Connect with us

Science

Overlooked No More: Katharine McCormick, Force Behind the Birth Control Pill

Published

on

Overlooked No More: Katharine McCormick, Force Behind the Birth Control Pill

This article is part of Overlooked, a series of obituaries about remarkable people whose deaths, beginning in 1851, went unreported in The Times.

Katharine Dexter McCormick, who was born to a life of wealth, which she compounded through marriage, could have sat back and simply enjoyed the many advantages that flowed her way. Instead, she put her considerable fortune — matched by her considerable willfulness — into making life better for women.

An activist, philanthropist and benefactor, McCormick used her wealth strategically, most notably to underwrite the basic research that led to the development of the birth control pill in the late 1950s.

Before then, contraception in the United States was extremely limited, with bans on diaphragms and condoms. The advent of the pill made it easier for women to plan when and whether to have children, and it fueled the explosive sexual revolution of the 1960s. Today, the pill, despite some side effects, is the most widely used form of reversible contraception in the United States.

McCormick’s interest in birth control began in the 1910s, when she learned of Margaret Sanger, the feminist leader who had been jailed for opening the nation’s first birth control clinic. She shared Sanger’s fervent belief that women should be able to chart their own biological destinies.

Advertisement

The two met in 1917 and soon hatched an elaborate scheme to smuggle diaphragms into the United States.

Diaphragms had been banned under the Comstock Act of 1873, which made it a federal crime to send or deliver through the mail “obscene, lewd or lascivious” material — including pornography, contraceptives and items used for abortions. (The law, which still prohibits mailing items related to abortions, has received renewed attention since the federal right to abortion was overturned in 2022.)

McCormick, who was fluent in French and German, traveled to Europe, where diaphragms were in common use. She had studied biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and was able to pose as a scientist in meetings with diaphragm manufacturers. “She purchased hundreds of the devices and hired local seamstresses to sew them into dresses, evening gowns and coats,” according to a 2011 article in M.I.T. Technology Review. “Then she had the garments wrapped and packed neatly into trunks for shipment.”

She and her steamer trunks made it through customs. If the authorities had stopped her, the article said, they would have found “nothing but slightly puffy dresses in the possession of a bossy socialite, a woman oozing such self-importance and tipping her porters so grandly that no one suspected a thing.”

From 1922 to 1925, McCormick smuggled more than 1,000 diaphragms into Sanger’s clinics.

Advertisement

After her husband died in 1947, she inherited a considerable amount of money, and she asked Sanger for advice on how to put it to use advancing research into contraception. In 1953, Sanger introduced her to Gregory Goodwin Pincus and Min-Chueh Chang, researchers at the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology in Massachusetts, who were trying to develop a safe, reliable oral contraceptive.

She was excited by their work and provided almost all the funding — $2 million (about $23 million today) — required to develop the pill. She even moved to Worcester to monitor and encourage their research. Pincus’s wife, Elizabeth, described McCormick as a warrior: “Little old woman she was not. She was a grenadier.”

The Food and Drug Administration approved the pill for birth control in 1960.

Katharine Moore Dexter was born into an affluent, socially activist family on Aug. 27, 1875, in Dexter, Mich., west of Detroit. The town was named for her grandfather, Samuel W. Dexter, who founded it in 1824 and maintained an Underground Railroad stop in his home, where Katharine was born; her great-grandfather, Samuel Dexter, was Treasury secretary under President John Adams.

Katharine and her older brother, Samuel T. Dexter, grew up in Chicago. Their mother, Josephine (Moore) Dexter, was a Boston Brahmin who supported women’s rights. Their father, Wirt Dexter, was a high-powered lawyer who served as president of the Chicago Bar Association and as a director of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad. He also headed the relief committee after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 and was a major real estate developer.

Advertisement

He died when Katharine was 14. A few years later, her brother died of meningitis while attending Harvard Law School. Those early deaths pointed her toward a career in medicine.

She attended M.I.T. and majored in biology, rare achievements for a woman of that era. She arrived with a mind of her own, and successfully challenged a rule that female students had to wear hats at all times, arguing that they posed a fire hazard in the science labs. She graduated in 1904 and planned to attend medical school.

But by then, she had started dating the dashing Stanley Robert McCormick, whom she had known in Chicago and who was an heir to an immense fortune built on a mechanical harvesting machine that his father had invented. As a young lawyer, he helped negotiate a merger that made his family a major owner of International Harvester; by 1909, it was the fourth largest industrial company in America, measured in assets.

McCormick persuaded Katharine to marry him instead of going to medical school. They wed at her mother’s château in Switzerland and settled in Brookline, Mass.

But even before they married, he had showed signs of mental instability, and he began experiencing violent, paranoid delusions. He was hospitalized with what was later determined to be schizophrenia, and remained under psychiatric care — mostly at Riven Rock, the McCormick family estate in Montecito, Calif. — until his death. She never divorced him and never remarried. They had no children.

Advertisement

Katharine McCormick spent decades mired in personal, medical and legal disputes with her husband’s siblings. They battled over his treatment, his guardianship and eventually his estate, as detailed in a 2007 article in Prologue Magazine, a publication of the National Archives. She was his sole beneficiary, inheriting about $40 million ($563 million in today’s dollars). Combined with the $10 million (more than $222 million today) she had inherited from her mother, that made her one of the wealthiest women in America.

As her husband’s illness consumed her personal life, McCormick threw herself into social causes. She contributed financially to the suffrage movement, gave speeches and rose in leadership to become treasurer and vice president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. After women won the right to vote in 1920, the association evolved into the League of Women Voters; McCormick became its vice president.

In 1927, she established the Neuroendocrine Research Foundation at Harvard Medical School, believing that a malfunctioning adrenal gland was responsible for her husband’s schizophrenia. She provided funding for two decades and acquired an expertise in endocrinology that later informed her interest in the development of an oral contraceptive.

After the F.D.A. approved the pill, McCormick turned her attention to funding the first on-campus residence for women at M.I.T. When she studied there, women had no housing, one of several factors that discouraged them from applying. “I believe if we can get them properly housed,” she said, “that the best scientific education in our country will be open to them permanently.”

McCormick Hall, named for her husband, opened on the institute’s Cambridge campus in 1963. At the time, women made up about 3 percent of the school’s undergraduates; today, they make up about 50 percent.

Advertisement

By the time she died of a stroke on Dec. 28, 1967, at her home in Boston, McCormick had played a major role in expanding opportunities for women in the 20th century. She was 92.

Apart from a short article in The Boston Globe, her death drew little notice. The later obituaries of the birth-control researchers she had supported did not mention her role in their achievement.

In her will, she left $5 million to the Planned Parenthood Federation (more than $46 million today) and $1 million to Pincus’s laboratories (more than $9 million today). Earlier, she had donated her inherited property in Switzerland to the U.S. government for use by its diplomatic mission in Geneva. She left most of the rest of her estate to M.I.T.

Science

How Rising Home Insurance Costs Are Linked to Credit Scores

Published

on

How Rising Home Insurance Costs Are Linked to Credit Scores

Two friends bought nearly identical homes last year, in the same northern Minnesota neighborhood, for the same price.

Advertisement

But Tara Novak pays more than twice as much for home insurance as Petra Rodriguez. The only difference? Ms. Novak has a lower credit score.

Advertisement

Across the country, people with weaker credit histories are paying far more for home insurance than owners with spotless records.

Advertisement

Where the home insurance rate gap between “fair” and “excellent” credit is higher

Home insurance premiums have risen rapidly in recent years, fueled by climate change, building costs and inflation. The price shock has rippled into the real estate market, dragging down home prices in areas vulnerable to disasters and leading insurers to abandon homeowners in risky places.

Advertisement

But these dynamics obscure another problem: The home insurance market has cleaved in two along a boundary defined more by a customer’s personal history than by the risk of a disaster hitting their home.

Americans with weaker credit histories, usually from missed payments or high amounts of debt, now pay significantly more for insurance, regardless of where they live, two new studies have found. While those with poor credit histories often can’t purchase homes at all, people with “fair” scores, which range from around 580 to 669, are paying twice as much in some places as people with “excellent” scores of about 800 or higher. And the gap is growing.

Insurers use a metric based on credit history known as an insurance score to set rates, and the figure tracks closely with a customer’s credit score.

Advertisement

States with the biggest pricing gaps

Advertisement

The penalty for having a “fair” credit history versus an “excellent” one

Note: Figures show rates from state filings for the same policy. Actual individual premiums will vary. Credit tiers are based on insurance-scoring models similar to FICO scores. Source: Quadrant Information Services

Advertisement

That can mean owners of identical homes, like Ms. Novak and Ms. Rodriguez, pay wildly different rates to insure them. For most people, it’s now just as expensive to have a credit score of “fair” as it is to live in an area likely to experience a disaster like a hurricane or wildfire. About 29 percent of consumers have credit scores that are categorized as “fair” or “poor.”

“There’s so many reasons people have bad credit,” Ms. Novak said. “It’s not like I’ve ever not paid a bill on time. I’m a stickler on my bills, I’m a stickler on my rent, never been late. This is not fair.”

Advertisement

“The choice to use credit scores in pricing means that those lower-credit home owners in risky areas are effectively subsidizing more affluent high-credit homeowners who also live in risky areas,” said Nick Graetz, assistant professor of sociology at the University for Minnesota, who wrote one of the recent papers. “So in a lot of ways, you can keep your insurance price down if you’re high income, high credit — even if you live on the coast of Florida.”

A handful of states have banned insurers from using credit data because of concerns about fairness and the potential for discrimination against low-income people and people of color, but the majority allow it.

For those with both weaker credit and high disaster risk, the combination can set them up for a downward spiral: disasters tend to be followed by decreases in credit scores as people use credit cards and bank loans to recover. That can lead to higher insurance rates, pushing monthly housing costs further out of reach.

Advertisement

Industrial fans drying out the home of Tara Novak after a water pipe burst and flooded the interior. Tim Gruber for The New York Times

Advertisement

“When a disaster hits, there’s a loss of income that occurs, and then that can impact someone’s credit score because they can’t pay their debt, they can’t pay their rent, they can’t pay their mortgage,” said Lance Triggs, executive vice president at Operation HOPE, a financial literacy nonprofit. “And now they’re faced with higher insurance premiums post-disaster.”

A working paper released today by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that homeowners with the lowest credit scores paid, on average, $550 more in 2024 for home insurance than those with the highest scores.

The findings broadly track with data from Quadrant Information Services analyzed by The New York Times, which found that, on average, lower credit scores meant higher premiums across every state that allowed the practice. Dr. Graetz used the same data set for his research, which he did in collaboration with the Consumer Federation of America and the Climate and Community Institute.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Audrey Thayer Tim Gruber for The New York Times

Advertisement

Thayer’s home in Bemidji, Minn. Tim Gruber for The New York Times

Advertisement

When a windstorm last year hit the home of Audrey Thayer, a city council member in Bemidji, Minn., it ripped the siding off her house and stripped shingles from her roof.

Ms. Thayer’s insurance did not cover all the damage. As she fought her insurer for more money, she opened new credit cards and bank loans to repair her home. Her credit score dropped as she tried to find a new insurance plan.

Ms. Thayer, a member of the White Earth Nation, said she was not aware that her credit score could affect her home insurance rates, even though she teaches about credit ratings at a nearby tribal college. “Most of the folks here do not have good credit,” said Ms. Thayer, whose community is one of the poorest in the state. “I did not know what a credit score was until I was 35 or so.”

Advertisement

In Texas, the advocacy group Texas Appleseed found that some insurers charge people with poor credit up to 12 times as much as people with excellent credit for certain policies, said Ann Baddour, the director of the nonprofit’s Fair Financial Services Project.

Higher costs have serious implications for low-income homeowners who live in the path of hurricanes, said Nadia Erosa, the operations manager at Come Dream Come Build, a nonprofit community housing development organization. After the Brownsville, Texas, region saw intense flooding last spring, some residents turned to companies offering high-interest loans to fund repairs, she said, raising the risk of the disaster-credit spiral.

Advertisement

“Delinquencies are going up because people cannot afford their payment,” she said.

A billboard advertising home insurance in Galveston, Texas, in 2017. Alyssa Schukar for The New York Times

Advertisement

The price of risk

Before they can get a mortgage, homebuyers are usually required by lenders to purchase home insurance.

Advertisement

“Households with insurance have fewer financial burdens, fewer unmet needs, they recover faster, they’re more likely to rebuild,” said Carolyn Kousky, an economist and founder of Insurance for Good, a nonprofit that focuses on finding new approaches to risk management. “Yet the people who need insurance the most are the least able to afford it.”

Insurance companies consider a variety of factors when setting the premium for a property. They might examine the age of the roof, or the area’s vulnerability to hurricanes or wildfires. They factor in how much it would cost to rebuild the house if it were damaged.

Insurers have argued that credit history is also worth considering because people with low scores tend to file more claims than those with excellent scores, an assertion that is backed up by the working paper published in the National Bureau of Economic Research today. This likely happens because people with weaker credit histories tend to have less income, and when their home is damaged, they file insurance claims for smaller fixes that a wealthier homeowner might pay for out of pocket.

Advertisement

Paul Tetrault, senior director at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, a trade organization, said credit scores are a valid way to price premiums.

But others argue that using credit information to price insurance doesn’t make sense.

Advertisement

Because a homeowner pays for insurance upfront, “it’s not like you’re really extending a loan to the customer where you would be worried about the risk of repayment,” Ms. Kousky said. She points out that insurance companies can opt not to renew a homeowner’s policy if they believe it is too risky — a tactic they have been using with increasing frequency.

The NBER analysis found that homeowners who want to pay less for insurance should pay off debt to raise their credit score rather than replace roofs and make other improvements to avoid damage when disaster strikes.

Others believe that even if credit scores are accurate predictors of future claims, they shouldn’t be used to set premiums because that can perpetuate or worsen disparities. For example, people in their mid-20s who are Black, low-income, or grow up in impoverished regions have significantly lower credit scores than their peers, a July working paper from Opportunity Insights, a not-for-profit organization at Harvard University, found.

Advertisement

“When the government and the financial system mandate that we buy a product, there’s a special obligation to make sure the pricing is fair,” said Doug Heller, director of insurance at the Consumer Federation. “To me that is an absolutely solid reason, just like we don’t allow pricing based on race or income or ethnicity or religion.”

A natural experiment

Advertisement

A handful of states, including California and Massachusetts, have banned or limited the use of credit scores in setting home insurance premiums, despite opposition from the insurance industry.

In Nevada, where a temporary pandemic-related rule prevented insurers from using credit history to increase premiums for existing customers from 2020 to 2024, companies refunded approximately $27 million to nearly 200,000 policyholders, said Drew Pearson, a spokesman for the Nevada Division of Insurance.

Perhaps the clearest example of the effects of these bans comes from Washington State, which banned the use of credit information in setting home insurance premiums starting in June 2021. The rule immediately faced legal challenges, and was in effect for just a few months until it was overturned in court.

Advertisement

But the episode allowed researchers to evaluate the effect of credit factors on insurance premiums. When the rule took effect, people with the lowest credit scores saw a decrease in premiums of about $175 annually while those with the highest scores saw an increase of about $100, the NBER analysis found.

“We could see the dynamics of insurance pricing for the same households over time,” said Benjamin Keys, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, who co-authored the paper.

Advertisement

In Minnesota, where Tara Novak, Petra Rodriguez and Audrey Thayer live, a state task force looked at ways to lower insurance costs for residents. It recently considered a ban or limit on the use of credit scores to set rates, but did not move forward with a recommendation.

Advertisement

Ms. Rodriguez said she doesn’t think it’s fair that her friend Ms. Novak should have to pay so much more for insurance to live in an identical house.

A credit score doesn’t capture anything about a person’s habits, or what they’re like as a tenant, or even years of on-time rent payments, she said. “It’s not who you are,” she said.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Methodology

Home insurance policy rates were supplied by Quadrant Information Services, an insurance data solutions company. The rates shown are representative of publicly sourced filings and should not be interpreted as bindable quotes. Actual individual premiums may vary.

‘States with the biggest pricing gaps’Rates shown are based on a home insurance policy with $400,000 of dwelling coverage and a $100,000 liability limit on a new home, for a homeowner age 50 or younger. Rates are averaged for all the individual company filings represented in the sample, which add up to a majority of the market share in each state but do not cover all active insurers in the state. Rates are also averaged to the state level from zip code level data.

Advertisement

‘The credit penalty in each state’Each insurance company incorporates credit history information differently, often using proprietary methods, so the scores do not map directly to FICO credit scores.

‘What homeowners paid before and after a ban on credit-based pricing in Washington State’Data shown are based on observations of real home insurance policies and homeowner credit scores from ICE McDash analyzed by the researchers of Blonz, Hossain, Keys, Mulder and Weill (2026). The price comparisons across credit score tiers controlled for variance in disaster risk, insurance policy characteristics, geography, and other year to year fluctuations.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Earth is warming faster than previously estimated, new study shows

Published

on

Earth is warming faster than previously estimated, new study shows

Planetary warming has significantly accelerated over the past 10 years, with temperatures rising at a higher rate since 2015 than in any previous decade on record, a new study showed.

The Earth warmed around 0.35 degrees Celsius in the decade to 2025, compared to just under 0.2C per decade on average between 1970 and 2015, according to a paper published on Friday in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters. This is the first statistically significant evidence of an acceleration of global warming, the authors said.

The past three years have been the hottest on record, compared to the average before the Industrial Revolution. In 2024, warming went past 1.5C, the lower limit set by the Paris Agreement. That target refers to temperature increases over 20 years, but breaching it for one year shows efforts to slow down climate change have been insufficient, the scientists who wrote the new paper said.

The findings shed light on an ongoing debate among researchers. While there is consensus that greenhouse gas emissions have caused the planet to heat up since pre-industrial times, that warming had been steady for decades. But record-breaking temperatures in recent years have led scientists to question whether the pace of temperature gains is accelerating.

Advertisement

Demonstrating that was difficult due to natural fluctuations in temperatures. The researchers filtered out the “noise” to make the “underlying long-term warming signal” more clearly visible, said Grant Foster, a co-author of the study and a U.S.-based statistics expert.

Researchers isolated phenomena including the El Niño weather phase, volcanic eruptions and solar irradiance. When looking at temperature increases without their influence, the authors concluded the evidence is “strong” that the accelerated warming was not due to an unusually hot 2023 and 2024, but that since 2015 global temperatures departed from their previous, slower path of warming.

The new report adds to a growing body of work that indicates climate change is having a quicker and larger impact on the planet than scientists have understood. A separate paper published this week found that many studies on sea-level increases underestimate how much water along the coast has already risen.

“If the warming rate of the past 10 years continues, it would lead to a long-term exceedance of the 1.5C limit of the Paris Agreement before 2030,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, the lead author of the warming study and a researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “How quickly the Earth continues to warm ultimately depends on how rapidly we reduce global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to zero.”

Millan writes for Bloomberg.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

The neuro disease rat lungworm has reached California

Published

on

The neuro disease rat lungworm has reached California

A disease that can cause neurological illness and meningitis in people, rat lungworm, has been found in wild opposums, rats and a zoo animal in San Diego County, indicating its establishment in California for the first time.

Researchers reported their findings in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors, who include veterinarians, researchers and wildlife biologists, urged physicians and other healthcare workers in the region to consider lungworm infection when patients come in with nervous system disorders.

The discovery highlights “a notable expansion of the range of this parasite in North America,” they said.

The CDC website says the risk to the general public of getting this infection is low, but it can be deadly.

Advertisement

If ingested, the worms can cause severe headaches, stiff neck, the sensation of tingling or painful skin, low-grade fever, nausea, vomiting, coma and sometimes death. People who eat freshwater crab, prawns, frogs, snails and slugs are at greatest risk. However, people can also get the disease by eating un-rinsed produce that’s been slimed by a snail or slug, or eating a slug or snail that was chopped up in produce. The worms need moisture, however; if the produce is dry, the worms will die.

Domestic animals, including dogs and cats, are also at risk.

Officials with the California Department of Public Health were not ready to call the disease endemic, or established, in the state.

“Additional surveillance and testing will be necessary to determine whether the detections of rat lungworm in the animals evaluated in San Diego County represent an isolated introduction of the parasite or ongoing local transmission,” spokeswoman Elizabeth Manzo wrote in a statement to The Times.

The department said it is not aware of rat lungworm outside San Diego County, and has seen no human cases.

Advertisement

“However, the San Diego study affirms that the parasite can be introduced to California through movement of infected animals from endemic areas,” the statement said. “Because some species of snails and slugs present in California are capable of serving as hosts for rat lungworm, and the presence of the parasite in other parts of the state is unknown, it is advised to take certain food safety precautions. Persons should not consume any raw or undercooked wild snails or slugs, and should thoroughly wash all produce before consuming.”

The worms that cause the disease, Angiostrongylus cantonensis, are native to Southeast Asia. They’ve been found in the U.S. since the 1960s — including in isolated human and zoo animal cases in California — and are established in Hawaii as well as in much of the southeastern U.S.

It is believed they came overseas via rats on boats.

The worms favored environment is the moist, warm bed of a rat’s lung. When a rat is infected, the worms cause respiratory distress, priming the rodent to cough. Worm-filled sputum is then ejected into the rat’s mouth, and swallowed. The rat then poops the worms out, and animals such as slugs and snails eat the poop. When a rat eats an infected invertebrate, the cycle begins again.

Occasionally, another animal, such as a raccoon or dog, or a person, will accidentally eat an infected animal, or the slime of one, and contract the disease.

Advertisement

The discovery of the worm in San Diego County rodents and opossums was made by staff at the San Diego Zoo and a local wildlife rehabilitation center, Project Wildlife, which is run by the San Diego Humane Society.

In December 2024, a 7-year-old male parma wallaby, born and raised at the zoo, began showing concerning neurological behaviors: incessant head shaking, blindness, a lack of muscle coordination and paralysis in his hind legs. He was euthanized after 11 days in the zoo infirmary.

When zoo staff examined the body, they found six rat lungworms in the marsupial’s brain, along with a lot of damage.

Because the diagnosis was so unusual, zoo staff examined the bodies of 64 free-ranging roof rats that had either been euthanized in the course of regular pest control or found dead on the property. Two, a little more than 3%, had lungworms. Their feces had them too: “numerous live … larvae with coiled posterior ends.” The larvae, roughly 300 in each poop sample, were each about the size of a grain of sand.

Officials at the San Diego Zoo did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

Curiously, at the same time the zoo investigation was underway, staff from Project Wildlife had been dealing with sick opossums brought to them from around the county. Tests of 10 dead animals showed seven carried the lungworms.

Many people and animals remain asymptomatic when they’re infected. Symptoms typically appear within hours or days after ingestion and can last up to eight weeks. The worms will eventually die.

Because the disease has so many varied symptoms, health officials say it can go undiagnosed and untreated. Health officials from Hawaii, where the disease is endemic, say if lungworms are suspected, it’s best to be treated as soon as possible — even before lab results come back.

The CDC too notes that treatment works best when the disease is caught early, and can consist of high doses of corticosteroids, lumbar punctures for symptomatic relief of headaches, and antiparasitic medications, such as albendazole.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending