I confess to being a fan of science fiction portraying dystopian futures. A common trope in such fiction has powerful corporations controlling or even constituting the government while shadowy schemers or rich elites control the corporations. As with all such fiction, this vision of the future reflects present fears. Numerous writings both in academic and mainstream publications address the perceived danger that powerful corporations pose to democracy…
Since the passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1974, public consciousness regarding the role of child protective services (CPS) has tilted in favor of strict and punitive measures. The societal impulse to develop interventions that are proportional to the outrageous nature of child abuse has my sympathies. Virtually no one would disagree with the idea that children should not be abused or neglected or that society should do as much as it possibly can to ensure children are safe. However, the mechanisms that were created to address child abuse and neglect have, in the end, done more harm than good. The vast majority of cases reported to CPS each year are unsubstantiated…
People in the United States are carrying tens of billions of dollars of medical debt, much of it in collections. We delay going to the emergency department while having a heart attack because it may cost too much. Doctors try to help insured patients find the best coupon to offset the high copayment for a necessary prescription drug. For inexpensive drugs, insurers make a profit by clawing back copayments that exceed what the drug costs. People who are already arbitrarily disadvantaged because of factors such as race, gender, actual and perceived health status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and weight stigma, are disproportionately burdened by all of this…
With the unprecedented leak of Justice Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court appears ready once again to abort Roe v. Wade. Underpinning Justice Alito’s draft opinion is a vision of the Constitution’s architecture of power: if it is not for the federal government to decide, it must be for the states—the Dual Sovereignty doctrine. A careful examination reveals the dilemma to be false, and reveals Dual Sovereignty to be little more than a partisan, ideological fabrication told and retold. An honest accounting of the history of the Tenth Amendment and its animating principle, Popular Sovereignty, reveals a path forward to securing for individual women the ability to decide whether to bear or beget a child: the Personal Question doctrine. The Personal Question doctrine is not particular to reproductive rights; rather it extends to decisions implicating individual sovereignty the Tenth Amendment reserves to the People…
Our purpose is to present a comparative analysis between Puerto Rico, Hawai'i, and Massachusetts to examine the effect of democratic governance and self-determination over healthcare structures. We offer a historic perspective of the effects of the colonial status of Puerto Rico. By examining the way governing colonial status in Puerto Rico impacts the healthcare system, we demonstrate how its subjugation infringes upon the wellbeing of its inhabitants. We analyze Puerto Rico’s colonial status as a fundamental cog in the intersections that have produced its economic and political failures when we discuss the impact of these shortcomings on the health and overall well-being of the population, based on the archipelago’s healthcare finances and infrastructure. We present how the lack of governance and self-determination in a colonial state can undermine efforts to protect public health and healthcare delivery. Although we compare the response of all three states to the current global pandemic, COVID-19, this analysis also examines the three states’ capacity to respond to public health crises in relation to their self-determination power …
This Note argues that the United States (U.S.) government has a responsibility under international human rights standards to address the domestic crisis of Black maternal mortality. If the U.S. aims to meet its international obligations and build a robust policy framework to address maternal mortality as a human rights issue, it must center Black mothers’ advocacy and expertise. Centering the expertise, storytelling, and experiences of impacted individuals through participation is a central tenet of human rights advocacy work, and in failing to center Black moms, the U.S. continues to ineffectively address Black maternal mortality. The current approach the U.S. uses to address Black maternal mortality fails to acknowledge the white supremacist ideologies upon which public perception of Black motherhood has been built, and, as a result, has perpetuated racist policies. This Note utilizes the Reproductive Justice movement’s human rights framework, which has been advocated for by Black activists and scholars, to evaluate some of the recent U.S. policy initiatives . . .
The act of terrorism has been used as a political tool designed to instill fear in others. Terrorism remains a very real threat that continues to perpetuate instability in regions across the world; however, fear mongering and abuse of power have often led to a boundless legal definition of terrorism. As a case study, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA or Kingdom) exemplifies the grim implications associated with an ill-defined terrorism statute. The alarming ease with which the KSA has persecuted activists, political opponents of the crown, and religious minorities, can serve only as a warning to countries that have similarly failed to ensure protections against an expanded definition of terrorism. Terrorism laws can be defined in a way that both protects citizens from the expanding power of the state, while also holding alleged terrorists accountable. Legal reforms, such as (1) narrowly defining terrorism, (2) increasing accountability, and (3) fostering an independent and transparent judicial system, are just a few simple steps countries can take to protect their citizenry from the unwarranted expansion of terrorism statutes. Despite the growing scope of terrorism statutes, countries continue to misuse the charge of terrorism and fail to ensure protections against the misapplication of terrorism laws …
For decades, several scholars have discussed what has been characterized as “trait discrimination” against Black people in the United States. Trait discrimination is bias against people who possess traits and characteristics that are culturally, commonly, or historically associated with a particular race. Clothing, speech patterns/accent, and certain beliefs are often cited as examples of these traits and characteristics. Trait discrimination in the context of employment occurs when an employer might be willing to hire or promote Black people who conform to white norms or “cultural whiteness,” but excludes applicants or employees who are “too Black” such as those who speak African American Vernacular English, wear clothing that has African fabric, or support the Black Lives Matter movement on their social media. Accordingly, legal scholars have long considered the ways in which employment discrimination law should respond to trait discrimination…