What's Happening

Politics 

How a Conspiracy Put Springfield, Ohio in the Spotlight 

What's going on: It’s been a tough week for Springfield, Ohio. City workers opened their emails to find a bomb threat Thursday, prompting the evacuation of City Hall and an ongoing investigation. Springfield had already become the backdrop for a viral conspiracy theory: that its immigrant population was eating people’s pet dogs and cats. The falsehood quickly spread from the dregs of social media to Sen. JD Vance’s (R-OH) X account to the lips of former President Donald Trump at the debate Tuesday. “They're eating the dogs, the people that came in, they're eating the cats,” Trump said. Moderator David Muir quickly fact-checked Trump, saying there had been “no credible reports” of pets being harmed by immigrants in the city. The baseless and racist rumor seems to have originated in a Facebook group, per The Springfield News-Sun. The post alleged a “neighbor’s daughter’s friend” found her lost cat hanging from a branch near a Haitian's home. Authorities haven't yet determined if the conspiracy and bomb threat are linked, but the mayor said it included “hateful language towards immigrants and Haitians.”

What it means: Trump’s “eating the dogs” comment sparked TikToks and memes satirizing what many saw as an absurd debate moment — but the actual impacts of a conspiracy like this are anything but funny. Such divisive rhetoric can put innocent people at risk, reigniting harmful stereotypes about immigrant communities. Anti-immigrant rhetoric can increase stigma and lead to negative outcomes for immigrants, from discrimination to health issues, a JAMA study found. In Springfield, local officials and community members have called out the conspiracy and other falsehoods. Earlier this week, the father of Aiden Clark, a student who was accidentally killed in a school bus crash involving an immigrant driver, urged JD Vance and Trump to stop using his son for political gain. He said: “This needs to stop now.”

Related: After Criticism for Her Lack of Media Interviews, Harris Says She’ll Be Doing More (NBC News)

US News

North Dakota's Abortion Ban Is Going, Going, Gone…But There Are No Clinics Left 

What's going on: A judge in North Dakota rolled back the state’s abortion ban on Thursday, citing that the state constitution creates a fundamental right to access abortion before fetal viability. He added that the ban was “unconstitutionally void for vagueness.” This was the second abortion ban lawmakers in North Dakota had passed, and the second to be overruled by the courts. The decision is unlikely to change much for North Dakotans — the state’s only abortion clinic moved across the border to Minnesota in 2022 and is not expected to return. The clinic's director responded to the ruling: “North Dakota still has a huge amount of restrictions and state-mandated laws. Minnesota has welcomed us, and this is our home now.” A new clinic could take years to open, an attorney on the case told The Washington Post. 

What it means: This comes at a time when abortion is on the minds (and ballots) of many. Voters in up to 10 states — an unprecedented number — will be able to vote on ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights this November. But there’s also an equally unprecedented number of court challenges to such initiatives. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed a ruling that would have blocked the abortion initiative, literally hours before ballots were set to be printed. Meanwhile, in Arizona, the state Supreme Court allowed the government to include pamphlets about the ballot measure that describe a fetus as an “unborn human being.” Abortion rights often remain in the hands of both the voters and the courts. However, the decisions made by those in power don’t always align with what the actual majority of people want.

Related: The Candidates Had Very Different Approaches to Abortion in the 2024 Presidential Debate (Axios)

Health

That's Dr. ChatGPT To You

What's going on: A new survey from KFF suggests that more and more Americans are turning to AI-powered chatbots for medical advice. One in six adults ask chatbots, like ChatGPT, a medical question at least once a month, and one in three use them multiple times a week. It’s easy to see the appeal: You don’t have to spend months waiting for a doctor's appointment — and AI can answer your questions within seconds. However, about 60% of respondents said they aren’t confident in their ability to determine which chatbot answers are accurate. ChatGPT might be the new WebMD, but that’s not necessarily a good thing.

What it means: AI usage for medical advice may be more widespread than initially thought. Most research on how people use AI for medical concerns has been largely hypothetical. And other than following up with an actual doctor, there is no way to verify if the information from AI searches is accurate. One doctor told The New York Times that another issue is the authoritative tone chatbots use, which can give some patients false confidence. Another said while ChatGPT can be useful for health advice, patients need to know how to ask the right questions and approach the answers with skepticism. Still, some advocates argue that AI can empower patients.

Related: ChatGPT Just Got Better At Math and Science (Axios)