Abortion pill “reversal” is the idea that the effects of the first pill in a medication abortion regimen — a drug called mifepristone — can be counteracted if someone decides not to take the second pill. Mifepristone works by blocking receptors for progesterone, a hormone needed to continue a pregnancy. Providers of “reversal” care try to override this block by flooding the zone with high doses of progesterone in the hopes of continuing the pregnancy.

The practice is not federally approved. Scientific support for the idea is spotty at best — and reports of success are undermined by the fact that, when taken alone, mifepristone can be ineffective at causing an abortion, making it unclear whether the progesterone provides any added benefit.

But no study has conclusively debunked the notion, either. At least one study has suggested there may be an added risk of severe bleeding in patients who take mifepristone without then taking the second abortion drug. In defending the law, the state cited no instances of harm or patient complaints from the practice.

The treatment is most often provided in anti-abortion clinics, many of which are faith-based.

It is unclear how often it occurs, but even using proponents’ own figures, it still happens in fewer than 0.5% of medication abortions.

And in case you were wondering:

Domenico, who previously served as solicitor general for the state of Colorado, was nominated to the federal bench in 2017 by then-President Donald Trump.

The Colorado Department of Transportation will begin exploring the possibility of re-establishing passenger rail from Denver to Craig utilizing funds from a federal transportation package, the agency announced Monday.

The $5 million study will provide data and suggest service options for this corridor, CDOT said in a news release.

The 191-mile rail line would operate along the existing Union Pacific route and would pass through the towns of Steamboat Springs and Hayden, among others. Union Pacific lines already serve Winter Park ski trains from January through March and Amtrak’s California Zephyr, but implementation of a line from Denver to Craig would mark the first time since 1968 that the route would include passenger rail.

“We’ve always looked at that corridor as one that would be a potential for passenger rail,” said Timothy Hoover, CDOT communications manager for Front Range passenger rail and innovative mobility. “But it’s only been in the last couple years that the possibility became much stronger.”

The recent reduction in coal train traffic, due to a rise in green energy use as well as cheaper and more widely available natural gas, as well as the 2021 federal bipartisan infrastructure deal have increased the possibility of such a line being realistically implemented, Hoover said.

If implemented, the line would be operated by CDOT, but would be separate from the long-promised Front Range passenger rail line, which would instead be overseen by a special district, Hoover said. But the current plan is for both lines to have an endpoint at Denver’s Union Station, allowing for passengers to transfer between the routes. “There are a lot of communities that have obviously grown since the ’60s,” said Jonathan Flint, Steamboat Springs’ transit manager. “Having yet another transportation option between Denver and these communities is, I think, something that a lot of people would be interested in.”

Not only would residents of Steamboat Springs be interested in the rail connection with Denver, Flint said, but tourists who fly into the state without access to a car would also utilize the service, especially to avoid driving over perilous mountain passes in the wintertime.

“Convenient passenger rail would be amazing!” Gov. Jared Polis said in the statement. “A just transition for communities moving away from coal production, cutting traffic and reducing pollution are some of my administration’s top priorities. Expanding passenger rail service to the Yampa Valley can help on all these objectives.”

The rail service likely would complement existing bus service into the mountains, including CDOT’s own Bustang route on Interstate 70.

“Our engineers, they have basically told us that this is, in the scheme of things, a rail line that’s very doable,” Hoover said. “It’s really (about) building a transit network throughout Colorado.”

We missed the colors by a week or two but it was sunny and warm around mid-day. Got to ride around the lake for the first time, and that's a really nice ride.

When it comes to noncoastal metro areas with the most expensive home prices, Colorado takes spots one to four, with Greeley now on the highest-cost list, according to a study from the real estate research firm Zonda.

“Housing affordability generally improves as one moves away from the coast, but even inland markets are reaching affordability extremes,” said Ali Wolf, Zonda’s chief economist, in a blog post that highlights just how expensive it has become to live along Colorado’s Front Range.

Wolf set out to identify the five most expensive noncoastal markets with a population of 250,000 or more, and her report also includes lists for the top five in 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010.

Boulder tops the list with a median home price of $833,622 and Denver came in next at $636,651. Fort Collins was third at $593,282 and for the first time ever, Greeley showed up in fourth place with a median price of $573,957. Greeley, whose metro area covers all of Weld County, edged out Portland, Ore., which came in at $569,876 and is nearly coastal with the Pacific Ocean 60 miles away.

Compared to surrounding parts of the northern Front Range, Greeley and Weld County have long been considered a haven of affordability. Land costs are relatively lower, regulations lighter and builders more active.

“Greeley, which ranked outside the top 10 in 2010, appreciated over 200% from 2010 through today, outpacing the national growth rate of 120% during the same time,” Wolf said of home prices there.

Greeley’s relative affordability, about 10% below the rest of the region, drew in residents priced out of surrounding counties. But builders were unable to keep pace.

Over the past four decades, Boulder and Fort Collins were regulars on the top five most expensive noncoastal housing markets and Denver would pop on and off. Boulder, in fact, ranked first on the lists for 1980, 2000 and 2010. Even during the S&L housing bust, it managed to cling to the fifth spot in 1990.

Gains have also gone way beyond what overall inflation can explain. In 1980, no non-coastal market had a median price above $100,000, Wolf said. The median price for Boulder, the most expensive interior city at the time, was at $86,248.

A $100,000 home back in 1980 would be the equivalent of $390,000 home today, Wolf said. But in the case of Boulder, rather than rising four or five times with inflation, homes are about tenfold more expensive. In Fort Collins, which also made 1980’s most expensive list, prices are nearly eight times higher.

Even as recently as 2000, home values were much more reasonable, even though Boulder, Fort Collins and Denver also claimed the top three spots. Metro Denver, back then, had a median price of $196,053, which ranked third overall.

On Monday, Realtor.com showed only one single-family home available below that 2000 median price in Adams and Arapahoe counties, and none in Denver County. Options were more plentiful for older condos under 1,000 square feet.

Since the start of last year, the typical mortgage payment, between higher rates and higher home values, is up 73%, according to Zonda. Income gains have come nowhere close to matching that, and Wolf cautions that one of the coping strategies buyers may pursue is to relocate to more affordable markets.

The designation comes with federal funding, bragging rights as the next big tech ecosystem, and local excitement to make the state the Silicon Valley of quantum technology.

Not me or my pictures, just sharing what I found here: https://pixtagram.social/i/web/post/606982013460906643

quick unverified search online says they were vaping during the show

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/3275658

Two co-conspirators named in the latest Trump indictment are big names in Colorado Republican politics: John Eastman and Jenna Ellis.

ARTICLE TEXT

Colorado’s housing shortage has gotten so severe that the state is now directing millions of dollars to finance factories that can lower construction costs and to assist companies in developing innovative construction methods.

The goal is to improve affordability for those living in Colorado but also to make the state a leader in a sector that has suffered from severe productivity problems for decades, one that mounting labor shortages will worsen over time.

“We are trying to help an issue that we had some role in creating,” said Jack Tiebout, senior program manager for the Innovative Housing Incentive Program, or IHIP, which is administered through the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT).

OEDIT has helped bring tens of thousands of jobs to Colorado through its various incentive programs, but that success also exposed the inability of developers and contractors to keep up with accommodations for a growing population.

“The shortage as projected by Housing Colorado is at 225,000 units now,” said Hilary Cooper, director of Innovative Funding for Housing Programs within OEDIT.

Back in 2021, the Common Sense Institute estimated the state was only adding just more than half of the 54,190 new units it needed to average per year over the next five years to fill the existing shortfall and keep up with population gains.

The chief tool OEDIT has at its disposal currently is the Innovative Housing Incentive Program, which the Legislature provided with $40 million in funding, Tiebout said. More money — a lot more — will come through Proposition 123, which directs a sliver of state income tax revenues to housing, including the construction of factories.

Under IHIP, qualified businesses can receive working capital grants of up to 20% of their operational expenses on a monthly basis, up to $350,000, with an additional $50,00 bonus for producing affordable housing. For businesses operating in Just Transition Communities, places like Pueblo and Craig, the base grant can go up to $450,000.

Another direct incentive is available to housing manufacturers of $1,500 to $6,000 per unit created and installed in Colorado. Higher grant amounts are given to homes that are affordable and energy efficient.

And there are concessionary loans, meaning they have lenient terms, for those looking to build or expand factory space tied to housing construction. And in some cases, those housing grants can be stacked with incentives for bringing new jobs to the state.

The first round of IHIP grants, completed in March, extended $4.2 million to three companies in return for the construction of 1,000 homes. The firms expect to complete more than 4,000 homes over the next three years.

Awards included $1.5 million to Key Structures of Pueblo, a maker of modular housing for median-income households; $1.4 million to Fading West Development of Buena Vista, which produces modular homes in a factory setting; and $1.3 million to Simple Homes of Denver, which has delivered 650 units since opening a manufacturing facility in 2019.

“Our niche is our panelized building system and in working with builders who would have stick framed those projects,” said Jeff Hopfenbeck, CEO of Simple Homes. “We are introducing more technologically advanced solutions to part of the puzzle.”

Sweden, where 80% to 90% of the wood-based construction is pre-fabricated, was a source of inspiration for the company. A factory setting allows for work to be done day and night and across seasons in safer conditions. It provides for more precise tolerances, better quality control and generates less waste.

Although the company’s pre-fabricated homes are competitive with stick-built homes in terms of cost, where the savings really kick in are in assembly times, Hopfenbeck said.

The company has put together a three-story triplex of 7,000 square feet in a single day. And at a build-to-rent community in Longmont of 240 homes, Simple Homes, a third of the way in, has cut the completion times in half compared to traditional methods, Hopfenbeck said.

Hopfenbeck said the state incentives help when it comes to working capital, which is a challenge for fast-growing companies that are trying to establish themselves.

“It allows us to be competitive on savings. We can pass some of those savings to customers, who pass those on to their end customers,” he said. Once customers try Simple Homes, and a lower price-point can help, they tend to be “sticky,” he added.

The company, which has 85 employees, was able to turn a profit last year, but like the entire construction industry, it has struggled with a slowdown caused by higher interest rates.

Tiebout said about 18 companies have applied to pre-certify with the state to receive incentives. About 50 companies are on the state’s radar, ranging from tiny startups to out-of-state companies looking to locate major manufacturing facilities.

Some, like Simple Homes, focus on panelized homes or completing key components like the walls, floors and trusses in a factory and assembling them on-site. Other companies take a modular approach, both building and assembling the components in a factory. Transportation of the shell is more problematic in that approach.

Kit builders, who assemble and ship all the components needed for a home to a construction site, are another innovative approach the state will fund. But they aren’t new. Sears Roebuck offered kit homes in its catalog in 1908 and shipped more than 70,000 before stopping in 1940.

One of the most innovative approaches involves 3-D printing, where a massive “printer” precisely extrudes material, say concrete, to build a home on the site. Some firms are looking to build 3-D printers and print homes, while others are wanting to build the equipment and lease it out.

If time is money, then building homes in factories with fewer workers is one way to save money, especially as the construction sector struggles with an aging workforce, ongoing labor shortages and younger generations less willing to learn the skilled trades.

For a variety of reasons, a manufacturing approach was largely rejected in the U.S. decades ago, setting the course for underproduction and spiraling home prices. Home construction productivity was 40% lower in 2020 than in 1970, even as all the other sectors of the economy doubled their productivity in that same time frame, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“Prefabricated factory-built housing costs about one-third as much as traditional ‘stick-built housing,’ but it constitutes just 10% of new single-family home construction today,” notes Jason Mejia, a visiting fellow with the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, in a blog post.

Last month, Golden startup Addazu unveiled its first prototype, a small mining cabin at 130 square feet made of panels put together in a factory. Individual panels can be combined to create everything from tiny homes to three-story triplexes.

The cost for the tiniest home will be about $30,000 once production is underway, said CEO Kelly Pickering. His hope is that new Denver Mayor Mike Johnston will consider Addazu as an option when it comes to moving those living on the streets into more permanent shelters.

Pickering, who decided to focus on the housing affordability problem while attending the Colorado School of Mines, plans to test the structure against the Colorado elements at 11,000 feet near Montgomery Reservoir.

And he is also looking at obtaining state incentives to help ramp up production.

The IHIP program is capped at $40 million, but a lot more money will become available in Colorado to innovators like Addazu, which is the Welsh word for adaptable. Proposition 123 redirects one-tenth of 1% of state income tax revenues, and could provide $300 million a year.

Of that amount, 40% will go to the Colorado Division of Housing to address more immediate housing concerns, such as homelessness, and another 60% will go through OEDIT, which is working with the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) to finance longer-term solutions.

The OEDIT/CHFA share will finance land banking or the acquisition of land for affordable housing by approved local governments via grants and nonprofits via forgivable loans. Another portion will fund housing options for low-income to middle-income households. And a third will provide concessionary debt, or loans that carry more favorable terms, to support factory construction for products that attach to a foundation.

Anywhere from 15% to 35% of the 60% share that OEDIT receives could help with factory construction, said Steve Boice, manager of business finance at CHFA.

The companies that have expressed interest in loans are looking at investments of anywhere from $5 million to $50 million, he said, with guidelines expected out next month, he said.