新闻

Shaun Boyd is Your Political Reporter at CBS News Colorado. Share your story ideas with her by sending an email to sboyd@cbs.com or yourreporter@cbs.com. Democratic U.S. Representative Joe Neguse is hoping to pay it forward after his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. "We had been very lucky to have this wonderful life that we built together here in our community," the U.S. congressman told CBS Colorado. Neguse and his wife, Andrea, had their newborn son, their 5-year-old daughter, and they had just celebrated their 10-year wedding anniversary when their lives were upended. "Cancer was something we simply never suspected," Andrea told CBS Colorado. Andrea was 36 years old, with no family history of breast cancer, when she found a lump. "We went straight to my doctor. She also never expected cancer," Andrea said. "When I was kind of on my way out the door, she said, 'You know, let's just go ahead and have you do a mammogram just to be safe." The screening showed an aggressive form of breast cancer. "For us, it was, 'You need to start chemo therapy within three weeks,'" Andrea said. "I had a 3-month-old. I also thought, 'There's no way this is cancer. I've just given birth.' But cancer doesn't care." "That diagnosis was such a shock and came as such ... a body blow to us and our family," Rep. Neguse said. Andrea underwent chemotherapy, immunotherapy and a double mastectomy. She lost all her hair. But her husband says she never lost hope. "Any time I got kind of too down and out, I would be reminded of Andrea's strength and seeing the way that she's battling this disease, that she's losing her hair as she's going through things that I never have gone through. She reassured me maybe more than I was reassuring her," said Joe, bringing a smile and a laugh to his wife's face. Andrea says she's sharing her story publicly for the first time in hopes of raising awareness. While breast cancer is more prevalent in older women, the rate of increase in women under 50 years old is twice that of women over 50. And younger women are 40% more likely to die from the disease. Minority women are at even greater risk. "If we can do our part in trying to get more folks to get screened early and perhaps make it easier to do so, we ought to do that," Joe said. As the assistant minority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, Joe Neguse has introduced the "Screen to Save Act". The bill would require insurers to cover routine mammograms at no cost for women aged 30 and up. Right now, they're covered for women ages 40 and up. "If we hadn't noticed the lump or if we had treated it more casually, the prognosis really would have been much worse," Andrea said. Andrea Neguse has been cancer free for two and a half years and doesn't take a single day for granted. "It gives you an immense perspective," Andrea said. "I think also too there's a greater appreciation for seizing the moment and enjoying your life and your children." Nearly 383,000 women are expected to be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. That's an increase of about 6,600 over last year. Sixteen percent of those cases are in women under age 50. Andrea says, if she had been diagnosed 10 years earlier, her outcome might have been different. Presently, the five-year survival rate for breast cancer that is caught early is over 99%, which is why Andrea says women who find a lump shouldn't wait to get screened. Congressman Neguse says his bill will ensure money isn't an obstacle to those screenings. He introduced the measure Monday and is hoping to get co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle.

Massachusetts Democrats just erased one of the last clear legal boundaries on abortion in their state. And this time, even members of their own party are saying the Left has gone too far. Gov. Maura Healey signed the so-called Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act on August 10. The new law removes the state's 24-week line and replaces the specific conditions for abortions later in pregnancy with the professional judgment of a single physician. A few lines of new statutory language produced a major expansion of abortion law in one of the bluest states in America. The text of Chapter 188 of the Acts of 2026 is strikingly short, but its effect is enormous. Before Healey's signature, abortions after 24 weeks were tied to four stated grounds: preserving the mother's life, protecting her physical or mental health, a lethal fetal diagnosis, or a grave diagnosis indicating the child could not survive outside the womb without extraordinary intervention. The new law deletes those categories. In their place, it says an abortion may be performed based on the physician's professional judgment. It also says no medical review process may override the judgment reached by the treating physician and the patient or health-care proxy. The statute does not require a second physician to sign off on that decision. The final section removes an additional paragraph from the statute governing where later abortions may be performed. That deleted paragraph had generally required abortions after 24 weeks to take place in a hospital authorized to provide obstetric services, except in an emergency. The enacted law contains only three operative sections, and none establishes a replacement gestational limit, second-opinion requirement, or new list of qualifying medical conditions. Healey approved it on August 10. Supporters insist the change is about rare, heartbreaking medical cases and allowing doctors to act without sending patients out of state. But that defense ducks the obvious question: if the goal was to cover extraordinary medical circumstances, why erase the medical standards from the law instead of clarifying them? The Massachusetts Legislature's official history for H.5595 shows how quickly the measure moved. The House passed it 119-33 on July 22. The Senate approved it on July 31, the House enacted it that same day by a 121-35 vote, and it went to Healey before becoming Chapter 188. The Legislature's own summary said the bill removed the requirements that limited abortions at or after 24 weeks to specific medical circumstances. It also expanded the places where the procedures could be performed beyond hospitals to qualifying health-care treatment centers. The official history shows H.5595 emerged as a new draft of H.2370 on the same day the House passed it, before the Senate advanced it during the final days of the formal session. Healey signed it ten days later. The compressed calendar left opponents confronting a sweeping rewrite of late-pregnancy abortion law in less than three weeks. That broad language was enough to make nine House Democrats break ranks. Fox News Digital reported that Democratic state Rep. Jeffrey Turco called the law an extremist and dangerous position. He warned that it permits unrestricted abortion at any point in pregnancy and that public money may pay for many of those procedures. Democratic Rep. Chris Markey said pro-choice voters can still recognize that the law crosses ordinary lines of acceptability. He described himself as deeply disappointed and warned that the change creates a slippery slope. Democratic Rep. Dennis Gallagher said he supports keeping abortion decisions between a woman and her doctor, but argued that adoption and other alternatives deserve far more consideration late in pregnancy when the mother's health is not in danger. Democratic Rep. Alan Silvia was blunter. He condemned any expansion beyond 24 weeks and accused Beacon Hill of showing more concern for endangered animals than unborn children. The objections were not confined to one corner of the state. The Fall River Reporter documented opposition from Silvia and fellow Democratic Rep. Justin Thurber after the House vote. Thurber said the bill replaced clear post-24-week medical criteria with one physician's judgment, without a second-opinion requirement. He warned that the sweeping change eliminated safeguards involving potentially viable children. The local report also noted that the law prevents outside medical review from overruling the physician and patient, removes the hospital-only rule for these later procedures, and eliminates certain annual facility-reporting requirements. The changes affect who decides, where the procedure may occur, and what facilities must report. Silvia said efforts to expand abortion from 24 weeks to birth had become a recurring Beacon Hill battle. He opposed every expansion and condemned what he sees as the state's celebration of abortion. Thurber focused on the mechanics of the bill. He said the old statute named threats to the mother's life and lethal or grave fetal diagnoses, while H.5595 transferred the decision to one physician's judgment without requiring another doctor to sign off. Meanwhile, Healey and the bill's backers celebrated the signing as a victory for "freedom." That is a remarkable word to use while removing protections for a child who may already be capable of surviving outside the womb. Massachusetts already permitted abortion through 24 weeks and allowed it later for the mother's life or health and severe fetal diagnoses. This was not a response to a total ban. It was a deliberate decision to go further. And when nine Democrats in Massachusetts are willing to defy party leaders over abortion, the warning could not be clearer. The law is so extreme that it fractured the very party that passed it. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.