This article explores the relationship between antisemitism and anti-Israel attitudes among university students. Critics maintain that hostility toward Israel is an indicator of the "new antisemitism." Activists and their advocates insist that anti-Israel attitudes and behaviors reflect a political conflict and have little to do with antisemitism. Existing empirical scholarship shows a strong link. Evidence is presented from a survey of a random sample (N = 468) of undergraduate students at the University of California, Irvine. The results show a modest but statistically significant correlation between antisemitic and anti-Israel attitudes. However, the evidence also shows that the two sets of attitudes are mostly separate. Multivariate analysis demonstrates that anti-Israel attitudes are the strongest predictors of antisemitism even in the presence of other hypothesized determinants. The article also explores the demographic factors contributing to simultaneously high levels of antisemitism and anti-Israel attitudes. Contrary to much commentary, but consonant with a significant stream of scholarship, campus effects are weak to nonexistent.

The theory of family welfare effort is a leading macro‐sociological explanation of variation in human fertility. It holds that states which provide universally available, inexpensive, high‐quality day care, generous parental leave, and flexible work schedules lower the opportunity cost of motherhood. They thus enable women, especially those in lower socioeconomic strata, to have the number of babies they want. A considerable body of research supports this theory. However, it is based almost exclusively on analyses of Western European and North American countries. This paper examines the Israeli case because Israel's total fertility rate is anomalously high given its family welfare effort. Based on a review of the relevant literature and a reanalysis of data from various published sources, it explains the country's unusually high total fertility rate as the product of (1) religious and nationalistic sentiment that is heightened by the Jewish population's perception of a demographic threat in the form of a burgeoning Palestinian population and (2) the state's resulting support for pro‐natal policies, including the world's most extensive in vitro fertilization (IVF) system. The paper also suggests that Israel's IVF policy may not be in harmony with the interests of many women insofar as even women with an extremely low likelihood of becoming pregnant are encouraged to undergo the often lengthy, emotionally and physically painful, and risky process of IVF.

Background: The term “financial toxicity” or “hardship” is a patient-reported outcome that results from the material costs of cancer care, the psychological impacts of these costs, and the coping strategies that patients use to deal with the strain that includes delaying or forgoing care. However, little is known about the impact of financial toxicity on cancer screening. We examined the effects of financial toxicity on the use of screening tests for prostate and colon cancer. We hypothesized that greater financial hardship would show an association with decreased prevalence of cancer screening. Methods: This cross-sectional survey–based US study included men and women aged ≥50 years from the National Health Interview Survey database from January through December 2018. A financial hardship score (FHS) between 0 and 10 was formulated by summarizing the responses from 10 financial toxicity dichotomic questions (yes or no), with a higher score associated with greater financial hardship. Primary outcomes were self-reported occurrence of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood testing and colonoscopy for prostate and colon cancer screening, respectively. Results: Overall, 13,439 individual responses were collected. A total of 9,277 (69.03%) people had undergone colonoscopies, and 3,455 (70.94%) men had a PSA test. White, married, working men were more likely to undergo PSA testing and colonoscopy. Individuals who had not had a PSA test or colonoscopy had higher mean FHSs than those who underwent these tests (0.70 and 0.79 vs 0.47 and 0.61, respectively; P≤.001 for both). Multivariable logistic regression models demonstrated that a higher FHS was associated with a decreased odds ratio for having a PSA test (0.916; 95% CI, 0.867–0.967; P=.002) and colonoscopy (0.969; 95% CI, 0.941–0.998; P=.039). Conclusions: Greater financial hardship is suggested to be associated with a decreased probability of having prostate and colon cancer screening. Healthcare professionals should be aware that financial toxicity can impact not only cancer treatment but also cancer screening.

21 Background: The term ‘financial toxicity’ or ‘hardship’ is used to describe the financial problems patients experience due to high out-of-pocket costs for their healthcare. Financial toxicity in the context of cancer treatment is an area of recent study due to the significant costs associated with these treatments, but little is known about the effect of financial toxicity on cancer prevention. We examined the effects of financial toxicity on the utilization of screening tests for prevalent cancers, including prostate and colon cancer, using a US nationally representative survey-based data source. We hypothesized that patients with more financial hardship would show an association with decreased prevalence of prostate and colon cancer screening. Methods: This cross-sectional survey-based US study included men and women aged 18+ from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) database from January – December 2018. A financial hardship score between 0 and 1 was formulated by summarizing the responses from ten financial toxicity questions including if in the past 12 months one was unable to afford prescription medication or healthcare; or if one had to skip or take less medicine to save money. A higher score was associated with a worse financial hardship score. The primary outcomes of the study were self-reported occurrence of PSA blood testing for prostate cancer screening, and occurrence of colonoscopy for colon cancer screening. Results: As shown in table, a higher financial hardship score was associated with a decreased odds ratio for having a PSA test of 0.916 (95% CI 0.867-0.967, p=0.002) and colonoscopy of 0.969 (95% CI 0.941-0.998, p=0.039). Conclusions: Worse financial hardship is associated with a decreased probability of having PSA or colonoscopy screening tests. Awareness of this specific toxicity needs to be raised, examining the association of financial toxicity and screening of prostate, colon, and other additional cancers. [Table: see text]