SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman discusses the findings of a recent USA Today investigation that reveals that maternal mortality rates in the United States are rising, even as they fall globally. Grossman explains that some states, such as California, have put substantial resources into investigating the causes of maternal mortality and implementing changes to address it, while other states, such as Texas, are adhering to ideologically driven policies that endanger infant and maternal health.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on the recent change in policy announced by the Trump administration rolling back the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, allowing employers with religious or moral objections to exempt themselves. Grossman describes the history of access to contraception in the United States and the measures Trump has taken that have the purpose or effect of restricting access to contraception.
Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb considers a recently passed Texas law that will require people who want insurance coverage for non-emergency abortions to buy an additional, separate policy from their regular health insurance policy. Colb explains that proponents of the law argue that individuals should not have to fund practices with which they fundamentally disagree, but she points out that many taxpayers provide funding for government activities with which they fundamentally disagree and this situation is arguably no different from those.
Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, describes the numerous child-endangering bills that are being proposed in various states across the nation. Hamilton argues that we as a society need to create a culture that works for the best interest of all children.
Charles E. Binkley, MD, FACS, co-chair of the Ethics Committee at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Francisco, and attorney David Kemp conduct an ethical analysis of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the proposed replacement for the Affordable Care Act, using the principles of impartiality and justice. Within this framework, Binkley and Kemp identify three values around which health care coverage should be prioritized, and they conclude that the AHCA fails to meet the ethical standards for government-supported health care.
Cornell University professor Sherry F. Colb discusses California’s Proposition 60, a ballot initiative that recently failed in that state that would have required male actors in pornographic movies to wear condoms during performances. Colb considers both a First Amendment challenge to the ballot initiative, as well as a possible response to that challenge, and she argues the law would likely pass muster under the First Amendment.
Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on the idea of a sexual advance directive—a proposed legal device that could provide consent or designate an agent to provide consent in advance of an anticipated persistent period of legal incompetence. Colb explains how a sexual advance directive purports to work, describes some limitations of it, and proposes an alternative solution that addresses those limitations.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda warns against the California bill recently introduced in the state senate that would allow physician-assisted suicide. Rotunda cites other jurisdictions in which physician-assisted suicide is permissible in arguing against the bill’s passage.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda critiques the suggestion that President Obama simply disregard the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision if it rules that the Affordable Care Act does not allow the federal government to subsidize federal health exchanges.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses the statutory interpretation question at issue in the U.S. Supreme Court case King v. Burwell, which could resolve the fate of Obamacare.
Cornell University professor Michael Dorf discusses last week’s oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Dorf contends that there are three distinct arguments through which the government could successfully defend the law if the Court finds the language of the statute unclear.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a Michigan pediatrician’s decision not to see as a patient the infant child of a lesbian couple.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton calls upon state legislators to repeal the laws that permit parents to refuse to vaccinate their children to the children’s detriment as well as to the detriment of the public.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf explains why parents who choose not to vaccinate their children include people from both the libertarian right and the liberal left.
U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar continues his discussion on how federalism cuts against the challengers to the Obamacare statute in King v. Burwell. In this second of a two-part series, Amar addresses some counterarguments to his thesis that federalism principles bolster the federal government’s position in that case.
U.C. Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar explains how the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius—upholding Obamacare as a proper exercise of Congress’s tax powers and striking down a significant expansion of Medicaid—weakens the case of subsequent challengers to Obamacare in King v. Burwell.
George Washington University law professor and economist Neil Buchanan explains why recent events detracting from the Affordable Care Act might lead to serious consideration of a single-payer health care system. Buchanan includes in his discussion the Supreme Court’s recent decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, a careless statement by economist Jonathan Gruber, and the upcoming challenge of it before the Supreme Court, King v. Burwell.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses some of the issues that will likely arise when the U.S. Supreme Court considers the statutory challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in the upcoming case King v. Burwell.
Justia columnist and former counsel to the president John W. Dean comments on the present Ebola panic and politicians’ reactions to it. Dean critiques these reactions as not based on medical knowledge and instead serving only to deter people from assisting to contain the international epidemic.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton explains how extreme religious liberty undermines the ability of the government to quarantine individuals with Ebola or other highly infectious diseases.