the Stillwater prison, which employs more than 500 people.

“The proposed stated budget agreement that includes the closure of Stillwater Correctional Facility is not only shortsighted, it’s downright dangerous, disruptive and deeply disrespectful to the workers that keep the community safe and the inmates safe,” said Bart Andersen, executive director of the American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees Council 5.

AFSCME and MAPE — the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees — aren’t the only ones opposed to the closure, either.

Two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday afternoon voiced concerns about how quickly the proposal came together and called for more scrutiny.

“This is a shortsighted and alarming development — there were no committee hearings and no bill language on the issue, and I am very concerned that this proposal lacks the thorough vetting necessary for such a large change,” Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, said in a statement.

Sen. Michael Kreun, R-Blaine, called the proposal “soft on crime” and said he had concerns about the public safety implications of closing the state’s second-largest prison in the next four years and sending its 1,100 inmates to other facilities.

While the state Department of Corrections had warned for years of deteriorating conditions and growing maintenance costs at the aging Stillwater prison, the proposal still caught many by surprise. Backers say it’ll save the state $40 million a year.

Reality of a future revenue shortfall

The state will have to find savings somewhere by the end of the decade as it faces a $6 billion deficit in the 2028-2029 fiscal year.

Walz, Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, House Speaker Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, and House Leader Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, said hard-earned compromises in their deal will put the state on the route to confronting that reality.

For the most part, their “global” budget deal aims to address a structural imbalance — state budget talk for the government spending more than it raises — by controlling growth in spending on areas like education and human services spending.

State leaders agreed — as with any compromise — no one came away perfectly happy. DFLers said their GOP colleagues wouldn’t budge on the MinnesotaCare issue, and that they weren’t happy with the move. Children in the U.S. illegally will still be eligible for benefits, however.

“No one got everything they wanted,” Walz told reporters Thursday. ”There were very difficult conversations about issues that were very dear to each of these caucuses.”

MinnesotaCare benefits

Republicans say higher-than-expected enrollment in the new MinnesotaCare benefits could cost the state down the road. More than 17,000 people had enrolled in the program since it opened late last year.

DFL-controlled state government budgeted about $200 million for the program when they created it in 2023, but Republicans say it could cost the state as much as $600 million by the end of the decade and make Minnesota draw more benefit-seekers.

DFLers, state officials and other supporters dispute that projection and say cutting off benefits will interrupt lifesaving cancer treatments and dialysis.

Taxes, other elements of budget deal

It also makes a few adjustments to taxes. Walz’s proposed reduction of the overall state sales tax rate and the creation of a new tax on services like accounting and legal advice did not make it to the final deal.

Minnesota’s paid family and medical leave program, created by DFLers in 2023 and set to begin in 2026, remains in place. Though Republicans got DFLers to agree to a small reduction in the payroll tax that will fund the program.

A plan to sunset unemployment insurance for hourly school workers, another DFL-created benefit from 2023, likely will go away as the Senate and House work on their pre K-12 education budgets, Hortman said. Proposed cuts to state aid for private schools are also off the table, something Republicans wanted.

There will be a small increase to the sales tax on cannabis. The deal also calls for the repeal of a data center electricity tax exemption, though there will be an exemption for research and development for those companies as well.

A proposed first-in-the-nation social media tax appears not to have made it into the deal.

Lawmakers expected to work through weekend

Many questions about the form cuts will take are still in the air. Lawmakers are expected to work through the weekend to craft final budget bills that will conform to the overall targets.

The final day to pass any bills is Monday, and if they don’t finish their work by then, they’ll have to return for a special session to enact a two-year budget by the end of the fiscal year on June 30.

If they don’t pass a budget, the state government will shut down on July 1, interrupting many services.

DFL and Republican leaders expect that if they do return for a special session, it’ll be a short one that’ll likely happen soon after the regular session closes.

Related Articles

Gov. Walz, legislative leaders reach budget deal

With no budget deal yet, special session increasingly likely at Capitol

MN moves to strengthen DWI laws after fatal St. Louis Park crash

With one week left, what’s happening with the MN budget at the Legislature?

Joe Soucheray: No other governor has tried to pull off this pathetic budget stunt