Montana May Start Collecting Immunization Data Again Amid US Measles Outbreak

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

When epidemiologist Sophia Newcomer tries to evaluate how well Montana might be able to ward off the measles outbreak spreading across the U.S., she doesn’t have much data to work with.

A federal state-by-state survey last year showed that just over 86% of Montana’s 2-year-olds had recently received the measles, mumps, and rubella immunization. That figure has decreased in recent years, according to earlier surveys, and Newcomer, an associate professor at the University of Montana, said the latest rate is “well below” the ideal 95% threshold for community protection against highly contagious diseases.

But beyond that statewide estimate, information about Montana’s local and regional immunization trends is hard to come by. State officials no longer collect aggregated vaccination reports from schools and child care centers, or the included data about medical and religious exemptions. The administration of Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte discontinued the practice after he signed a 2021 bill striking the requirement.

The last of the localized reports were from the 2018-19 school year, before the disruptions of covid-19. Without the information, Newcomer said, local and state officials have struggled to strategically prevent the spread of vaccine-preventable disease.

“State averages are helpful, but really drilling down to county level or smaller geographic levels are really what we need to assess risk of outbreaks,” she said.

Montana is the only state that no longer collects immunization reports from local schools, creating a data gap for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The information shortage also affects city and county health officials who may not have their own data-sharing agreements with school districts.

Supporters of the 2021 measure to stop collecting data said they were aiming to protect students’ personally identifiable information and medical records and did not intend to cancel the reporting system in its entirety.

“I wasn’t trying to bomb the system. I was just trying to make sure children had their privacy respected,” said Jennifer Carlson, a former Republican legislator and the sponsor of the bill the state health department cites as the reason for discontinuing the data collection.

State lawmakers are considering a bill to undo the 2021 policy, while keeping privacy protections for individual student records. After stalling earlier this session, the Democratic-sponsored HB 364 advanced in March with bipartisan support, clearing the House with a 66-31 vote.

The bill, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Melody Cunningham, has also received support from the state health department, an agency within the Gianforte administration.

Republican Rep. John Fitzpatrick said that he believes the bill is good policy for the state.

“It’s important that public health authorities have access to aggregate information so they can track where vaccinations are not being used,” he said.

Montana hasn’t confirmed a case of measles since 1990. But with more than 480 cases reported across Texas, New Mexico, and 17 other states, one child confirmed to have died from the disease, and another death under investigation, Newcomer said she and other disease experts are “on edge” about Montana’s defenses. Three cases have been confirmed in March south of Calgary, in the Canadian province of Alberta, which shares a border with Montana.

“I like to say that when vaccination rates drop in a community, it is not a question of if. It’s a question of when measles is going to come, because it is so incredibly contagious,” said David Higgins, a pediatrician and researcher at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.

Higgins used to work in Montana when the law requiring schools and state officials to share data was still in place. He said he’s disappointed in the 2021 rollback, given how outbreaks begin at the hyperlocal level.

“When community leaders don’t have a good understanding of the local level of vaccination and community immunity, that’s a significant challenge,” Higgins said. “They’re hamstrung without having that data readily available.”

Measles is one of the world’s most contagious diseases, according to the World Health Organization, much more so than covid. It can be very dangerous, especially for infants and children under 5 who have not completed the two-dose vaccination series. Infectious particles can hang in the air and on surfaces for up to two hours. People carrying the virus can spread it up to four days before they begin showing symptoms.

“If we do have a measles case arrive in Montana, and particularly if it arrives in a community that has low vaccination coverage, we’re going to see spread over like a multi-week or even multi-month period,” Newcomer said. “So an unvaccinated person can get sick simply by going into a school, store, or home where someone infected with measles recently was.”

The infection can have short-term and long-term consequences for people who are not immunized, including encephalitis, pneumonia, deafness, blindness, and death. State and community health departments have been advertising free MMR vaccinations at clinics throughout the state for anyone who needs them.

While HB 364 is aimed at increasing data collection, other vaccine measures in the state legislature are advancing that would make it easier for children to be exempted from standard immunizations required to attend schools or child care centers.

A recent version of SB 474, which has been amended several times, would create an “informed consent” exemption in which a parent or guardian could decline immunizations for school-age children without stating a reason.

Supporters of the bill said that some families struggle to receive exemptions on the grounds of religious beliefs or medical causes and want broader flexibility to opt out of requisite vaccinations against measles and other infectious diseases, such as pertussis. According to Montana’s most recent reporting, from the 2018-19 school year, roughly 3% of children in public schools had a religious or medical exemption.

SB 474 also would strike another part of state law that allows schools and day cares to deny admission to children because they are unvaccinated, an exemption included in a 2021 law aimed at protecting unvaccinated people from discrimination. The lawmaker sponsoring the current bill called the carve-out for schools and day cares an “aberration” in Montana law.

“There’s no reason that they should be discriminating based on vaccine status,” Republican Sen. Daniel Emrich said during a March debate on the Senate floor.

Emrich and others framed the bill as enabling individual decision-making around vaccinations based on how well a parent knows their own child.

“Vaccines are pretty effective,” Emrich said. “If you’re concerned about unvaccinated children, you have the option to get your kid a vaccine to protect them in whatever way you want. This bill is really about choice.”

During the debate, opponents of the bill contended that the lower Montana’s overall immunization rate drops, the more at risk many community members are, including those who, because of age or medical issues, can’t be vaccinated.

Sen. Cora Neumann, a Democrat representing Bozeman, said that vaccinated Montanans, including children, are acting as “shields” against contagious diseases like measles and pertussis. But if vaccination rates continue to drop, Neumann said, that protection will only get weaker.

“We just saw a kid die of measles [in Texas]. It’s going to continue, and it is going to be scary. It is going to be deadly,” Neumann said. “It feels like a luxury right now. We can choose. It is not going to be if we continue down this path.”

The bill passed the state Senate on a 28-21 vote. It is now under consideration in the House.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • The Hormone Therapy That Reduces Breast Cancer Risk & More
  • Should I limit how often my child eats nuts because they contain fat?
    Busting myths: Nuts are nutritional gems for kids, crucial for development and may even fend off allergies. Time to revise outdated fears and dietary guidelines.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • The Most Anti-Aging Exercise

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    We’ve referenced this (excellent) video before, but never actually put it under the spotlight in one of these features, so here we go!

    Deep squats

    It’s about deep squats, also called Slav squats, Asian squats, sitting squats, resting squats, or various other names. However, fear not; you don’t need to be Slavic or Asian to do it; you just need to practice.

    As for why this is called “anti-aging”, by the way, it’s because being able to get up off the ground is one of the main tests of age-related mobility decline, and if you can deep-squat comfortably, then you can do that easily. And so long as you continue being able to deep-squat comfortably, you’ll continue to be able to get up off the ground easily too, because you have the strength in the right muscles, as well as the suppleness, comfort with range of motion, and balance (those stabilizing muscles are used constantly in a deep squat, whereas Western lifestyle sitting leaves those muscles very neglected and thus atrophied).

    Epidemiological note: chairs, couches, and assorted modern conveniences reduce the need for squatting in daily life, leading to stiffness in joints, muscles, tendons, and ligaments. Many adults in developed countries struggle with deep squats due to lack of use, not aging. Which is a problem, because a lack of full range of motion in joints causes wear and tear, leading to chronic pain and degenerative joint diseases. People in countries where squatting is a common resting position have lower incidences of osteoarthritis, for example—contrary to what some might expect, squatting does not harm joints but rather protects them from arthritis and knee pain. Strengthening leg muscles through squatting can alleviate knee pain, whereas knee pain is often worsened by inactivity.

    Notwithstanding the thumbnail, which is showing an interim position, one’s feet should be flat on the ground, by the way, and one’s butt should be nearby, just a few inches off the ground (in other words, the position that we see her in for most of this video).

    Troubleshooting: if you’re accustomed to sitting in chairs a lot, then this may be uncomfortable at first. Zuzka advises us to go gently, and/but gradually increase our range of motion and (equally importantly) duration in the resting position.

    You can use a wall or doorway to partially support you, at first, if you struggle with mobility or balance. Just try to gradually use it less, until you’re comfortable deep-squatting with no support.

    Since this is not an intrinsically very exciting exercise, once you build up the duration for which you’re comfortable deep-squatting, it can be good to get in the habit of “sitting” this way (i.e. deep squatting, still butt-off-the-floor, but doing the job of sitting) while doing other things such as working (if you have an appropriate work set-up for that*), reading, or watching TV.

    *this is probably easiest with a laptop placed on an object/surface of appropriate height, such as a coffee table or such. As a bonus, having your hands in front of you while working will also bring your center of gravity forwards a bit, making the position easier and more comfortable to maintain. This writer (hi, it’s me) prefers her standing desk for work in general, with a nice ergonomic keyboard and all that, but if using a laptop from time to time, then squatting is a very good option.

    In terms of working up duration, if you can only manage seconds to start with, that’s fine. Just do a few more seconds each time, until it’s 30, 60, 120, and so on until it’s 5 minutes, 10, 15, and so on.

    You can even start that habit-forming while you’re still in the “seconds at a time” stage! You can deep-squat just for some seconds while you:

    • pick up something from the floor
    • check on something in the oven
    • get something out of the bottom of the fridge

    …etc!

    For more on all this, plus many visual demonstrations including interim exercises to get you there if it’s difficult for you at first, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Mobility For Now & For Later: Train For The Marathon That Is Your Life!

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • A person in the US has died from pneumonic plague. It’s not just a disease of history

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    A person in Arizona has died from the plague, local health officials reported on Friday.

    This marks the first such death in this region in 18 years. But it’s a stark reminder that this historic disease, though rare nowadays, is not just a disease of the past.

    So what actually is “plague”? And is it any cause for concern in Australia?

    Corona Borealis Studio/Shutterstock

    There are 3 types of ‘plague’

    The word “plague” is often used to refer to any major disease epidemic or pandemic, or even to other undesirable events, such as a mouse plague. Naturally, the word can evoke fear.

    But scientifically speaking, plague is a disease caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis.

    Plague has three main forms: bubonic, septicemic and pneumonic.

    Bubonic is the most common and is named after “buboes”, which are the painful, swollen lymph nodes the infection causes. Other symptoms include fever, headache, chills and weakness.

    Bubonic plague is typically spread by fleas living on animals such as rats, prairie dogs and marmots. If an infected flea moves from their animal host to bite a human, this can cause an infection.

    People can also become infected through handling an animal infected with the disease.

    Septicemic plague occurs if bubonic plague is left untreated, or it can occur directly if the disease enters the bloodstream. Septicemic plague causes bleeding into the organs. The name comes from septicemia, which refers to a serious blood infection.

    The recent death in the United States was due to a case of pneumonic plague, which is the most severe form. Bubonic plague can in some cases spread to the lungs, where it becomes pneumonic plague. However, pneumonic plague can also spread from person to person via tiny respiratory droplets, in a similar way to COVID. Symptoms are similar to the other forms but also include severe pneumonia.

    Some 30–60% of people who contract bubonic plague will die, while the fatality rate can be up to 100% for pneumonic plague if left untreated.

    A rat on the ground.
    Animals such as rats can carry the bacterium that causes plague. marcus_photo_uk/Shutterstock

    Plague: a potted history

    This disease is one of the most important in history. The Plague of Justinian (541–750CE) killed tens of millions of people in the western Mediterranean, heavily impacting the expansion of the Byzantine Empire.

    The medieval Black Death (1346–53) was also seismic, killing tens of millions of people and up to half of Europe’s population.

    Spread by the growing trade networks of the British empire, the third and most recent plague pandemic spanned the years 1855 until roughly 1960, peaking in the early 1900s. It was responsible for 12 million deaths, primarily in India, and even reached Australia.

    It’s believed the bubonic plague was largely behind these pandemics.

    Plague in the modern day

    First introduced into the US during the third pandemic, plague infects an average of seven people a year in the west of the country, due to being endemic in groundhog and prairie dog populations there. The last major outbreak was 100 years ago.

    Deaths are very rare, with 14 deaths in the past 25 years in the US.

    Globally, there have been a few thousand cases of plague over the past decade.

    The countries with the most cases currently include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar and Peru, with cases also occurring in India, central Asia and the US. Cases usually occur in rural and agricultural areas.

    Plague can be treated

    Plague can easily be treated with common antibiotics, typically a course of 10–14 days, which can include both oral and intravenous antibiotics. But it must be treated quickly.

    The recent death is concerning, as it involves the airborne pneumonic form of the disease, the only form that spreads easily from person to person. But there’s no evidence of further spread of the disease within the US at this stage.

    As Y. pestis is not found in Australian animals, there is little risk here. Plague has not been reported in Australia in more than a century.

    But plague, like many diseases, is influenced by environmental conditions. The risk of climate change causing an expansion in the habitat of animal hosts means public health experts around the world should continue to monitor it closely.

    The plague, though often perceived as a disease of history, is still with us and can pose a major health threat if not treated early.

    Thomas Jeffries, Senior Lecturer in Microbiology, Western Sydney University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr says vitamin A protects you from deadly measles. Here’s what the study he cites actually says

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who oversees the health of more than 340 million Americans, says vitamin A can prevent the worst effects of measles rather than urging more people to get vaccinated.

    In an opinion piece for Fox News, the US health secretary said he was “deeply concerned” about the current measles outbreak in Texas. However, he said the decision to vaccinate was a “personal one” and something for parents to discuss with their health-care provider.

    Kennedy mentioned updated advice from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to treat measles with vitamin A. He also cited a study he said shows vitamin A can reduce the risk of dying from measles.

    Here’s what the vitamin A study actually says and why public health officials are so concerned about Kennedy’s latest statement.

    RobsPhoto/Shutterstock

    Why is a measles outbreak so worrying?

    Measles is a highly contagious disease caused by a virus. It spreads easily including when an infected person breathes, coughs or sneezes.

    Measles initially infects the respiratory tract and then the virus spreads throughout the body. Symptoms include a high fever, cough, red eyes, runny nose and a rash all over the body.

    Measles can also be severe, can cause complications including blindness and swelling of the brain, and can be fatal. Measles can affect anyone but is most common in children.

    The Texan health department has confirmed 150-plus cases of measles and one death of an unvaccinated child during the current outbreak. While this is by far the largest measles outbreak in the US in 2025, the CDC has reported smaller outbreaks in several other states so far this year.

    Why vitamin A?

    Vitamin A is essential for our overall health. It has many roles in the body, from supporting our growth and reproduction, to making sure we have healthy vision, skin and immune function.

    Foods rich in vitamin A or related molecules include orange, yellow and red coloured fruits and vegetables, green leafy vegetables, as well as dairy, egg, fish and meat. You can take it as a supplement.

    Vitamin A can also be used therapeutically. In other words, doctors may prescribe vitamin A to treat a deficiency. Vitamin A deficiency has long been associated with more severe cases of infectious disease, including measles. Vitamin A boosts immune cells and strengthens the respiratory tract lining, which is the body’s first defence against infections.

    Because of this, the CDC has recently said vitamin A can also be prescribed as part of treatment for children with severe measles – such as those in hospital – under doctor supervision.

    One key message from the CDC’s advice is that people are already sick enough with measles to be in hospital. They’re not taking vitamin A to prevent catching measles in the first place.

    The other key message is vitamin A is taken under medical supervision, under specific circumstances, where patients can be closely monitored to prevent toxicity from high doses.

    Vitamin A toxicity can cause birth defects and increase the risk of fractures in elderly people. Vitamin A and beta-carotene (which the body turns into vitamin A) from supplements may also increase your risk of cancer, especially if you smoke.

    Pregnant woman having ultrasound
    Taking too much vitamin A can lead to toxicity and cause birth defects. ChameleonsEye/Shutterstock

    How about the study Kennedy cites?

    Kennedy cites and links to a 2010 study, a type known as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Researchers reviewed and analysed existing studies, which included ones that looked at the effectiveness of vitamin A in preventing measles deaths.

    They found three studies that looked at vitamin A treatment by specific dose. There were different doses depending on the age of the children, measured in IU (international units). Having two doses of vitamin A (200,000IU for children over one year of age or 100,000IU for infants below one year) reduced mortality by 62% compared to children who did not have vitamin A.

    The 2010 study did not show vitamin A reduced your risk of getting measles from another infected person. To my knowledge no study has shown this.

    To be fair, Kennedy did not say that vitamin A stops you from catching measles from another infected person. Instead, he used the following vague statement:

    Studies have found that vitamin A can dramatically reduce measles mortality.

    It’s easy to see how a reader could misinterpret this as “take vitamin A if you want to avoid dying from measles”.

    We know what works – vaccines

    The World Health Organization recommends all children receive two doses of measles vaccine.

    The CDC states two doses of the measles vaccine (measles-mumps-rubella or MMR vaccine) is 97% effective against getting measles. This means out of every 100 people who are vaccinated only three will get it, and this will be a milder form.

    But these facts were missing from Kennedy’s statement. Should we be surprised? Kennedy is well known for his vaccine sceptism and for undermining vaccination efforts, including for the measles vaccine.

    As Sue Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the Washington Post:

    relying on vitamin A instead of the vaccine is not only dangerous and ineffective […] it puts children at serious risk.

    Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • The Hormone Therapy That Reduces Breast Cancer Risk & More
  • Cabbage vs Collard Greens – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing cabbage to collard greens, we picked the collards.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, collard greens have more fiber, carbs, and protein, winning this round

    In the category of vitamins, cabbage has more of vitamins B1, B5, and B6, while collard greens have more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B7, B9, and C, making a compelling win for collards here.

    Looking at minerals, cabbage is not higher in any minerals, while collard greens have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. An uncontested win for collard greens!

    Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for collard greens, but by all means do enjoy either or both; diversity is good and cabbage is great too; it just doesn’t look it while standing next to collards!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    Brain Food? The Eyes Have It!

    Enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Walnuts vs Pecans – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing walnuts to pecans, we picked the walnuts.

    Why?

    It was very close, though, and an argument could be made for pecans! Walnuts are nevertheless always a very good bet, and so far in our This-or-That comparisons, the only nut to beat them so far as been almonds, and that was very close too.

    In terms of macros, walnuts have a lot more protein, while pecans have a little more fiber (for approximately the same carbs). Both are equally fatty (near enough; technically pecans have a little more) but where the walnuts stand out in the fat category is that while pecans have mostly healthy monounsaturated fats, walnuts have mostly healthy polyunsaturated fats, including including a good balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. So, while we do love the extra fiber from pecans, we’re calling it for walnuts in the macros category, on account of the extra protein and the best lipids profile (not that pecans’ lipids profile is bad by any stretch; just, walnuts have it better).

    In the vitamins category, walnuts have more of vitamins B2, B6, B9, and C, while pecans offer more of vitamins A, B1, B3, B5, E, K, and choline. The margins aren’t huge and walnuts are also excellent for all the vitamins that pecans narrowly beat them on, but still, the vitamins category is a win for pecans.

    When it comes to minerals, walnuts take back the crown; walnuts offer more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium, while pecans have a little more manganese and zinc. Once again, the margins aren’t huge and pecans are also excellent for all the minerals that walnuts narrowly beat them on, but still, the minerals category is a win for walnuts.

    In short: enjoy both of these nuts for their healthy fats, vitamins, minerals, protein, and fiber, but if you’re going to pick one, walnuts come out on top.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts!

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Boundary-Setting Beyond “No”

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    More Than A “No”

    A lot of people struggle with boundary-setting, and it’s not always the way you might think.

    The person who “can’t say no” to people probably comes to mind, but the problem is more far-reaching than that, and it’s rooted in not being clear over what a boundary actually is.

    For example: “Don’t bring him here again!”

    Pretty clear, right?

    And while it is indeed clear, it’s not a boundary; it’s a command. Which may or may not be obeyed, and at the end of the day, what right have we to command people in general?

    Same goes for less dramatic things like “Don’t talk to me about xyz”, which can still be important or trivial, depending on whether the topic of xyz is deeply traumatizing for you, or mildly annoying, or something else entirely.

    Why this becomes a problem

    It becomes a problem not because of any lack of clarity about your wishes, but rather, because it opens the floor for a debate. The listener may be given to wonder whether your right to not experience xyz is greater or lesser than their right to do/say/etc xyz.

    “My right to swing my fist ends where someone else’s nose begins”

    …does not help here, firstly because both sides will believe themself (or nobody) to be the injured party; for the fist-swinger, the other person’s nose made a vicious assault on their freedom. Or secondly, maybe there was some higher principle at stake; a reason why violence was justified. And then ten levels of philosophical debate. We see this a lot when it comes to freedom of expression, and vigorous debate over whether this entails freedom from social consequences of one’s words/actions.

    How a good boundary-setting works (if this, then that)

    Consider two signs:

    • No trespassing!
    • Trespassers will be shot!

    Superficially, the second just seems like a more violent rendition of the first. But in fact, the second is more informationally useful: it explains what will happen if the boundary is not respected, and allows the reader to make their own informed decision with regard to what to do with that information.

    We can employ this method (and can even do so gently, if we so wish and hopefully we mostly do wish to be gentle) when it comes to social and interpersonal boundary-setting:

    • If you bring him here again, I will refuse you entrance
    • If you bring up that topic again, I will ask you to leave
    • If you do that, I will never speak to you again
    • If you don’t stop drinking, I will divorce you

    This “if-this-then-that” model does the very first thing that any good boundary does: make itself clear.

    It doesn’t rely on moral arguments; it doesn’t invite debate. For example in that last case, it doesn’t argue that the partner doesn’t have the right to drink—it simply expresses what the speaker will exercise their own right to do, in that eventuality.

    (as an aside, the situation that occurs when one is enmeshed with someone who is dependent on a substance is a complex topic, and if you’re interested in that, check out: Codependency Isn’t What Most People Think)

    Back on track: boundary-setting is not about what’s right or good—it’s about nothing more nor less than a clear delineation between what we will and won’t accept, and how we’ll enforce that.

    We can also, in particularly personal boundary-setting (such as with sexual boundaries’ oft-claimed “gray areas”), fix an improperly-set boundary that forgot to do the above, e.g:

    “How about [proposition]?”
    “No thank you” ← casually worded answer; contextually reasonable, and yet not a clear boundary per what we discussed above
    “Come on, I think you’d like it”
    “I said no. No means no. Ask me again and I will [consequences that are appropriate and actionable]”

    What’s “appropriate and actionable” may vary a lot from one situation to another, but it’s important that it’s something you can do and are prepared to do and will do if the condition for doing it is met.

    Anything less than that is not a boundary—it’s just a request.

    Note: this does not require that we have power, by the way. If we have zero power in a situation, well, that definitely sucks, but even then we can still express what is actionable, e.g. “I will never trust you again”.

    “Price of entry”

    You may have wondered, upon reading “boundary-setting is not about what’s right or good—it’s about nothing more nor less than a clear delineation between what we will and won’t accept, and how we’ll enforce that”, can’t that be used to control and manipulate people, essentially coercing them to do or not do things with the threat of consequences (specifically: bad ones)?

    And the answer is: yes, yes it can.

    But that’s where the flipside comes into play—the other person gets to set their boundaries, too.

    For all of us, if we have any boundaries at all, there is a “price of entry” and all who want to be in our lives, or be close to us, have to decide for themselves whether that price of entry is worth it.

    • If a person says “do not talk about topic xyz to me or I will leave”, that is a price of entry for being close to them.
    • If you are passionate about talking about topic xyz to the point that you are unwilling to shelve it when in their presence, then that is the price of entry for being close to you.
    • If one or more of you is not willing to pay the price of entry, then guess what, you’re just not going to be close.

    In cases of forced proximity (e.g. workplaces or families) this is likely to get resolved by the workplace’s own rules (i.e. the price of entry that you agreed to when signing a contract to work there), and if something like that doesn’t exist (such as in families), well, that forced proximity is going to reach a breaking point, and somebody may discover it wasn’t enforceable after all.

    See also: Family Estrangement: More Common Than Most People Think

    …which also details how to fix it, where possible.

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: