The decades-old federal law protecting the privacy of individual health information is threatened by multiple lawsuits that seek to throw out a rule restricting disclosure of information in criminal investigations, including for those seeking legal abortion and other reproductive health care.
In one of the cases, the Texas federal judge who has been at the center of several anti-abortion court battles appears to question the constitutionality and legality of the health privacy act in its entirety.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act — or HIPAA — established in 1996 to protect the privacy and security of patient health information, includes some exceptions under limited conditions, such as law enforcement investigations. But after the U.S. Supreme Court ended federal abortion rights in 2022 and more than a dozen states passed abortion bans, advocates worried that such records could be used by state officials and law enforcement to investigate and prosecute patients seeking an abortion and those who help them.
Health officials under former President Joe Biden’s administration enacted a HIPAA rule to keep health information private when the patient was in a state with legal access and the care was obtained legally. In order to release information related to this type of care, the entity subject to HIPAA rules must sign a document stating it is not released for one of the prohibited purposes.
“These cases may have been prompted by this newer rule, but they threaten more broadly the entire HIPAA system on which we all rely when accessing medical care,” said Carrie Flaxman, senior legal adviser for Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal organization.
Two lawsuits seek to rescind that most recent rule, while another brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton goes a step further, asking the court to remove the general rules established in 2000 about how much health information can be disclosed to law enforcement.
“The threats to the 2000 privacy rule would be a seismic shift that could erode patients’ trust entirely in their providers and dissuade them from wanting to seek out health care and be transparent about their symptoms,” said Ashley Emery, a senior policy analyst for the nonprofit Partnership for Women and Families. “A law enforcement officer could pressure a psychiatrist to share patient notes from therapy sessions without a subpoena, without a warrant, if the 2000 privacy rule is invalidated.”
The state of Missouri sued to rescind the Biden rule in January, and the state of Tennessee filed a similar action the same day that 14 other Republican attorneys general joined as plaintiffs: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. All but three of those states either heavily restrict or outright ban abortion, and if the lawsuits are successful, records kept by doctors and pharmacists in other states could be subpoenaed.
All of the lawsuits are filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is now under Republican President Donald Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The Trump administration has so far followed the direction of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which calls for the most recent HIPAA rule to be rescinded.
Amarillo judge ordered briefing on HIPAA’s constitutionality and legality
Three cases are still in motion, including one with a physician as the plaintiff. Dr. Carmen Purl, the sole owner of Dr. Purl’s Fast Care Walk In Clinic in Dumas, Texas, sued HHS because she said the rule creates a conflict with the laws requiring her to report child abuse.
“I consider both a pregnant woman and her unborn child to be human persons, and both are entitled to medical care and deserve the protection of the law,” Purl said in court documents. “I believe … that elective abortions harm patients’ health and public health.”
U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk
The location of Purl’s clinic puts her in the judicial district that has only one federal judge — U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee. Most federal cases are assigned randomly to a group of judges in a district, but since Kacsmaryk is the only one, many advocates and attorneys have accused law firms like Alliance Defending Freedom, who is representing Purl in the case, of “judge shopping,” or finding a plaintiff in a certain area for the purpose of putting it in front of an ideologically friendly judge.
On Dec. 22, Kacsmaryk granted an injunction blocking enforcement of the rule against Purl while the case proceeds, and he is still considering whether to permanently block the law.
As part of the decision, Kacsmaryk also ordered the parties to submit briefs explaining how recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that delegate more authority to Congress over administrative agencies “affect the constitutionality or legality of HIPAA and HHS’s authority to issue the 2024 rule.”
Kacsmaryk presided over a lawsuit in 2023 brought by a group of anti-abortion doctors seeking to revoke the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs commonly used to terminate pregnancies in the first trimester and to treat miscarriages. Kacsmaryk ruled in favor of removing its approval, but the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overruled him in 2024.
Purl added that she thinks gender-affirming care is harmful to children, never medically necessary and a matter of concern for public health, though she has never treated a child with gender dysphoria. In the process of providing routine medical care, she said she could learn that a child was being subjected to gender-affirming treatments or procedures that could constitute child abuse, and she would be obligated to report it.
Purl’s clinic has fewer than 20 employees, and she has been licensed to practice family medicine in Texas since 1986. In that time, she said she has treated many patients who have been victims of abuse and neglect, and estimates she has personally treated more than 100 pediatric patients who were victims of sexual abuse.
“I have treated hundreds of girls under the age of consent who were either pregnant or reported sexual activity. During my career, I have delivered babies from mothers as young as 12 years old,” Purl wrote.
Purl said she has responded to Child Protective Services investigations between 10 and 12 times, and she fears that providing full, unredacted patient records in response to an entity such as CPS would violate the 2024 rule and subject her and the clinic to civil and criminal penalties, which often means hefty fines.
In a response filed by HHS in December, before Trump’s second term began, the department said the rule does nothing to prevent Purl from reporting suspected child abuse, and denied the other harms Purl said she would incur.
“Given the nature of her medical practice, Dr. Purl is highly unlikely to ever encounter a conflict between her obligations under state law and under the Rule,” the department said in court documents.
AGs from ban states are testing newly enacted shield laws
The Texas case led by Paxton has been on hold since February, after the U.S. Department of Justice asked the court to delay scheduling until the new administration could determine how to proceed. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee, ordered the parties to file a status report by May 1.
Attorneys general in states with abortions bans have already attempted to prosecute providers in other states for prescribing abortion pills via telehealth and prosecute women who obtained an abortion in another state without the consent of a male partner. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed an extradition warrant for a doctor in New York for prescribing and mailing abortion pills to residents of the state.
New York is one of 17 Democratic-led states that has a shield law to protect providers and patients from out-of-state legal actions for reproductive care and gender-affirming care, and the state government has so far refused to comply with Louisiana’s law enforcement efforts.
The coalition of states that joined Tennessee’s lawsuit claim the privacy rule harms their ability to investigate cases of waste, fraud and abuse, and “sharply limits state investigative authority.”
Chad Kubis, spokesperson for Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, told States Newsroom via email that the office could not comment for this story because of the ongoing litigation.
“The final rule will hamper states’ ability to gather information critical to policing serious misconduct like Medicaid billing fraud, child and elder abuse, and insurance-related malfeasance,” the complaint says.
Attorneys at Democracy Forward have asked the courts to allow the clients they are representing to intervene as defendants in all four cases, arguing that the new administration is likely to either not defend the cases at all or defend them inadequately. They are representing the cities of Columbus, Ohio, and Madison, Wisconsin, as well as Doctors for America, an activist organization of physicians and medical students. None of the judges have ruled on their motions yet.
Partnership for Women and Families filed an amicus brief with 23 other advocacy organizations to support upholding the rule.
“We can’t count on the Trump administration to defend this regulation, given its longstanding record of hostility toward reproductive health and rights,” Emery said.
It’s possible the new leadership at HHS will rescind the 2024 rule, Emery said, but the lawsuits alone are concerning enough because of the threat posed to privacy protections. That’s part of the goal, said Emery and Flaxman — to present the threat and sow fear and intimidation in patients and providers. And the method of launching multiple lawsuits in various jurisdictions fits a pattern that has been observed in the fight for abortion rights, Emery said.
“Anti-abortion extremists’ legal campaign against HIPAA’s reproductive health privacy protections is designed to test out different legal venues and arguments to obtain the most favorable outcome possible,” she said.
Doctor who has been investigated before says intimidation tactics have an effect
Indiana OB-GYN Dr. Caitlin Bernard knows what it’s like to be the target of an investigation, and said she’s still in court fighting new attempts to instill fear in doctors and patients.
Indiana Dr. Caitlin Bernard waits for a question from the Attorney General’s Office at a medical licensing hearing on May 25, 2023. (Photo by Whitney Downard/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
Bernard was an abortion provider in Indiana before the state enacted its ban in August 2023. She reported in 2022 that she had provided a medication abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim who traveled to Indiana from Ohio when the state briefly had a ban in place. She was accused of violating patient privacy laws and investigated by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, and the state licensing board fined her $3,000 and reprimanded her for the incident after Rokita asked the board to revoke her license to practice medicine. She was not found to have violated patient privacy and kept her license.
“Now my case is held up as an example of what can happen to you if you speak out about abortion bans,” Bernard said. “I’ve spoken to many physicians across the country who are intimidated by that. They say, ‘Look at Dr. Bernard and what happened to her.’”
Now, Bernard is part of a lawsuit against the state to categorize terminated pregnancy records as medical records in state law that cannot be released to the public. Indiana has historically treated abortion reports as public record with certain details redacted, but Bernard said with the ban in place and so few people qualifying for its limited exceptions, that policy should change. The records include demographic information like age, ethnicity and education level, as well as information such as diagnoses and the date, location and physician who provided care.
“It also includes the county, so you could imagine in these very small counties, somebody could absolutely figure out who that person is,” Bernard said.
Ashley Emery, senior policy analyst at Partnership for Women and Families, said the lawsuits take aim at a deeply needed line of defense against abortion criminalization, and said it will disproportionately affect immigrants, people of color and low-income populations. Trust is already low between marginalized people and health care providers, Emery said, and this would further erode that trust.
“These challenges to HIPAA are designed to take protections away from patients and try to allow anti-abortion politicians to have more control, and I think that power deficit is really important to note, and it should be very chilling,” she said.
Last updated 11:43 a.m., Mar. 31, 2025
Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: info@kentuckylantern.com.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Dave Mason | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-29 19:00:00
(The Center Square) – California and Arizona Tuesday joined 22 other states and the District of Columbia to sue the Trump administration to stop cuts in AmeriCorps’ grants and workforce.
The lawsuit objects to the federal government reducing 85% of the workforce for the agency, which promotes national service and volunteer work addressing disaster recovery and other community needs.
According to americorps.gov, the agency enrolls more than 200,000 people each year in community service organizations. AmeriCorps also provides more than $4.8 billion in education awards.
Besides California and Arizona, states filing the suit are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February directing every federal agency to reduce its staff. Since then, AmeriCorps has placed at least 85% of its workforce on administrative leave immediately and told employees they would be dismissed effective June 24, according to a news release from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
The states’ lawsuit contends the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce AmeriCorps and its grants violate the Administrative Procedures Act and the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution.
California is co-leading the lawsuit against the Trump administration.
“In California, AmeriCorps volunteers build affordable housing, clean up our environment, and address food insecurity in communities across our state,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a news release. “California has repeatedly taken action to hold the Trump Administration and DOGE accountable to the law — and we stand prepared to do it again to protect AmeriCorps and the vital services it provides.”
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office said the cuts in AmeriCorps affect grants such as:
$700,000 for Northern Arizona University, Arizona Teacher’s Residency, designed to address teacher shortages.
$308,000 for Area Agency on Aging, Caring Circles, which helps older Arizonans with needs such as transportation to medical appointments, grocery shopping and help with technology.
$495,000 for Vista College Prepartory’s tutoring and teacher support for math and reading for low-income students.
“AmeriCorps represents the best of our nation – providing opportunities for millions of Americans to serve their neighbors and communities and make our country a better place to live,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said. “By unilaterally gutting this Congressionally authorized agency, Donald Trump and Elon Musk have yet again violated the law and the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution. Their illegal actions will harm Arizona communities.”
Mayes noted studies show AmeriCorps programs generate more than $34 per every dollar spent in terms of their impact on communities.
“Slashing these programs serves no purpose and is incredibly short-sighted from those claiming to champion efficiency,” she said.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
This article reports on a legal action filed by multiple states against the Trump administration over cuts to AmeriCorps, without offering an overt ideological stance. The content outlines the details of the lawsuit, the parties involved, and their claims. The language used is largely factual, describing the positions of the states, particularly California and Arizona, without endorsing one side. While the article highlights the perceived impacts of the cuts and quotes politicians critical of the Trump administration, it refrains from promoting an explicit viewpoint, focusing instead on reporting the legal and administrative actions at hand. The tone remains neutral and provides an equal space to both the states’ concerns and the implications of the lawsuit. It primarily serves as a factual report on the legal challenge, rather than an advocacy piece, and does not adopt a partisan perspective on the issue.
After years of legal wrangling, former Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes is free of any state ethics violation charges.
The Executive Branch Ethics Commission, which brought charges against her in 2021, has decided not to try to appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court last month’s unanimous decision by the Kentucky Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court order that cleared Grimes of any wrongdoing.
With no appeal to the state’s highest court from the commission within 30 days, the appellate court finalized its decision on April 21.
“There are no legal charges any more against her, and there never should have been any,” her attorney, Jon Salomon of Louisville, said Monday night.
The end of the legal case could opens the door for a possible run for another political office. The Democrat is seen by some Kentucky political observers as a possible candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2026 or Central Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District next year.
Grimes is a Lexington lawyer who was secretary of state from 2011 to 2019 and was an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2014 against Republican Mitch McConnell. She is the daughter of the former state Democratic Party Chair Jerry Lundergan of Lexington. The Lundergan family is close to former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Grimes did not return phone calls seeking comments about her legal victory and political future.
Susan Clary, executive director of the ethics commission, had no comment Monday night when asked why the commission did not ask the Kentucky Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals’ decision.
The commission had been investigating Grimes for several years.
In November 2021, the commission fined Grimes $10,000 for two ethical violations pertaining to handling of voter data.
As secretary of state, Grimes was the state’s chief elections officer. In her position, she had access to data from the state voter registration system in the State Board of Elections.
The commission had alleged that Grimes violated the ethics code by sharing voter information without requiring a request under the Open Records Act or other “established process of government.”
Grimes responded that all the voter data at issue was information in the public domain and that she had full legal authority and discretion as secretary of state to access and share such information. She claimed no statute or regulation was violated by the sharing of such public information. She claimed the commission’s charges were barred by the five-year statute of limitations and that the record did not support a finding of any violations of the state executive branch’s code of ethics.
The commission argued that it was not bound by any statute of limitations and claimed that a limitation could hamper its work on other cases.
The only allegations pursued by the Ethics Commission were that Grimes allegedly acted unethically in accessing public information in the voter registration system by downloading voter information onto a thumb drive when she was a candidate for reelection.
The commission also looked at whether Grimes improperly shared information on new voter registrations for certain Kentucky House of Representative districts in response to a request made informally through the office of the House speaker without requiring a formal open records request or charging a fee.
Grimes fought the charges in Franklin Circuit Court and Judge Phillip Shepherd ruled in her favor.
Then the three-member appellate court said last month that the Executive Branch Ethics Commission missed its statutory deadline to charge Grimes with improperly ordering the downloading and distribution of voter registration data from her public office while she was Kentucky’s secretary of state.
“The Franklin Circuit Court reversed the commission’s decision, finding it was arbitrary, not supported by substantial evidence and time barred. Due to the statute of limitations alone, we affirm,” said the appellate court decision. The three appellate judges were Susanne M. Cetrulo, James H. Lambert and Jeff S. Taylor.
Salomon, Grimes’ attorney, noted that the final order contained a “To Be Published” provision, meaning that the case sets precedent in law.
Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: info@kentuckylantern.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This article presents the facts about Alison Lundergan Grimes’ legal case and political future in a mostly neutral to slightly favorable light. It highlights her legal victory and potential political prospects without using charged or partisan language. The article leans slightly center-left due to the positive framing of a Democratic figure and the mention of her ties to prominent Democratic leaders while maintaining an informative and balanced tone overall.
Beyond Kentucky’s borders, horse racing is a sport in steep decline. Within the commonwealth, however, wealth is common.
Though no fewer than 48 American racetracks have closed since 2000, Kentucky operators continue to invest hundreds of millions in their facilities and are reaping an outsized return, and not only on the first Saturday in May.
For instance:
Churchill Downs Inc. reported record net revenue ($2.7 billion) and net income ($427 million) for 2024.
Keeneland’s September Yearling Sale netted a record $427.9 million.
The 2006 races run in Kentucky in 2024 paid an average purse of $112,648, 20% higher than the second most lucrative state (Arkansas).
September’s seven-day all-grass meet at Kentucky Downs in Franklin paid out $490,789 per race, easily the highest total ever recorded at a North American track.
“Retreat to Kentucky if you want a future in racing,” California horseplayer Andy Asaro tweeted on April 15. “Things are moving fast.”
Whisper Hill Farm paid $5 million at the September 2024 Keeneland sale for a then-unnamed yearling colt by Curlin out of Cavorting by Bernardini. (Keeneland photo)
Beyond the Bluegrass, things are moving mostly in reverse. Jockey Club data shows the number of Thoroughbred races run in the United States has dropped by more than 50% since 1995, and the size of the national foal crop has been falling even faster, from 34,358 in 2007 to an estimated 16,675 last year. The Sonoma County Fair recently announced it will forego live racing for the first time since 1936 because of a shrinking supply of horses in Northern California. Last month, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled the state’s historical horse racing machines unconstitutional, prompting Churchill Downs Inc. to project a 25% cut in purses at its Fair Grounds racetrack.
Slots-lite a double-edged sword
Meanwhile, “decoupling” legislation that could free Florida gaming operators of the obligation to stage live racing as a condition of their licenses has been stalled, but may only represent a temporary reprieve from redevelopment of major tracks. The Stronach Group’s 1/ST Racing, which owns Gulfstream and Santa Anita, has threatened to sell both tracks while showing a pronounced inclination to divest rather than invest in its properties. Last year, the company closed Golden Gate Fields near San Francisco and cut a deal that turned over Baltimore’s Pimlico, the home of the Preakness Stakes, to the state of Maryland.
Against this gloomy backdrop, and in contrast to its own contentious closure of Arlington Park near Chicago, Churchill Downs Inc. continues to spend aggressively on its flagship track. Plans for new capital projects with a projected cost of $920 million were put on pause last Wednesday, ostensibly in response to the uncertainty surrounding tariffs and trade disputes, but recent improvements to the paddock and the addition of Homestretch Club and Turn One Experience cost in excess of $300 million and speak to management’s long-term bullishness.
While these investments are largely attributable to the singular appeal of the Kentucky Derby, they also reflect the thoroughbred industry’s political influence in Frankfort and, in turn, the gushing revenue stream historical horse racing (HHR) terminals have unleashed.
Since their 2011 introduction at Kentucky Downs, the slot-like historical horse racing terminals have reinvigorated racing in the state. Programmed to pay out based on the results of races previously run, Kentucky’s HHR machines generated more than $9.6 billion in handle during the 2024 fiscal year, accounting for $99 in bets for every $1 wagered live at the state’s thoroughbred and standardbred tracks.
They contributed $55.5 million to Kentucky’s Thoroughbred Development Fund during that 12-month period, fueling the growth of purses that have more than doubled since 2017. Consequently, Eric Hamelback, CEO of the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, refers to HHR’s proliferation as racing’s “golden ticket.”
A terrace at Churchill Downs. (Churchill Downs photo)
When HHR’s legality was challenged in 2018, Ellis Park General Manager Jeffery Inman said the loss of that revenue would “likely threaten the very survival of one of Kentucky’s iconic racing venues.” Though opposition was vocal, it was handily outvoted. Attorney Ryan Roark, in an article published in the Kentucky Law Journal, wrote that the legislature settled on a definition of pari-mutuel wagering “not shared by anyone outside Kentucky … to allow for the powerful horse industry to exclusively run their slot-like gaming systems.”
The result, says Churchill Downs CEO Bill Carstanjen, has been a “juggernaut.” According to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, gross HHR commissions for Churchill Downs’ two Derby City Gaming locations exceeded $224 million for the 2024 fiscal year, nearly 12 times the total commissions from on-track wagering at all of the state’s racetracks.
To the extent this disparity underscores the industry’s reliance on revenue sources that require no physical horses, it inevitably raises questions about racing’s sustainability and the best use of its real estate.
A yearling on the way to the sales ring at the 2024 Keeneland September sale. (Keeneland photo)
“Racing is on life support in Southern California, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania etc. and exists almost everywhere else only with the support of non-racing revenues from slots, casinos and state supplements,” Kenwood Racing founder H. Robb Levinsky wrote in a January letter to Thoroughbred Daily News. “Instead of embracing innovative ideas to make the sport more attractive to a new generation of racing fans and owners, the focus continues to be on protecting those non-racing revenues. An industry where 80-90% of purse money comes from slots instead of wagering on the core product is simply not viable in the long run.”
Signs of progress in New York, Maryland
In the short run, at least, the growth of Kentucky’s purses has led to a higher quality of horses competing in the state, more interest among bettors and a breeding boom running contrary to national trends. As Ed DeRosa documented for Horse Racing Nation, Kentucky passed both California and Florida in total handle in 2024 after trailing both states annually since 2007.
“We’re the only jurisdiction (among the top four states) that has grown since 2020,” said Chauncey Morris, executive director of the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association. “The rest have contracted.”
And as cash incentives for Kentucky-breds have increased, so has the state’s share of registered foals. When HHR was introduced at Kentucky Downs in 2011, Kentucky produced 29.2% of the national foal crop. In 2023, the most recent year for which statistics are available, it was 42.2%.
Damon Thayer (LRC Public Information)
“In states where racing has a good relationship with state legislators, racing is in good shape,” said consultant Damon Thayer, formerly the Kentucky Senate’s majority floor leader. “In states where they have not cultivated a long-term relationship with the legislature, horse racing is either in a declining state, a crisis state or a questionable state.”
In addition to Kentucky, there are pockets of progress. New York and Maryland have committed nearly a billion dollars to renovations at Belmont Park and Pimlico. Multiple industry executives cited developments in Wyoming, the nation’s last populous state, as a basis for bullishness. Yet their optimism is tempered by unsolved problems in larger locales, including the most populous state, California.
Without supplemental income from other forms of gambling, California’s racing and breeding businesses have been contracting for decades. Efforts to enhance purses through HHR remain at the discussion stage in view of Native American tribes’ virtual monopoly on the state’s casino gaming. Unless some accommodation can be reached, racing columnist Ray Paulick warns, “racing in California is history.”
“You can put 1,000 HHRs in at Santa Anita and it would change California racing overnight,” Thayer said. “They’d be wildly popular. You’d direct the money to purses and breeders reward programs and it would be a huge success. It seems like some sort of attempt should be made to cut a deal with the Indians and convince them that 1,000 HHRs at Santa Anita is not going to damage their land-based casinos. . .
“Like Cyndi Lauper used to say, money changes everything.”
Iconic image from “The Greatest Two Minutes in Sports.” (Churchill Downs)
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
SUPPORT
Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: info@kentuckylantern.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The content provided primarily focuses on the state of horse racing in Kentucky and the economic factors surrounding it, without overt political ideologies or agendas. It presents factual data regarding revenue, investments, and industry trends while addressing challenges faced by the sport in a straightforward manner. The analysis includes both positive developments (such as revenue growth) and negative trends (such as declines in racing overall), indicating a balanced approach. While there are mentions of legislation and the influence of the horse racing industry on politics, these elements are presented contextually rather than as a critique or endorsement of specific political positions. Thus, the piece maintains a centrist tone.
