7184 research outputs found
Sort by
The History of Health Law in the United States
No full textThe article reports that Health law is slow-moving accretive, but it also shapes the landscape of health care delivery in powerful ways. Since implementation of the law requires democratic deliberation, administrative oversight, and judicial enforcement, health law is often a lagging indicator of the norms of health care practice
US State Policies for Medicaid Coverage of Donor Human Milk
No full textDonor human milk is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for high-risk infants when mother’s own milk is absent or insufficient in quantity. Several factors may contribute to the inequitable use of or access to donor human milk, including a limited knowledge of its effects, cost, reimbursement, and regulatory barriers. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the United States Surgeon General have called for investigating barriers that prevent use of donor human milk for high-risk infants and for changes to public policy known to improve availability and affordability. We review the current legislative, regulatory, and economic landscape surrounding donor human milk use in the United States, as well as suggest state- and federal-level solutions to increase access to donor human milk
Political Equality, Epistocracy, and Expensive Tastes
No full textDemocracy and equality are different concepts. There are two fundamentally different ways of relating them. The first way defines democracy in terms of substantive political equality: the purest form of democracy is a regime in which each citizen (at any given level of aptitude and motivation) has equal influence over political decisions, regardless of the citizen’s wealth and other resources. The second way renders democracy as a device for assuring equality (or justice) by some measure external to the process by which political decisions are made. According to this second way, political equality -democracy’s defining trait on the first view- is at best of secondary importance. John Rawls is the most prominent exponent of the first way, and Ronald Dworkin and David Estlund of the second. This article explores the differences between the two ways, and concludes with the thought that the failure to appreciate how different they are contributes to our current democratic malaise
\u3c/i\u3eBook Review of\u3ci\u3e Shaping the Bar: The Future of Attorney Licensing
No full textIn Shaping the Bar: The Future of Attorney Licensing, Professor Joan Howarth issues a clarion call to the academy, the legal community, and the judiciary to reform how we license lawyers in the United States. In this book Howarth identifies the current crisis in law licensing, the history of racism that created this crisis, and the tools available to address it. Shaping the Bar challenges our entrenched notions of professional identity, and it forces us to confront vulnerabilities in attorney self-regulation. It does so in a manner that will stir even those not immersed in the current debate about law licensing. This review highlights Howarth’s explanation of how the attorney licensing system fails to protect the public by failing to assess the skills and abilities new lawyers need to competently represent clients while simultaneously unjustifiably excluding people of color and those without financial resources. The review summarizes her data-based arguments that explain how we have developed and perpetuated a system that fails the public and systematically disadvantages particular groups, and her eminently workable suggestions for how to change the system. It discusses how Howarth connects the law licensing process to legal education, highlighting the symbiotic relationship between the two, and noting that as legal educators, we must accept responsibility for our part in creating, and hopefully now dismantling, this system
Galaxy Next Generation, Inc., Order on Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff\u27s Motion to Compel and Order Granting the Galaxy Parties/ Motion for Entry of a Protective Order and Order Setting Hearing
Get PDFBook Review, \u3ci\u3eA Magna Carta for Children? Rethinking Children\u27s Rights\u3c/i\u3e by Michael Freeman
No full textMissing Missingness in Merger Analysis
No full textData and statistical modeling have played an increasingly important role in analysis across disparate areas of law. But courts’ ability to assess the validity and reliability of the analyses that rely on these data has not kept apace. This mismatch between the law’s reliance on data and an ability to appropriately evaluate analyses using these data is especially acute in antitrust challenges to horizontal mergers by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Whereas enforcement agencies and courts once applied relatively simple rules about the structure of a market, the analytical landscape has become more dependent on sophisticated economic theories and data analysis techniques. Increased reliance on such models presents opportunities for creating better economic outcomes on average. But the use of observational data also carries with it often unacknowledged hazards. This is a problem. Observational data often suffer from missingness, meaning these data may be randomly or systematically incomplete. Whereas random missingness creates imprecision, systematic missingness results in bias, which may lead a court or agency to improperly enjoin or allow a merger. This Article explores the conditions under which data vital to merger analysis may be missing, as well as its effects. As an illustration, this Article evaluates the court’s discussion of data in F.T.C. v. Sysco through the lens of missingness and conducts simulations to examine how more complete data would have altered the court’s analysis. Finally, this Article offers changes to current practice to both increase transparency of and public confidence in the courts’ use of these data in merger review
Reimagining Postmortem Conception
Get PDFHundreds, likely thousands, of babies have been born years after a parent has died. Thousands more people have cryopreserved their sperm, ova, and embryos, or have requested that a loved one’s gametes be retrieved after death to produce still more such children. Twenty-three states have enacted statutes detailing how these postmortem conception children can inherit from their predeceased parents.
And yet, few of these children will be able to inherit. The statutes create a bewildering array of standards, with over a dozen definitions of consent, variations in signature and witnessing requirements, and hurdles imposed in one state but not another. With our mobile population, the odds that a consent executed in one place will be accepted in another are small. With one exception—a New York amendment effective in February 2021—the states exclude most LGBT persons from being a postmortem parent. By failing to define when conception occurs, the statutes provoke a fight with those who use in vitro fertilization while both genetic parents are alive.
This Article is the first time that the laws of all 50 states are examined to provide a comprehensive look at whether a postmortem child inherits and determine how wildly disparate the legal standards are from public sentiment. The Article details the precise ways the law fails the problem and proposes four concrete solutions for states to adopt
Confronting Child Trafficking
No full textIn this essay, based on a lecture delivered at the Hall Center for Law and Health at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, the author reflects on anti-trafficking efforts over the past twenty years. He then outlines the framework of a public health approach to child trafficking, with a view to developing a comprehensive, integrated response that prevents the harm from occurring