Religious, medical professionals challenge Illinois doctor-assisted death law

081326 END OF LIFE

IRN

Sean Reed

END OF LIFE Version 1 (no wrap)

A group of medical professionals, a nursing home and a Catholic bishop from Illinois are suing two state department heads in an attempt to block a law set to take effect next month they say forces doctors to promote assisted suicide to terminally ill patients.

The law set to take effect Sept. 12, known as the End-of-Life Options Act, gives terminally ill patients with less than six months to live the choice to end their life medically, but only after they meet multiple requirements and pass medical evaluations.

The plaintiffs and the Thomas More Society, a nonprofit law firm, are challenging the law on religious grounds in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois, according to the filing.

Dr. Mary Keen, a psychiatrist with Northwestern Medicine, is one of four doctors listed on the lawsuit. 

END OF LIFE 1 :-- seconds, outcue: [Keen] … “disturbance or distress.”

Michael McHale, senior counsel, said the Illinois law differs from medical aid in dying laws in other states because it requires some medical practices to offer the option.

They contend that the law forces faith-based hospitals in the state to take part in administering the option, even if it goes against their beliefs and medical understanding.

McHale noted a similar law in the state requiring medical professionals to explain the benefits of treatment options they disagree with was recently blocked from taking effect, pending another legal challenge. 

He said the other lawsuit provides a similar example to their own.

END OF LIFE Version 1 (with wrap)

A group of medical professionals, a nursing home and a Catholic bishop from Illinois are suing two state department heads in an attempt to block a law set to take effect next month they say forces doctors to promote assisted suicide to terminally ill patients. Sean Reed reports…

END OF LIFE WRAPv1 :-- seconds

END OF LIFE Version 2 (no wrap)

A law set to take effect Sept. 12, known as the End-of-Life Options Act, gives terminally ill patients with less than six months to live the choice to end their life medically if they meet certain criteria. A group of medical professionals and religious leaders are seeking to block the law.

Under the law, terminally patients can receive medication to end their life only after they meet multiple requirements and pass medical evaluations.

Dr. Mary Keen, a psychiatrist with Northwestern Medicine, is one of four doctors listed on the lawsuit.

She contends the law doesn’t provide enough protections for patients, especially relating to biases from medical professionals who don’t work with disabled or terminal patients often.

END OF LIFE 2 :-- seconds, outcue: [name of speaker] … “to live anymore.”

When the law was up for debate in the Illinois House last year, Rep. Ryan Spain, R-Peoria, argued the law may present a financial reason for patients to choose to end their life if they can’t afford other palliative or hospice care.

The law doesn’t require Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance to cover a patient’s prescription, though it does include a provision that a life insurance policy must be paid out as if the patient died from their underlying illness.

Similarly, the group also alleges that doctors would be forced to falsify death records under a provision of the law.

Michael McHale, senior counsel,  noted another state law requiring medical professionals to explain the benefits of treatment options they disagree with was recently blocked from taking effect, pending another legal challenge. 

He said the other lawsuit provides a similar example to their own.

END OF LIFE Version 2 (with wrap)

A law set to take effect Sept. 12, known as the End-of-Life Options Act, gives terminally ill patients with less than six months to live the choice to end their life medically if they meet certain criteria. A group of medical professionals and religious leaders are seeking to block the law. Sean Reed has more…

END OF LIFE WRAPv2 :-- seconds

END OF LIFE

BRIEF

(The Center Square) – A group of medical professionals, a nursing home and a Catholic bishop from Illinois are suing two state department heads in an attempt to block a law set to take effect next month they say forces doctors to promote assisted suicide to terminally ill patients.

The law set to take effect Sept. 12, known as the End-of-Life Options Act, gives terminally ill patients with less than six months to live the choice to end their life medically, but only after they meet multiple requirements and pass medical evaluations.

The plaintiffs and the Thomas More Society, a nonprofit law firm, are challenging the law on religious grounds in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois, according to the filing.

They contend that the law forces faith-based hospitals in the state to take part in administering the option, even if it goes against their beliefs and medical understanding.

Dr. Mary Keen, a psychiatrist with Northwestern Medicine, is one of four doctors listed on the lawsuit. 

“Until this law came up, doctors and other healthcare professionals like nurse practitioners were taught that suicidal ideation is always a sign of psychosocial disturbance or distress,” Keen said. 

Michael McHale, senior counsel, said the Illinois law differs from medical aid in dying laws in other states.

“This requirement to discuss with patients the so-called benefits of assisted suicide without any exception appears to be unprecedented,” McHale said.

When the law was up for debate in the Illinois House last year, Rep. Ryan Spain, R-Peoria, argued the law may present a financial reason for patients to choose to end their life if they can’t afford other palliative or hospice care.

“A month of hospice care costs approximately $15,000. And we have to understand then what an impact of having a $500 to $700 end of life option could be in the wrong hands. It's important that we're sensitive to this very issue,” Spain said.

The law doesn’t require Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance to cover a patient’s prescription, though it does include a provision that a life insurance policy must be paid out as if the patient died from their underlying illness.

Similarly, the group also alleges that doctors would be forced to falsify death records under a provision of the law.

Keen explained that the law doesn’t require psychiatric evaluation unless other practitioners feel it could be necessary.

“I work with many patients who have profound impairment,” Keen said. “Many physicians assume that if a person has a need for assistance in going to the bathroom, for example, that it would be such an affront to dignity that of course they don't want to live anymore.”

The group seeks a temporary restraining order and injunction from a federal judge to block the law from taking effect and allowing patients to begin the process of their medically assisted dying.

McHale noted a similar law in the state requiring medical professionals to explain the benefits of treatment options they disagree with was recently blocked from taking effect, pending another legal challenge. 

He said the other lawsuit provides a similar example to their own.

Neither the Illinois Department of Health or Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, whose department heads are listed on the lawsuit, responded to a request for comment.

(The Center Square) – Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s administration is not on board with President Donald Trump’s executive order to change the federal government’s recommended child vaccination schedule.

The order signed by the president Monday eliminates some vaccinations and spaces others further apart.

Trump said the U.S. recommended more childhood vaccines than any peer nation and twice as many doses as some European countries.

“In many cases, we’re requiring 72 jabs for our beautiful, healthy, lovely, delicate little children,” the president said.

National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya said researchers are looking into the cause of autism.

“The executive order recognizes the plight of millions of parents across the country with autistic children,” Bhattacharya said.

Illinois Department of Public Health Director Dr. Sameer Vohra said, despite the order, IDPH’s endorsement of the American Academy of Pediatrics 2026 Childhood Vaccine Schedule remains in effect.

“The Illinois Department of Public Health is committed to ensuring Illinois residents have reliable access to vaccines and guidance supported by the most up-to-date science,” Vohra said in a statement.

IDPH said the Illinois Immunization Advisory Committee unanimously supported the AAP schedule in spite of President Donald Trump’s executive order to adjust or eliminate some vaccines.

In the same news release, Gov. J.B. Pritzker called Trump’s executive order “a thoughtless piece of paper.”

The federal recommendations include splitting measles, mumps and rubella from one shot into three separate vaccines.

IDPH said the move would increase the burden on parents and caregivers, because it would require additional doctor’s appointments that cost time and money.

The Illinois chapter of the American Association of Pediatrics did not immediately respond to The Center Square’s request for comment.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said parents can still follow the prior recommendations.

“We will preserve access to vaccines, strengthen safety monitoring, expand research, give doctors and parents better information and restore informed consent and parental choice to their rightful place in American medicine,” Kennedy said.

After Pritzker signed House Bill 767 last December to empower IDPH to circumvent the federal government and issue its own vaccine guidelines, HHS Communications Director Andrew Nixon told The Center Square that the governor “eroded public trust” by imposing school closures, toddler mask mandates and vaccine passports during the COVID era. 

Morgan Sweeney contributed to this story

(The Center Square) – Newly declassified documents from the White House transparency task force reveal several top Republican and conservative figures were labeled “conduits” for Russian disinformation for their part in pushing for further investigations into allegations against the Bidens and ties to Ukraine.

The code name, Round River, which was an FBI counterintelligence operation as part of the bureau’s Foreign Influence Task Force leading up to the 2020 elections, was described by a White House official as a “counterintelligence operation” to “neutralize certain narratives,” including the investigation into Hunter Biden’s laptop and the Biden family’s ties to Ukraine’s Burisma Holdings.

The recently declassified documents identified several Republicans, including high-ranking officials, such as former Attorney General Bill Barr, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and the late Lindsey Graham, as conduits for Russian misinformation.

In contrast, the operation warned that figures like George Soros, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and former Secretary of State John Kerry are “targets” for Russian disinformation.

Another document released from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in 2025 revealed that a team from Round River was tasked with identifying “confidential human source files” within the bureau and other intelligence agencies that had “derogatory information” on the Bidens, and would then “deem the information to be Russian disinformation.”

The ODNI concluded the FITF “did not go in and try to determine the merit of the allegations, or to examine if they were factually true, or consult with the agents working those informants. They simply designated them as foreign intelligence threats and designated their files as such,” according to a White House official.

In a letter to the White House transparency task force, FBI Director Kash Patel underscored that, under his leadership, he ended the FITF and its activities, and confirmed that the operation and its activities are currently under investigation by the FBI.

The White House official argues that “information learned from the Round River assessment was used to undermine or influence ongoing investigations by focusing only on a subset of confidential human sources that were reporting derogatory information on the Bidens.”

The Center Square inquired about the status and identities of those working within the FBI on the Round River operation. The White House official responded  that the “FBI is in the process of producing the documents” to answer those questions, including “who was involved” and “how high did it go?”

(The Center Square) – Michael Alfonso will take on Fred Clark to replace Tom Tiffany in Wisconsin’s 7th congressional district while there will be a rematch in the 3rd Congressional after Tuesday night’s Wisconsin primary elections.

Alfonso, the 26-year-old son-in-law of U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, won the primary by a wide margin with nearly 49% of the vote compared to less than 27% for veteran Kevin Hermening and less than 16% for businesswoman Jessi Ebben.

Clark, meanwhile, received 37.6% of the vote in the Democratic side compared to 31.8% for Ginger Murray and 30.3% for Chris Armstrong.

The Cook Political Report rates the Nov. 3 general election race as solidly Republican for the district, which comprises much of northeast Wisconsin.

Ebben encouraged her supporters to now support Alfonso during her Tuesday night concession.

“While tonight’s outcome was not the one we wanted, I will remain committed to defending the conservative values I campaigned on,” Ebben said in a statement. “That means working to stop the rise of socialism and defeating the Democrats running for office in Wisconsin. It’s time for conservatives to unite behind Michael Alfonso for our next representative in Congress and support Republican nominees up and down the ballot.”

The 3rd congressional race will pit incumbent Derrick Van Orden against challenger Rebecca Cooke again.

Van Orden was elected with 51.3% of the vote compared to 48.6% for Cooke in 2024.

Van Orden spent 26 years as a U.S. Navy SEAL that included five combat tours.

“Rebecca Cooke is exactly who the national Democrats wanted, an anointed candidate they know will carry water for the socialists who have taken over their party,” Van Orden said in a statement. “This election is about what kind of country we are going to leave to our children and grandchildren. It is a battle for the soul of America.”

Van Orden won uncontested while Cooke received 60.0% of the vote and Emily Berge receive 39.9% in the Democrat primary.

“As someone who grew up on her family’s Eau Claire dairy farm, she is a fierce advocate for rural communities and understands what’s needed to bring down costs and make life more affordable for her neighbors,” the Democratic National Committee said about Cooke. “In Congress, Rebecca will fight tirelessly to protect healthcare, lower gas and fertilizer prices, end Republicans’ reckless tariffs, stand up for working families, and invest in Wisconsin’s farmers, producers, and manufacturers.”

(The Center Square) – Chicago could soon be one of the largest cities in the U.S. to halt the development of new data centers large tech companies continue to invest heavily into the infrastructure backing artificial intelligence.

As politicians and candidates from both parties have taken aim at data centers for their large footprint on the power grid and environmental impacts, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order Tuesday aimed at data centers within the city’s limits. 

The order Johnson directs city agencies to act on regulating current data centers in the city and established a new task force to create and update rules in the city’s code related to such regulations.

“This order directs the Department of Environment to strengthen and modernize the conditions required to obtain an air pollution control permit and to issue new rules and do it within 90 days,” Johnson said.

While Johnson doesn’t have the authority to outright block the development of new data centers, he also called on the City Council to pass a moratorium on them when they return to regular meetings next month.

“I'm going to continue to partner with city council to ensure that those concerns that community members have are addressed and that's why the city council's authority to place a moratorium on data center development and advancement,” Johnson said.

The order comes just months after the Illinois General Assembly weighed legislation called the Protecting Our Water, Energy, and Ratepayers, or POWER, Act, but didn’t advance it before the end of their spring session.

Johnson said he wants state lawmakers to act on it when they return to Springfield in November.

“I'm calling on Springfield to pass the power act because working families should never be forced to pay higher utility bills to subsidize the massive energy demands of data centers,” Johnson said.

The POWER Act will likely be a top priority for lawmakers during their fall veto session, especially as Gov. J.B. Pritzker has pushed the legislature heavily to pass the law.

Reports widely suggest that as more new data centers come online, electric grids across the country face strain from the hundreds of gigawatts pulled by the facilities.

“We have something called the POWER Act that's being negotiated. And it did not pass in this last session of the legislature. It probably has a little more negotiation that needs to get done, but it very much can pass in the next session,” Pritzker said at a climate summit last month.

The statewide act would expand the required permits to build new centers, the reporting of energy consumption, payments into community funds, and plans to save water while bringing new capacity to the grid.

Denver, Minneapolis and Seattle all passed this year some type of halt to new data centers construction in their cities.

(The Center Square) – U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has effectively ended a Biden-era mass parole program after it dismissed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. 

The ruling is seen as a major victory for the Trump administration and for dozens of states that sued to stop parole programs created by the Biden administration that federal judges ruled were illegal but the programs continued.

Under the second Trump administration, Biden-era parole programs were terminated and expedited removal of those released into the country illegally began.

In order to stop this, several immigration groups sued led by the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. Their lawsuit alleges a Department of Homeland Security memo and email violated the Administrative Procedure Act and Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.

The groups won their first round in court after a district court granted a partial stay “to the extent the Challenged Actions subject to expedited removal individuals who have been, at any time, paroled into the United States at a point of entry.” 

The appellate court reversed this ruling, arguing “the district court lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s stay.” 

It also clarified that “Although, we have jurisdiction over this appeal, the district court lacked jurisdiction.”

The appellate court also squashed the lawsuit altogether, ruling the plaintiffs don’t have legal standing to sue. 

In its 14-page ruling, it also tore apart the plaintiffs’ arguments, stating its counterarguments “failed.”

The requests they made for a stay were also faulty, the court said. “Even if the number of expedited removals increased because of the [memo and email], that does not mean getting rid of [either] will reverse that trend,” the court ruled. “The stay the plaintiffs requested would not affect the Government’s authority to continue subjecting the plaintiffs to expedited removal” under federal law.

The court also clarified in a note to its ruling that “Parole termination is ultimately irrelevant to our analysis here. The plaintiffs do not challenge the regulation rendering ex-parolees liable to expedited removal under the arriving in authority. So whether or not parole termination has taken place, and whether or not ex-parolees are subject to expedited removal under the designation authority, the organizational plaintiffs’ members would remain equally subject to expedited removal under the arriving in authority.”

At issue is the Trump administration’s expedited removal of millions of inadmissible foreign nationals who were released into the country through more than a dozen parole programs created by the Biden administration. The U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security identified the parole programs as illegal when bringing impeachment charges against former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, The Center Square reported. 

Dozens of states sued, led by Texas and Florida, arguing the parole programs were illegal, The Center Square reported. A federal judge in Florida ruled more than once that the parole programs were illegal and expressed exasperation that they continued, The Center Square reported.

A successful appeal in this case is unlikely. 

“Plaintiffs cannot seek relief that changes nothing for them. The plaintiffs here tried to do just that. So we vacate the stay issued by the district court,” the court held.

The parole programs that were terminated led to millions of foreign nationals entering the U.S. They include one created for Central American Minors, a CHNV program for Cuban, Honduran, Nicaraguan and Venezuelans and a “Family Reunification Parole Process" for Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans and Columbians. 

The CHNV parole program ushered in more than three million people in three years deemed inadmissible under federal immigration law, The Center Square reported. They totaled more than the individual populations of 17 states.

Another 2.5 million Colombians, Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Hondurans were paroled through their own parole program, The Center Square reported. They totaled more than the individual populations of 15 states.

The Trump administration also terminated Biden era “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways" rule that altered the asylum process, a phone app created to expedite entry into the U.S. for inadmissible foreign nationals, among others, The Center Square reported.

Now those released into the country through the parole programs can be deported.

(The Center Square) – Medical watchdog Do No Harm’s latest report details how a network of various Colorado groups and institutions promote sex-rejecting procedures for children as well as market them using public funds.

Chief medical officer at Do No Harm Dr. Kurt Miceli told The Center Square: “A publicly funded network of Colorado organizations is pushing resources that promote youth gender ideology on vulnerable children. 

“Our report is a case study examining how the transgender industrial complex has pushed further and further into the lives of children, reaching even as far as school-based health centers in the state,” Miceli said. “Do No Harm urges Colorado leaders to prioritize evidence-based medicine and protect minors from a harmful ideology.

“Patients and families deserve medical care rooted in evidence, not ideology,” Miceli said.

Institutions connected to Colorado’s “publicly funded youth ‘gender-affirming care’...infrastructure” include I Matter, the University of Colorado School of Medicine, the University of Colorado School of Health, as well as the state’s School-Based Health Center network, according to Do No Harm’s report.

When contacted individually, none of these groups provided comment by publishing time. 

Do No Harm’s report – entitled “The Colorado ‘Gender Affirming’ Pipeline” – said the State of Colorado “spent $4.7 million on a marketing contract for I Matter,” which “included influencer campaigns targeting minors ages 13–17, with talking points emphasizing that youth 12 and older could access [gender-affirming] services without parental consent.” 

I Matter is “a state-funded therapy program primarily for youth 18 and under,” according to Do No Harm.

The report noted that the marketing contract “was funded at least in part with federal pandemic-recovery funds.”

In addition to I Matter, the University of Colorado appeared frequently in Do No Harm’s report. 

The report said the University of Colorado (CU) School of Medicine “hired faculty specifically to staff the TRUE Center…at Children’s Hospital Colorado and to research cross-sex hormonal therapy in a pediatric setting, with 75 percent of one researcher’s salary funded by a National Institutes of Health career-development award.” 

The TRUE Center is “a pediatric gender clinic,” Do No Harm said. 

The report also detailed how CU School of Medicine is “heavily influenced” by pro-gender affirming care political advocacy groups “resulting in a medical-school curriculum that singularly promotes and enables youth ‘transition.’”

The CU School of Public Health operated Colorado’s Queer Youth Network program that paid “‘queer’ youth ages 12–18 in rural Colorado $40 per session to participate in weekly virtual meetings.”

The report noted that “the employee who administered this program is personally on the TRUE Center’s patient/newsletter list.”

Both I Matter and Colorado’s Queer Youth Network program “share institutional distribution and recruitment channels through the state’s School-Based Health Center network, which has also distributed information on [gender affirming care]-related provider training materials,” Do No Harm’s report said.

School-Based Health Centers are “clinics operating out of public K–12 schools” according to Do No Harm.

Do No Harm obtained its findings by reviewing thousands of pages of documents obtained through the Colorado Open Records Act.

Do No Harm began researching Colorado’s "institutional support” of sex-rejecting procedures on children after “observing the rapid march of Colorado’s pro-’gender-affirming care’ policies in recent years.” 

For instance, in 2023 Colorado designated “gender-affirming care” as an “essential health benefit,” meaning private insurers must cover “sex-rejecting procedures,” according to Do No Harm’s report.  

Additionally, last year Colorado passed the Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals, which has a section that “includes ‘chosen name and how the individual chooses to be expressed’ as forms of gender expression for purposes of the ‘Colorado Anti-discrimination Act.’”

Neither the TRUE Center nor the School-Based Health Centers responded to The Center Square’s individual requests for comment.

(The Center Square) – U.S. House Democrats will be holding their second field hearing next week to address fatal shootings committed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-ME, has organized the hearing, “Seeking Justice in Biddeford” to conduct oversight of ICE’s use of force after the July 13 ICE fatal shooting of Colombian national Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, in Biddeford, Maine.

The hearing will be held at 11 a.m. Aug. 17 at Biddeford High School’s Little Theater.

It’s the second congressional field hearing in less than a month after members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, all Democrats, held a hearing in Houston, Texas. The hearing addressed the July 7 ICE fatal shooting of Mexican national Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston. Less than a week later, another ICE agent shot and killed Guerrero in Biddeford.

In both cases, the men weren’t persons of interest that ICE agents were looking for during targeted enforcement operations, officials said. In both cases, the Department of Homeland Security said in separate statements that both men drove their vehicles toward ICE agents who fired in self-defense, killing them.

In both cases, witnesses and family members dispute the claims made by DHS and ICE, arguing the men didn’t “weaponize” their vehicles and were unarmed. Multiple investigations are ongoing into both shootings. Maine’s bipartisan delegation called for the DHS Inspector General to conduct a comprehensive, transparent and expedited investigation. A state AG investigation is also underway.

At the Houston hearing, Hispanic Caucus Chair U.S. Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-NY, said eight people, including two U.S. citizens, have been killed by ICE agents so far during the second Trump administration, The Center Square reported. 

Next week, scheduled speakers include Biddeford Mayor Liam LaFountain, Guerrero family legal representative Ben Gideon, Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project executive director Sue Roche and Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition executive director Mufalo Chitam.

U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., ranking member of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security will co-lead the hearing as he did in Houston. Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., and other Democratic members of Congress will also participate, according to an announcement from Pingree’s office. 

No Republican members have yet to announce their attendance. However, LaFountain said he hopes that Republican members of Congress will attend “because this is an issue that deserves serious attention and oversight from across the political spectrum,” Maine Morning Star reported. “Federal authority must come with federal accountability, and Congress has an important role to play in providing that oversight when the exercise of federal authority results in the death of a member of our community." 

On Tuesday, more than 150 people protested outside of U.S. Sen. Susan Collins’ Biddeford office, holding “ICE OUT!” signs. The protest was organized by Maine People's Alliance and Center for Popular Democracy, Maine Morning Star reported. 

Collins, running for reelection to her sixth term, has recently dropped in the polls. Her challenger, Democrat Troy Jackson, is ahead by 4 points, according to the polling. 

House Democrats began holding field hearings after assaults against ICE agents are up 1,300% since the Biden administration. Vehicular attacks against ICE agents are up 3,200%; death threats are up by 8,000%, The Center Square reported.

The hearings are also being held as U.S. citizens continue to raise concerns about ICE agent actions. 

In a video posted on social media on Tuesday, a recorded altercation with ICE agents in Virginia appears to show one ICE agent pointing a gun in the face of a U.S. citizen while she’s seated in her car. He and other agents are recorded shouting and swearing and threatening to “lock her up,” according to the video.

U.S. House Democrats posted the video to social media stating, “An ICE agent pointed a gun inches from a U.S. citizen’s face. This agency is dangerously out of control. If ICE is not held accountable, they will kill another innocent person.”

U.S. Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-VA, said he’d been in contact with her and “she's a U.S. citizen and lives in my district.” 

“How many more videos like this will we need to see, with Americans having guns pulled on them by Trump's untrained ICE agents, before we get real accountability from ICE? I will be demanding answers and consequences,” he said.

(The Center Square) — Voters in Connecticut and Vermont went to the polls Tuesday to decide primary races that showcased Democrats’ struggle between moderates and its progressive left wing and demands for generational change in Congress.

In Connecticut's Democratic U.S. House primary, former Hartford Luke Bronin soundly defeated long-time incumbent 28-year veteran U.S. Rep. John Larson in a race that was framed around the need for younger representation in Congress. Larson, 78, was seeking a 15th term in the state's 1st Congressional District. 

The Associated Press called the race Tuesday night with Bronin ahead 53.5% to 34.7%, with an estimated 51% of votes counted. Larson conceded the race to Bronin at a primary night watch party. 

Bronin, who pulled off an upset by winning the Democratic Party's nomination in May, is among a crop of younger challengers taking on long-time incumbents this election cycle in a push for generational change. 

"Tonight, voters sent a message that if we are going to fix this mess we’re in, we need to build a Democratic Party that’s bringing a whole new energy to this fight,” Bronin said in remarks Tuesday night. “It’s time to be courageous, bold, and clear about who we’re fighting for and what we’re fighting for." 

Meanwhile, incumbent Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont easily defeated a primary challenge from liberal challenger Josh Elliott, according to preliminary results. 

Lamont, 72, was first elected in 2018 and reelected in 2022. He will face Republican state Sen. Ryan Fazio, 36, from Greenwich in the general election. 

In Vermont, Republican Gerald Malloy will face Democratic U.S. Rep. Becca Balint in the general election after beating Mark Coester in Tuesday's GOP primary for the state's only congressional district, which has been held by Democrats for more than two decades.

Malloy, a Weathersfield defense contractor, was ahead of Coester by nearly 4,000 votes or roughly 50%, according to unofficial results from the Vermont Secretary of State Tuesday night.

Balint, who faced no challengers from her party, easily won the Democratic primary for U.S. House on Tuesday, according to the AP's tally. She has been a vocal critic of President Trump's policies.

In Vermont's gubernatorial primary, progressive Amanda Janoo defeated Aly Richards to win the Democratic Party's nomination to take on Republican Gov. Phil Scott in the November elections.

Scott, a moderate who was first elected in 2016, is seeking a sixth term in office that would make him the longest-serving consecutive governor in Vermont history.

"Phil Scott is ready to build on his strong legacy in Vermont, growing the state’s economy, promoting fiscal responsibility and affordability, securing historic investments in housing and infrastructure, and investing in the next generation,” The Republican Governors Association said in a statement. “In his next term, Scott will continue his dedication to public service and all Vermonters.”

But progressive challengers lost to more moderate incumbents in several down ballot Vermont races on Tuesday, including contested races in the state's most populous county. 

Chittenden County Sheriff Dan Gamelin fended off a challenge from progressive contender Kevin Bloom, according to the AP's tally, while Chittenden County State's Attorney Sarah George bested Democratic challenger and former Franklin County State's Attorney Bram Kranichfeld an high profile race that was framed as a referendum around liberal policing policies and crime in Burlington. 

1 in 3 older adults feel lonely. Here's how pickleball may be helping

Pickleball has become America's fastest-growing sport, drawing millions of new players over the past few years, with a particularly devoted following among older adults. It’s also the subject of “The Dink,” the new Apple TV+ comedy about a sidelined tennis pro who trades his racquet for a paddle and finds himself taken in by a group of older players. Writer Sean Clements said the film grew out of his own experience getting "adopted by a whole crew of older women" at pickleball mixers.

That detail points to something bigger about the sport: Pickleball is as much about the people you meet on the court as the game itself. With about 1 in 3 adults ages 50 to 80 reporting loneliness, the connection it offers may be part of why it’s so good for well-being later in life.

LifeStance Health explains how a backyard game became a national obsession, and what the research says it may be doing for mental health.

How pickleball became America's fastest-growing sport

Pickleball was invented in 1965 by two neighbors on Bainbridge Island, Washington, using random sports equipment to entertain their children. While the children eventually moved on, the adults kept playing. For decades, it remained an under-the-radar favorite, passed along by friends, neighbors and word of mouth.

When the pandemic hit, many people went looking for something they could do outdoors, and pickleball found its moment. According to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), participation grew from 4.2 million players in 2020 to more than 24 million in 2025, making it the fastest-growing sport in the country for five years running.

But perhaps pickleball stuck because of what came with it: a standing game, a rotating cast of partners and easy conversation between points. What looks like a game may actually be community.

5 ways pickleball supports well-being later in life

Most people take up pickleball for the exercise, but a growing body of research suggests its biggest payoff may be mental, and the benefits may be strongest later in life.

1. It helps fight loneliness.

In a 2025 national survey of 825 U.S. adults over the age of 50, published in the Journal of Primary Care & Community Health, those who had never played pickleball were about 1.5 times as likely as current players to report feeling lonely. Pickleball players, both current and former, also reported more social connections than those who never played. Part of it may be the court itself: At roughly 30% the size of a tennis court, it keeps players close enough to talk and laugh throughout a match.

2. The more you play, the better you tend to feel.

A 2025 study of 1,667 players in Frontiers in Psychology found a dose-response relationship between pickleball and mental well-being. Those who played three or more times a week, and for longer sessions, reported higher well-being scores. The effect was strongest among older adults, particularly those ages 63 to 77. A 2023 systematic review came to similar conclusions, associating pickleball with improvements in life satisfaction along with lower stress and symptoms of depression.

3. It keeps the mind engaged.

Pickleball asks a lot of the brain at once: tracking the ball, reading opponents and adjusting shots quickly. Researchers call this kind of dynamic and reactive play open skill exercise, and a growing body of evidence suggests it may benefit the brain more than closed skill activities like running or swimming. While this research spans racquet sports broadly rather than pickleball specifically, it points to why a fast, strategic game may do more for the mind than a repetitive one.

4. It can pull you into the moment.

A 2026 study in the Journal of Aging and Physical Activity found that adults 60 and older who played recreational doubles pickleball reported stronger flow states, or feelings of total concentration and losing track of time, than other activities. Pickleball may offer a welcome mental break from the day's worries.

5. It offers routine and a sense of purpose.

Beyond the numbers, a 2025 qualitative study in the Journal of Positive Psychology and Wellbeing found that older pickleball players described the sport as a source of autonomy, purpose and belonging, with many prioritizing community and connection over competition. A standing game gives the week a rhythm and something to look forward to, weaving movement and connection into everyday life rather than leaving them to chance. That kind of built-in structure can matter most in retirement, when the routines and relationships of work tend to fall away.

Pickleball isn't a cure-all or a replacement for mental healthcare, but perhaps the game itself was never really the point. What seems to keep people coming back is each other, and that connection is worth showing up for.

This story was published by LifeStance Health and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.